Item 1. BUSINESS
OUR COMPANY
We are a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases. Our goal is to develop molecules that drive significant advances in the control over or cure of immune-driven disease. To do this, we draw on our strong analytic heritage to interrogate immune biology to identify and validate high-priority targets. We then use our protein design expertise to refine the structure of our biological product candidates to optimize their potency and pharmacokinetics, while minimizing potential toxicities.
There are approximately 45 rare autoimmune disorders driven by autoantibodies, and we estimate there are one to two million patients in the United States with these rare disorders. We are developing therapeutics for autoimmune diseases with a focus on these diseases. Our initial focus in immune biology has been to explore the interaction between antibodies, which are components of the humoral immune system, and the receptors which bind to the fragment crystallizable, or Fc, region of antibodies and modulate the immune cascade. Our objective is to reduce immune driven tissue damage resulting from autoimmune disease. Specifically, we have been working with the Fc gamma receptor system which controls immune activation, and the neonatal Fc receptor, or FcRn, system which recycles immunoglobulin G, or IgG, to preserve its half-life. By gaining a deeper understanding of IVIg and immune complex driven diseases, we have designed two novel recombinant therapeutic candidates, M281 and M230. We utilized our proprietary sialylation technology, a method to add sialic acid to protein, to create M254, a high potency alternative to IVIg that we believe improves upon the limitations of that therapeutic approach. All three of these programs are currently in clinical development, all of which have shown high potency against their respective targets in preclinical studies, and all with unique, differentiated and carefully designed biologic structures. The targets our programs modulate have the potential to impact core areas of humoral immune activation, and therefore we believe our programs have the potential to treat a variety of immune-mediated disorders.
Our research platform continues to develop additional programs to build our pipeline. We have two areas of focused research activities. The first area of focus is to continue to explore immune biology, expanding our efforts beyond the Fc gamma and FcRn systems. This effort has yielded several promising leads which we hope to add to our development pipeline in the next several years.
The second area of focus seeks to exploit the properties of our uniquely designed product candidates to create molecules that more effectively modulate established targets. This effort seeks to reduce program risk by pursuing well known biology with well-engineered biologics. We have two areas of focus, based on two of our technologies used for programs in the clinic:
|
|
|
|
1.
|
Sialylation Platform - We have optimized our tools for the terminal sialylation of glycans attached to biologic molecules during our development of M254, our investigational tetra-sialylated IgG program now in the clinic. This technology can be used for the sialylation of other biologics. Most notably, this technology can be used to create effective sialylation on recombinant versions of blood proteins. Preclinical studies have shown that this approach can increase their observed half-life and we believe our technology could enable recombinant versions of these proteins, if successfully developed and approved, to become viable long-acting versions of the original plasma products.
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
SIFbody Platform - We are seeking to take advantage of the enhanced Fc gamma receptor binding we have seen in our M230 trimer program to create more potent versions of antibodies which activate the immune system through their Fc signaling and binding. We have observed significant enhancements in potency in laboratory models using CD38 SIFbody molecules compared to existing marketed CD38 antibodies, and have nominated a candidate, M267, for development. There are over 40 products marketed or in development whose efficacy is mediated by their Fc activities and which we believe may be enhanced with this technology.
|
We believe both of these platforms have the potential to yield multiple programs for our own, or potential collaboration partner’s, pipelines in the coming years.
Our Legacy Business
Prior to 2018, Momenta had the dual focus of developing novel drug candidates and nurturing a portfolio of biosimilar and complex generic products and product candidates. In the beginning of 2018, we engaged in a strategic review of our business and made the decision that shareholder value could be enhanced by shifting our future investments to fully support our promising novel drug portfolio. Following this strategic review, we made the decision in September 2018 to restructure the company.
While we have terminated all future development of any new or early stage biosimilar and complex generic products, we have retained our commercial partnership with Sandoz AG, or Sandoz, for our generic versions of COPAXONE and LOVENOX, which are approved products. We believe that Sandoz's sales of GLATOPA, our generic version of COPAXONE, can generate cash flow to help fund our novel pipeline. In addition, we are developing an EYLEA biosimilar, in collaboration with Mylan Ireland Limited, or Mylan, a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Mylan N.V., which is currently in a pivotal clinical trial in patients. If the results from this study are supportive, we believe this program has the potential to launch in the 2023 time frame and help fund our novel portfolio. We have ceased active development activities for, and do not anticipate any future investments in, our wholly owned HUMIRA biosimilar, due to changes in market opportunity relating to its launch.
Today, we have two product development areas: Novel Therapeutic Candidates and Legacy Products, which include biosimilars and complex generics. A summary of our programs in each area is set forth below.
Novel Therapeutics
Our Approach
We believe that dramatic progress in the treatment of autoimmune disease can be achieved through a combination of focused research which provides a deep understanding of the pathways of the immune system and a careful design of biologic therapeutics that optimally interact with and influence these pathways. Our approach to immune biology has yielded insights into the interactions of antibodies and the Fc receptors that modulate the immune system, leading to three programs we have in the clinic. Our deep experience in protein design has yielded what we believe are best in class drug candidates. We are currently working to expand our research, and our portfolio of product candidates, into additional areas of immune biology.
Autoimmune Diseases
Many autoimmune diseases are characterized by the formation of autoantibodies that bind self-antigens to form immune complexes. These immune complexes can recruit and activate immune cells leading to tissue inflammation and damage. Few therapeutic agents exist today that interfere directly with these autoantibodies or immune complex-immune cell activation processes, or that effectively modulate the immune cascades that result. The most commonly used treatments for autoantibody-driven disease are systemic immunosuppressants, which do not specifically target disease pathogenesis and which carry significant safety risks such as opportunistic infection and cancer. In addition to these treatments, intravenous immunoglobulin, or IVIg, a therapeutic drug product that contains pooled IgG antibodies purified from blood plasma is often used to treat certain inflammatory diseases. We believe that, despite currently available agents that do offer some relief for patients, there is an unmet medical need in patients with immune-mediated diseases.
We believe our novel product candidates could be capable of treating a large number of immune-mediated disorders driven by autoantibodies, immune complexes, and Fc receptor biology.
Our Programs
M281 (Nipocalimab) - Anti-FcRn Candidate
M281 is a fully-human anti-neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), aglycosylated immunoglobulin G, or IgG1, monoclonal antibody, designed to reduce circulating IgG antibodies by completely blocking endogenous IgG recycling via FcRn. M281 has exhibited high affinity to human and non-human FcRn in nonclinical studies and shown selective induction of human and non-human IgG clearance. Based on this data, we believe M281 has the potential for use as an acute or chronic/intermittent therapy in a broad range of autoantibody driven disease.
A Phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of M281 in 114 normal healthy volunteers was initiated in June 2016. The full results of the Phase 1 study were published on November 7, 2018. A total of 50 patients were enrolled in both the single ascending dose and multiple ascending dose portions of the study, both of which showed predictable pharmacokinetics, and commensurate, controllable and reproducible reductions in circulating IgG. The data showed M281 could achieve a full receptor occupancy with a single dose and a greater than 80% reduction in circulating IgG antibodies with a mean reduction of 84%. M281 was well tolerated at all dose levels and no serious adverse events or unexpected safety findings were observed in either portion of the study.
In the fourth quarter of 2018, we commenced Vivacity-MG, our Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for the treatment of patients with generalized myasthenia gravis, or gMG, who have insufficient clinical response to the standard-of-care treatment. The primary endpoints for this study are to evaluate safety and tolerability and to evaluate efficacy as measured by the change from baseline to day 57 in the total Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living score. We estimate that there are approximately 65,000 patients in the United States with gMG.
Also in the fourth quarter of 2018, we commenced Unity, our Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for the treatment of women at high risk for early onset hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, or HDFN. The primary endpoints of this study are to evaluate safety and tolerability and to evaluate efficacy as measured by the proportion of patients with live births at or after gestational age 32 weeks without interuterine transfusion. We estimate that there are between 4,000 to 8,000 patients in the United States with HDFN.
In the third quarter of 2019, we commenced Energy Study, our Phase 2/3 clinical trial in warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia, or wAIHA. The primary endpoint for this trial is based on the change from baseline in hemoglobin levels, with secondary endpoints including markers of hemolysis and a fatigue scale. We estimate that there are approximately 45,000 patients with wAIHA in the United States with a risk of premature death of up to 8%.
In July 2019, the FDA granted Fast Track designation for our HDFN and wAIHA indications, which is a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill unmet medical need.
M254 - Hyper-sialylated IgG Candidate
M254 is a hyper-sialylated immunoglobulin designed as a high potency alternative to IVIg, a therapeutic drug product that contains pooled, human immunoglobulin G, or IgG, antibodies purified from blood plasma. IVIg is used to treat several inflammatory diseases, including idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. In nonclinical studies, M254 has been shown to have up to ten times more enhanced anti-inflammatory activity than IVIg in a variety of animal models of autoimmune disease. If approved, we believe M254 has the potential to remediate the limitations of IVIg associated with its dosing and adverse event profile because sialylation of the Fc region of IgG has been seen to augment the anti-inflammatory attributes of IVIg. We estimate that in 2018, sales of IVIg were greater than $6.0 billion for autoimmune diseases.
We initiated a multi-part Phase 1/2 proof of concept clinical study in normal, healthy volunteers and patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, or ITP in early 2019. The primary objectives of this study are to understand the safety and tolerability of M254 in healthy volunteers and ITP patients, to determine if M254 administration results in an increase in platelet levels in ITP patients, and the relative ratio of any platelet increase within patients to IVIg. We estimate that chronic ITP affects approximately 30,000 to 40,000 patients in the United States.
M230 (CSL730) - Recombinant Fc Multimer Candidate
M230 is a novel recombinant trivalent human IgG1 Fc multimer containing three IgG Fc regions joined to maximize activity. Nonclinical data have shown that M230 enhanced the molecules' avidity for the Fc receptors matching the potency and efficacy of IVIg at significantly lower doses.
Pursuant to the License and Option Agreement, effective February 17, 2017, with CSL Behring Recombinant Facility AG, or CSL, a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of CSL Limited, we granted CSL an exclusive worldwide license to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize M230. In August 2017, we exercised our 50% co-funding option, which is discussed further in Note 10 "License Agreements and Collaborative Arrangements ." The terms of our CSL collaboration are further discussed below under "Collaborations and Licenses—CSL."
CSL's Phase I clinical program in healthy volunteers to evaluate the safety and tolerability of M230 is continuing and CSL anticipates introducing a subcutaneous formulation into the program in 2020.
Legacy Products
Our Approach
In October 2018, we announced and later completed a restructuring of our business in order to focus the majority of our resources on our promising new drug pipeline. Prior to that restructuring, we were heavily involved in developing a portfolio of biosimilar and complex generic products. In connection with the restructuring, we have terminated all development of early stage biosimilar and complex generic programs, and have only retained our late stage or commercial products in these business areas. The programs remaining in our portfolio are a biosimilar program for EYLEA (the only remaining program in our Mylan collaboration), which is currently in Phase 3, and our complex generics, GLATOPA, a generic to COPAXONE, and Enoxaparin Sodium Injection, a generic to LOVENOX. Both GLATOPA and Enoxaparin Sodium Injection are marketed by our collaboration partner, Sandoz. The retained late stage programs, with the exception of Enoxaparin Sodium Injection, which is not currently marketed and for which we expect minimal revenues, provide the potential for revenue to help fund our growing novel drug pipeline and, with the majority of development activities behind us, do not require a large staff to support. We have ceased active development activities for, and do not anticipate any future investments in, our wholly owned HUMIRA biosimilar, due to changes in market opportunity relating to its launch.
Our Programs
M710—Biosimilar EYLEA® (aflibercept) Candidate
M710 is being developed as a biosimilar of EYLEA. EYLEA is the market leading vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of Neovascular (Wet) Age-related Macular Degeneration (AMD), Macular Edema following Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO), Diabetic Macular Edema (DME), and Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) in patients with DME.
M710 is being developed in collaboration with Mylan. Under our collaboration agreement, we and Mylan share equally costs and profits (losses) for M710. We and Mylan will share development and manufacturing responsibilities, and Mylan will lead commercialization of M710, if approved. The terms of our Mylan collaboration are further discussed below under "Collaborations and Licenses—Mylan."
In August 2018, Mylan initiated dosing of patients in the United States in our pivotal clinical trial. In December 2018 and February 2019, Mylan initiated dosing of patients in the European Union and Japan, respectively. This trial is a randomized, double-blind, active-control, multi-center study in patients with diabetic macular edema to compare the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of M710 to EYLEA. Subject to development, marketing approval, patent considerations and litigation timelines, we expect U.S. market formation for biosimilar versions of EYLEA to be in the 2023 time frame.
EYLEA is marketed by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United States and by Bayer HealthCare in the EU and rest of the world. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reported approximately $7.5 billion in worldwide sales of EYLEA in 2019, including $4.6 billion in the United States.
GLATOPA® (glatiramer acetate injection) 20 mg/mL—Generic Once-daily COPAXONE® (glatiramer acetate injection) 20 mg/mL
GLATOPA 20 mg/mL is a generic version of once-daily COPAXONE 20 mg/mL indicated for the treatment of patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis, a chronic disease of the central nervous system characterized by inflammation and neurodegeneration. COPAXONE is available in both a once-daily 20 mg/mL formulation, which was approved by the FDA in 1996, and a three-times-weekly 40 mg/mL formulation, which was approved in 2014. COPAXONE is marketed in the United States by Teva Neuroscience, Inc., a subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
GLATOPA 20 mg/mL was approved by the FDA in April 2015 and was launched in June 2015. GLATOPA 20 mg/mL, the first "AP" rated, substitutable generic equivalent of once-daily COPAXONE, and was developed and is being commercialized in collaboration with Sandoz, the generic pharmaceuticals division of Novartis Pharma AG, or Novartis. Under our collaboration agreement, Sandoz is responsible for commercialization of GLATOPA 20 mg/mL, and we earn 50% of contractually defined profits on GLATOPA 20 mg/mL sales. The terms of our Sandoz collaboration for GLATOPA 20 mg/mL are further discussed below under "Collaborations and Licenses."
GLATOPA® (glatiramer acetate injection) 40 mg/mL—Generic Three-times-weekly COPAXONE® (glatiramer acetate injection) 40 mg/mL
GLATOPA 40 mg/mL is a generic version of three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL. GLATOPA 40 mg/mL was developed in collaboration with Sandoz. Under our collaboration agreement, Sandoz is responsible for commercialization of GLATOPA 40 mg/mL and we will earn 50% of contractually defined profits on GLATOPA 40 mg/mL sales. The terms of our Sandoz collaboration for GLATOPA 40 mg/mL are further discussed below under "Collaborations and Licenses—Sandoz."
We announced in February 2018 that GLATOPA 40 mg/mL was approved by the FDA and launched by our collaborator, Sandoz. Legal proceedings related to GLATOPA 40 mg/mL are described below under Note 16, "Commitments and Contingencies" in our consolidated financial statements included in this report.
GLATOPA refers to GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and our generic product for three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL, GLATOPA 40 mg/mL, collectively.
Since Sandoz’s launch of GLATOPA 40mg/mL in February 2018, we believe Sandoz has encountered aggressive pricing and contracting tactics from competitors, which has limited uptake of the product and as, a result, we expect modest revenues for this product in the future. As of the end of 2019, Teva’s three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL and Mylan N.V.’s three-times-weekly generic equivalent product accounted for approximately 84% of the overall U.S. glatiramer acetate injection market (20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL) based on volume prescribed. We estimate that the number of prescriptions for GLATOPA 20 mg/mL currently represents approximately 35% of the once-daily 20 mg/mL U.S. glatiramer acetate market.
Teva reported $1.0 billion and $1.7 billion in U.S. sales of COPAXONE (combined 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL) in 2019 and 2018, respectively.
Enoxaparin Sodium Injection—Generic LOVENOX®
Enoxaparin Sodium Injection is a generic version of LOVENOX indicated for the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis and to support the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. LOVENOX is marketed in the United States by Sanofi. Our Enoxaparin Sodium Injection was developed and is being commercialized in the United States in collaboration with Sandoz. Under our amended 2003 collaboration agreement with Sandoz, or the 2003 Sandoz Agreement, Sandoz is responsible
for commercialization of Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and we earn 50% of contractually defined profits on Enoxaparin Sodium Injection sales.
In July 2018, Sandoz notified its customers and the FDA that it will discontinue supplying Enoxaparin Sodium Injection. Sandoz continues to evaluate alternate acceptable contract manufacturers at a price point that will allow for profitable and competitive sales and may decide to relaunch Enoxaparin Sodium Injection at a later date following regulatory approval. We expect future revenues from Sandoz' sales of Enoxaparin Sodium Injection, if any, to be minimal.
Legal Proceedings related to Enoxaparin Sodium Injection are described under Note 16, "Commitments and Contingencies” in our consolidated financial statements included in this report.
M923—Biosimilar HUMIRA® (adalimumab) Candidate
We have developed M923 as a biosimilar of HUMIRA. HUMIRA is a monoclonal antibody that can bind to a substance in the body known as tumor necrosis factor, or TNF, thereby inhibiting the known effect of TNF as a potent mediator of inflammation. HUMIRA is indicated for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis and psoriasis, among other diseases. HUMIRA is the largest selling therapeutic in the world. HUMIRA is marketed globally by AbbVie Inc, or AbbVie.
On November 6, 2018, we executed global licensing agreements with AbbVie with respect to M923, pursuant to which, subject to approval by health regulatory authorities, we may launch M923 in the United States in mid to late 2023. We have ceased active development activities for, and do not anticipate any future investments in, M923, due to changes in market opportunity relating to its launch.
Legal proceedings related to M923 are described under Note 16, "Commitments and Contingencies" in our consolidated financial statements included in this report.
Collaborations and Licenses
CSL
We and CSL entered into a License and Option Agreement, or the CSL License Agreement, effective February 17, 2017, pursuant to which we granted CSL an exclusive worldwide license to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize the M230 pre-clinical product candidate, an Fc multimer protein that is a selective immunomodulator of the Fc receptor. The CSL License Agreement also provides, on an exclusive basis, for us and CSL to conduct research on other Fc multimer proteins, and provides CSL the right to develop, manufacture, and commercialize these additional research products globally.
Pursuant to the CSL License Agreement, CSL paid us a non-refundable upfront payment of $50.0 million. On August 28, 2017, we exercised our 50% co-funding option. This exercise allows us to participate in a cost-and-profit sharing arrangement, under which we fund 50% of global research and development costs and 50% of U.S. commercialization costs for all products developed, in exchange for a 50% share of U.S. profits and sales-based royalty payments in percentages ranging from a mid-single digit to low-double digits payable for territories outside of the United States for M230 and a named research stage product should that enter development and be commercialized. For the development and commercialization of M230 we are also entitled to up to $297.5 million in contingent clinical, regulatory and sales milestone payments, and additional negotiated milestone payments for a named research stage product should one enter development. The contract allows us to opt-out of the program in the future at our discretion. If we were to do so, our U.S. profit share would be reduced to sales-based royalties ranging from mid-single to low double digits and the milestone payments for which we are eligible would be increased by up to $252.5 million, depending on the timing of our opt-out decision.
Under the CSL License Agreement, we have granted CSL an exclusive license under our intellectual property to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize product candidates for all therapeutic indications. CSL has granted us a non-exclusive, royalty-free license under CSL’s intellectual property for our research and development activities pursuant to the CSL License Agreement and our commercialization activities under any co-promotion agreement with CSL.
We and CSL formed a joint steering committee consisting of an equal number of members from Momenta and CSL, to facilitate the research, development, and commercialization of product candidates.
The term of the CSL License Agreement commenced on February 17, 2017 and continues until the later of (i) the expiration of all payment obligations with respect to products under the CSL License Agreement, (ii) the date on which we are no longer co-funding development or commercialization of any products and (iii) the date on which we and CSL are not otherwise collaborating on the development and commercialization of products or product candidates. CSL may terminate the CSL License Agreement on a product-by-product basis subject to notice periods and certain circumstances related to clinical
development. We may terminate the CSL License Agreement under certain circumstances related to the development of M230 and if no activities are being conducted under the CSL License Agreement. Either party may terminate the CSL License Agreement (i) on a product-by-product basis if certain patent challenges are made, (ii) on a product-by-product basis for material breaches, or (iii) due to the other party’s bankruptcy. Upon termination of the CSL License Agreement, subject to certain exceptions, the licenses granted under the CSL License Agreement terminate. In addition, dependent upon the circumstances under which the CSL License Agreement is terminated, we or CSL have the right to continue the research, development, and commercialization of terminated products, including rights to certain data, for the continued development and sale of terminated products and, subject to certain limitations, obligations to make sales-based royalty payments to the other party.
CSL's obligations under the CSL License Agreement are guaranteed by its parent company, CSL Limited.
Mylan
We and Mylan, entered into a collaboration agreement, or the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, effective February 9, 2016, pursuant to which we and Mylan agreed to collaborate exclusively, on a worldwide basis, to develop, manufacture and commercialize six of our biosimilar candidates, including M834 and M710.
In November 2018, we delivered a formal notice of the partial termination of the Mylan Collaboration Agreement with respect to five of our collaboration programs. As a result, we will only continue to advance our late-stage biosimilar candidate M710, our proposed biosimilar to EYLEA under the Mylan Collaboration Agreement.
Under the terms of the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, Mylan paid us a non-refundable upfront payment of $45 million. In addition, we and Mylan agreed to share equally costs (including development, manufacturing, commercialization and certain legal expenses) and profits (losses) with respect to such product candidates, with Mylan funding its share of collaboration expenses incurred by us.
For our remaining product candidate, M710, we and Mylan both have the right to terminate the program at our own convenience. As with the five discontinued collaboration programs, if one party decides not to continue development, manufacture and commercialization of M710 under the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, the other party will have the right to continue the development, manufacture and commercialization of such product candidate, and the terminating party will need to continue to fund it share of expenses for a pre-specified period, depending on the stage of the product at the time of termination.
Under the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, we granted Mylan an exclusive license under our intellectual property rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize the product candidates for all therapeutic indications, and Mylan has granted us a co-exclusive license under Mylan's intellectual property rights for us to perform our development and manufacturing activities under the product work plans agreed by the parties, and to perform certain commercialization activities to be agreed by the Joint Steering Committee, or JSC, for such product candidates if we exercise our co-commercialization option described below. We and Mylan have established a joint steering committee, or JSC, consisting of an equal number of members from us and Mylan, to oversee and manage the development, manufacture and commercialization of product candidates under the collaboration. Unless otherwise determined by the JSC, it is anticipated that, in collaboration with the other party, (a) we will be primarily responsible for nonclinical development activities and initial clinical development activities for the product candidates; and regulatory activities for the product candidates in the United States through regulatory approval; and (b) Mylan will be primarily responsible for additional (pivotal or phase 3 equivalent) clinical development activities for the product candidates; regulatory activities for the product candidates outside the United States; and regulatory activities for products in the United States after regulatory approval, when all marketing authorizations for the products in the United States will be transferred to Mylan. As provided in the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, Mylan will commercialize any approved products, with us having an option to co-commercialize, in a supporting commercial role, any approved products in the United States. The JSC will allocate responsibilities for other activities under the collaboration.
The term of the collaboration will continue throughout the development and commercialization of M710, on a country-by-country basis, until development and commercialization by or on behalf of us and Mylan pursuant to the Mylan Collaboration Agreement has ceased for a continuous period of two years in a given country, unless earlier terminated by either party pursuant to the terms of the Mylan Collaboration Agreement.
The Mylan Collaboration Agreement may be terminated by either party for breach by, or bankruptcy of, the other party; for its convenience; or for certain activities involving competing products or the challenge of certain patents. Other than in the case of a termination for convenience, the terminating party shall have the right to continue the development, manufacture and commercialization of the terminated products in the terminated countries.
Sandoz
In 2006 and 2007, we entered into a series of agreements, including a collaboration and license agreement, as amended, or the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement, with Sandoz and a stock purchase agreement and an investor rights agreement with Novartis. Under the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement, we and Sandoz agreed to exclusively collaborate on the development and commercialization of GLATOPA, among other potential products. Costs, including development costs and the costs of clinical studies, are borne by the parties in varying proportions depending on the type of expense. For GLATOPA, we were generally responsible for all of the development costs in the United States. For GLATOPA outside of the United States, we shared development costs in proportion to our profit sharing interest, unless otherwise agreed. We are reimbursed at a contractual FTE rate for any full-time equivalent employee expenses as well as any external costs incurred in the development of products to the extent development costs are born by Sandoz. All commercialization costs are to be borne by Sandoz as they are incurred for all products.
Under the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement, as amended in November, 2017, Sandoz has granted us an exclusive license under its intellectual property rights, and we have granted an exclusive license under our know-how and data to the GLATOPA products and a non-exclusive license under our intellectual patent rights to develop and commercialize such products for all medical indications in the relevant regions. We have agreed to provide development and related services on a commercially reasonable best-efforts basis, which includes developing a manufacturing process to make the products, scaling up the process, contributing to the preparation of regulatory filings, further scaling up the manufacturing process to commercial scale, and related development of intellectual property. We have the right to participate in a joint steering committee, which is responsible for overseeing development, legal and commercial activities and which prepares and approves the annual collaboration plans. Sandoz is responsible for commercialization activities and exclusively distributes and markets the products.
The term of the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement extends throughout the development and commercialization of the products until the last sale of the products, unless earlier terminated by either party pursuant to the provisions of the agreement. The 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement may be terminated if either party breaches the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement or files for bankruptcy.
Sandoz commenced United States sales of GLATOPA 20 mg/mL in June 2015 and of GLATOPA 40 mg/mL in February 2018. Under the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement, we earn 50% of contractually defined profits on Sandoz' worldwide net sales of GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and of GLATOPA 40 mg/mL. Profits on net sales of GLATOPA are calculated by deducting from net sales the costs of goods sold and an allowance for selling, general and administrative costs, which is a contractual percentage of net sales. With respect to GLATOPA, Sandoz is responsible for funding all of the legal expenses incurred under the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement, except for our FTE costs with respect to certain legal activities for GLATOPA; however, a portion of certain legal expenses, including any patent infringement damages, can be offset by Sandoz against the profit-sharing amounts in proportion to our 50% profit sharing interest. In 2015, we earned a $10.0 million regulatory milestone payment upon GLATOPA 20 mg/mL receiving sole FDA approval and an additional $10.0 million milestone payment upon the first commercial sale of GLATOPA 20 mg/mL. In July 2017, we earned a $10.0 million commercial milestone payment in connection with GLATOPA 20 mg/mL's being the sole FDA-approved generic of COPAXONE when earned and achieving a certain level of contractually defined profits in the United States, for which Sandoz was entitled to reduce our contractually defined profits by a corresponding amount. Following FDA approval of Mylan N.V.'s generic equivalents of COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL, which Mylan N.V. announced in October 2017, we are no longer eligible to earn $80.0 million in future post-launch commercial milestones; however, we may still be eligible to receive up to $30.0 million in sales-based milestones for GLATOPA in the United States, although we believe that it is unlikely the performance based milestones will be achieved. None of these payments, once received, is refundable and there are no general rights of return in the arrangement. Sandoz has agreed to indemnify us for various claims, and a certain portion of such costs may be offset against certain future payments received by us.
Patents and Property Rights
Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our technology and product candidates, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing United States and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology and product candidates that are important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.
We license or own a patent portfolio of around 150 patent families, each of which includes United States patent applications and/or issued patents as well as foreign counterparts to certain of the United States patents and patent applications. Our patent portfolio includes issued or pending claims covering:
|
|
|
|
•
|
composition of matter, methods of use, and methods of making novel therapeutics for autoimmune disease, including our novel product candidates such as M230, M281 and M254;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
composition of matter, methods of use, and methods of making certain novel low molecular weight heparins;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
methods and technologies for characterizing complex generics and biosimilars, including our biosimilar HUMIRA candidate;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
composition of matter and use of certain heparinases, heparinase variants and other enzymes; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
methods and technologies for the analysis and synthesis of polysaccharides.
|
The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. We do not know whether any of our patent applications will result in the issuance of any patents. Moreover, any issued patent does not guarantee us the right to practice the patented technology or to commercialize the patented product. Third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our patented products and practicing our patented technology. Our issued patents and those that may be issued in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related products or the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our products. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies. For these reasons, we may have competition for our generic, biosimilar and novel products. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any of our products can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent.
We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our technology and product candidates, in part, by confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, consultants, advisors, contractors and collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.
Manufacturing
We do not own or operate facilities for commercial scale manufacturing of our products. While we have personnel with experience and expertise in manufacturing, as well as process development, analytical development, quality assurance and quality control, we rely on contract manufacturers and our collaboration partners for manufacturing and supply activities. Under the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement, Sandoz is responsible for commercial manufacture of GLATOPA. Under the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, Mylan is responsible for contracting with contract manufacturers for commercial supply for M710. Under the CSL License Agreement, CSL is responsible for manufacturing activities, except that we are responsible, at CSL's direction, for contracting with contract manufacturers for certain clinical supply of M230. We rely on third parties for the manufacture, process development, analytical development, quality assurance and quality control of all our solely-owned novel product candidates. We also rely upon our collaborators and other third parties, including sole source suppliers, to provide raw materials and ensure that they meet FDA quality standards and related regulatory requirements for our products and product candidates.
We have entered into various agreements with third party contractors for process development, analytical services and manufacturing. In each of our agreements with contractors, we retain ownership of our intellectual property and generally own and/or are assigned ownership of processes, developments, data, results and other intellectual property generated during the course of the performance of each agreement that primarily relate to our products. Where applicable, we are granted non-exclusive licenses to certain contractor intellectual property for purposes of exploiting the products that are the subject of the agreement and in a few instances we grant non-exclusive licenses to the contract manufacturers for use outside of our product area. The agreements also typically contain provisions for both parties to terminate for material breach, bankruptcy and insolvency.
Sales, Marketing and Distribution
We do not currently have any sales, marketing and distribution capabilities other than strategic sales and marketing expertise. In order for us to commercialize any products we would have to either develop a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure or collaborate or contract with third parties that have sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. If our wholly-owned products are approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities, we intend to pursue commercialization of the products in the US and potentially other territories. For our product candidates that are subject to collaborations, our collaboration partner has responsibility for commercial activities. Under the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement, Sandoz is responsible for commercializing GLATOPA. Under the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, we have an option to participate in the commercialization of products, in a supporting commercial role, with Mylan in the United States. Under the CSL License Agreement, CSL is responsible for commercialization of products and we have an option to co-promote products in the United States.
Regulatory and Legal Matters
Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, the European Union and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and exporting and importing of products such as those we are developing.
United States Government Regulation
In the United States, the information that must be submitted to the FDA in order to obtain market approval of a new drug or biologic varies depending on whether the drug or biologic is a new product whose safety and effectiveness has not previously been demonstrated in humans, or a drug or biologic whose active ingredient(s) and certain other properties are the same as those of a previously approved drug or biologic, i.e., biosimilar. Approval of new drugs and biologics follows the new drug application, or NDA, and biologics license application, or BLA routes, respectively. A drug that claims to be the same as an already approved NDA drug may be able to file for approval under the abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, approval pathway. Pursuant to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, or BPCI Act, a marketing application may also be submitted for a biosimilar to a biologic previously approved under a BLA seeking approval of the biosimilar under the abbreviated pathway established by Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act.
NDA and BLA Approval Processes for New Drugs and Biologics
In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs and biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and, in the case of biologics, also under the Public Health Service Act, and implementing regulations. The steps required before a new drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States include:
|
|
|
|
•
|
completion of nonclinical laboratory tests, nonclinical studies and formulation studies under the FDA's good laboratory practices regulations;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
completion of developmental chemistry, manufacturing and controls activities and manufacture under current Good Manufacturing Practices, or cGMP regulations;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug application, or IND, for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin and must include independent Institutional Review Board, or IRB, approval at each clinical site before the trial is initiated;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
performance of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish for an NDA the safety and efficacy of the investigational drug product for each indication or for a BLA the safety, purity and potency of the biological product for its intended indication;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP regulations and to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug's identity, strength, quality and purity or to meet standards designed to ensure the biologic's continued safety, purity and potency;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
satisfactory completion of FDA inspections of nonclinical and or clinical testing sites;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
satisfactory completion of an FDA Advisory Committee review, if applicable; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA.
|
Nonclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as nonclinical studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical and stability data, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless, before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions about issues such as the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical trials can proceed. Submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects or patients in accordance with specific protocols and under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCPs. Each clinical trial protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and an IRB at each site where the study is conducted must also approve the study. Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Phase 1 trials usually involve the initial introduction of the investigational drug into humans to evaluate the product's safety, dosage tolerance, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. If feasible, Phase 1 studies also attempt to detect any early indication of a drug's potential effectiveness. Phase 2 trials usually involve controlled trials in a limited patient population to evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage, identify possible adverse effects and safety risks and evaluate the preliminary efficacy of the drug for specific indications. Phase 3 trials usually test a specific hypothesis to evaluate clinical efficacy and test further for safety in an expanded patient population, to establish the overall benefit-risk relationship of the product and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the product. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. Furthermore, the FDA, an IRB or a sponsor may suspend or terminate clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. The FDA can also request that additional clinical trials be conducted as a condition of product approval. Finally, sponsors are required to publicly disseminate information about ongoing and completed clinical trials on a government website administered by the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, and are subject to civil money penalties and other civil and criminal sanctions for failing to meet these obligations.
Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the nonclinical studies and of the clinical studies, together with other detailed information, including information on the chemistry, manufacture and control of the product, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product's identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product's continued safety, purity and potency. The FDA may refuse to accept and review insufficiently complete applications.
The testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and each may take several years to complete. Moreover, 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 FDA review and approval of a new NDA or BLA, or NDA or BLA supplement, before the change can be implemented.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
The FDA has a Fast Track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drug and biologic products that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new investigational drugs or biologics are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA or BLA for a Fast Track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA or BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA or BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA.
Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a Fast Track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review.
In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug and biologic products intended to treat serious or life‑threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well‑controlled post‑marketing clinical trials to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre‑approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.
The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act established a category of drugs and biologics referred to as “breakthrough therapies” that may be eligible to receive Breakthrough Therapy Designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a drug or biologic candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The Breakthrough Therapy Designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as breakthrough therapy, the FDA will expedite the development and review of such drug. All requests for breakthrough therapy designation will be reviewed within 60 days of receipt, and the FDA will either grant or deny the request.
Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.
Approval Process for Biosimilars
The BPCI Act created an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars. This abbreviated pathway is codified in Section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act. The Section 351(k) pathway creates a regulatory and legal pathway to encourage the development of biosimilars, which are defined as a biologic that:
|
|
|
|
•
|
is "highly similar" to the reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
has no clinically meaningful differences from the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency.
|
Biosimilars may be approved for one or more, and possibly all, indications for which a reference product is approved. In some cases, clinical trial data successfully demonstrating the use of a biosimilar for one indication, and submitted to support approval for that indication, may be extrapolated to support approval for one or more other indications of the reference product. The Section 351(k) pathway further defines a subset of biosimilar products as "interchangeable" if an applicant can demonstrate that:
|
|
|
|
•
|
the interchangeable biological product can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
if the product is administered more than once in a patient, that the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the use of the interchangeable biologic product and the reference product is no greater than the risk of using the reference product without switching.
|
The types of data that would ordinarily be required in an application to show biosimilarity would include:
|
|
|
|
•
|
analytical data and studies to demonstrate similarity to the reference product;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
nonclinical studies (including toxicity studies); and
|
The FDA has the discretion to determine whether one or more of these elements are necessary and its guidance to date does not establish a single method for demonstrating biosimilarity but states that the degree of residual uncertainty that remains following analytical and nonclinical research will determine the nature and the extent of clinical studies that may be required. The FDA has implemented a biosimilar user fee program which includes a fee-based meeting process for consultation between applicants and the FDA reviewing division on biosimilar and interchangeable biologics applications under the biosimilar
approval pathway. It provides for pre-application meetings where the applicant can propose and submit analytical, physicochemical and biologic characterization data along with a proposed development plan. The proposed development plan may have a reduced scope of clinical development based on the nature and extent of the characterization data. There are defined time periods for meetings and written advice. The FDA has published a series of draft and final guidance documents for the development and registration of biosimilars and interchangeable biologics, on topics ranging from demonstrating biosimilarity and interchangeability, non-proprietary naming, labeling and other scientific and regulatory issues. The draft and final guidance documents indicate that the FDA will consider the totality-of-the-evidence developed by an applicant in determining the nature and extent of the development, nonclinical and clinical requirements for a biosimilar or interchangeable biologic product. In addition, the guidance documents confirm the importance of analytical characterization to demonstrating biosimilarity and interchangeability in showing the absence of differences from the reference product. Where differences are identified, uncertainty associated with their clinical meaning or impact is expected to be resolved by nonclinical testing and clinical trials. The greater the similarity, the less uncertainty and the more likely the FDA will authorize an applicant to conduct targeted clinical trials or use extrapolation in support of demonstrating biosimilarity and interchangeability.
Under the Section 351(k) pathway, the FDA must wait four years after approval of a biological product under a BLA before accepting a filing for a biosimilar version of the reference product, and the FDA cannot approve a biosimilar version of the reference product until 12 years after the reference product was approved under a BLA. The BPCI Act also provides for limited regulatory exclusivity for the first FDA-approved interchangeable biologic with respect to each reference product. This means that the FDA will defer approval of additional interchangeable biologics to the same reference product for defined periods of one year or more.
Upon filing a biosimilar application, an applicant may trigger the patent negotiation and clearance process. Under the BCPI Act provisions, an applicant and the reference product company are required to share information to seek to resolve any patent disputes prior to regulatory approval and launch. A failure to share information or participate in the process has defined consequences that include the loss of the right to seek patent clearance on the applicant's part and the loss of the right to seek lost profits or injunctive relief for infringement on the reference product patent right holder's part. The process, if initiated by the applicant, has several stages, including defining which patents to include in a pre-approval litigation proceeding, initiating litigation, notice 180 days prior to launch of a biosimilar, the initiation of a second round of litigation relating to patents the parties did not include in the first round litigation, and, following approval, litigation on patents brought by the reference product company or other patent holders not involved in the prior patent process.
The BPCI Act is complex and continues to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, we believe its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning will be subject to uncertainty for years to come.
Manufacturing Requirements
Before approving an NDA, BLA, ANDA or Section 351(k) application, the FDA may inspect the facility or the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product, and may delay an approval of an application, unless or until it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, BLA, ANDA or Section 351(k) application, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. If the FDA determines the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.
Post-Approval Requirements
After regulatory approval of a product is obtained, we are required to comply with a number of post-approval requirements. For example, as a condition of approval of an NDA, BLA, ANDA or Section 351(k) application, the FDA may require post-marketing testing and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product's safety or efficacy after commercialization. Any post-approval regulatory obligations, and the cost of complying with such obligations, could expand in the future.
In addition, holders of an approved NDA, BLA, ANDA or Section 351(k) approval are required to report, among other things, certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, to provide updated safety and efficacy information and to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling for their products. Also, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to cGMP after approval. The FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMP, which imposes extensive procedural, substantive and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.
Discovery of problems with a product or failure to comply with the applicable United States requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the imposition by the FDA or an IRB of a clinical hold on or termination of studies, the FDA's refusal to approve pending applications or supplements, license suspension or revocation, withdrawal of an approval, restriction on marketing, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Also, new government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development.
Fraud and Abuse Laws
Pharmaceutical manufacturers are subject to healthcare fraud and abuse laws and other regulations and enforcement by the federal government as well as the state and foreign governments in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, federal and state anti-kickback, false claims, privacy and security and transparency laws and regulations. Violations of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations may result in penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and individual imprisonment.
Coverage and Reimbursement
Sales of pharmaceutical products depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and the adequacy of reimbursement by third-party payors, such as government health care programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product and can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third‑party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Payors are also increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for pharmaceutical products or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage of such product.
Healthcare Reform
A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products, implementing reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, and applying new payment methodologies. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the Affordable Care Act, was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; introduced a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans; imposed mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries as a condition for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs coverage under Medicare Part D; subjected drug manufacturers to new annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal healthcare programs; created a new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and establishment of a Center for Medicare Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. We expect that the current presidential administration and U.S. Congress will likely continue to seek to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain provisions of, the Affordable Care Act. Recently, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Tax Act”) was enacted, which, among other things, removes penalties for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. While the Trump Administration and CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, if any, will impact the law. Any changes will likely take time to unfold and could have an impact on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by plans that were authorized by the Affordable Care Act. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on the pharmaceutical industry.
In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act to reduce healthcare expenditures. These changes include aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year that will remain in effect through 2027 and further reductions in Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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.
Foreign Regulation
In addition to regulations in the United States, we are and will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products in those markets. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval of a clinical trial application or product from the applicable regulatory authorities of foreign countries before we can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement also vary greatly from country to country.
Under European Union regulatory systems, we may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is mandatory for the approval of biotechnology products and many pharmaceutical products and provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all European Union member states. The decentralized procedure provides for mutual recognition of national approval decisions and is available at the request of the applicant for products that are not subject to the centralized procedure. Under this procedure, the holder of a national marketing authorization from one European Union member state (the Reference Member State) may submit an application to the remaining member states. Generally, each member state decides whether to recognize the Reference Member State's approval in its own country.
Related Matters
From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA or reimbursed under Medicare by the Center for Medicare Services. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.
Hazardous Materials
Our research and development processes involve the controlled use of certain hazardous materials and chemicals, including radioactive materials and equipment. We are subject to federal, state and local environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of hazardous materials and waste products. We do not expect the cost of complying with these laws and regulations to be material.
Competition
The development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products is highly competitive due to existing product competition at the time of product launch and the development of subsequent therapeutics with different methods of action, efficacy or safety profiles. Many of our competitors, who already market or are developing products similar to those in our portfolio, have considerable experience in product development, obtaining regulatory approval, and commercializing pharmaceutical products. Further, certain of these competitive companies have substantially greater financial, marketing, research and development and human resources than we do.
We believe that our ability to successfully compete will depend on a number of factors, including our ability to successfully develop safe and efficacious products, the timing and scope of regulatory approval of our products and those of our competitors, our ability to collaborate with third parties, our ability to maintain favorable patent protection for our products, our
ability to obtain market acceptance of our products and our ability to manufacture sufficient quantities of our products at commercially acceptable costs.
Novel Therapeutics
Our novel product pipeline will face substantial competition from major pharmaceutical and other biotechnology companies. Our development work focused on Fc biology has yielded three named product candidates: M281, an anti-FcRn antibody, M254, a hypersialylated IVIg, and M230, an Fc multimer. These candidates face competition from a number of companies.
M281 Competing FcRn Antagonists
Several companies are developing FcRn targeted agents. UCB has initiated a Phase 3 clinical study in immune thrombocytopenic purpura, or ITP, and myasthenia gravis, or MG, with its anti-FcRn candidate, an IgG4 monoclonal antibody. Argenx’s candidate, a mutated Fc fragment, is in clinical trials for ITP, pemphigus vulgaris and MG. Alexion’s candidate, an IgG4 monoclonal antibody, is expected to enter Phase 2 clinical trials for warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia, or wAIHA, and MG in 2020. Alexion has another molecule, licensed from Affibody, which is in Phase 1. Immunovant’s candidate, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is in Phase 2 clinical trials in MG and Graves’ ophthalmology, and is expected to begin a Phase 2 clinical trial in wAIHA in 2020.
M281 Competing in Disease Indications
Momenta has commenced Phase 2 clinical trials in generalized myasthenia gravis, or gMG, and hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn or, HDFN and a Phase 2/3 clinical trial in wAIHA. MG treatment is primarily with the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, pyridostigmine, and most MG patients also require treatment with immunosuppressive medications. Some patients may require plasma exchange/plasmapheresis, immunoadsorption, intravenous immunoglobulin, or Soliris (eculizumab), the sole monoclonal antibody approved for gMG by the FDA. Other complement antagonists in development for MG include agents from Alexion (Ultomiris) and Ra Pharmaceuticals’ zilucoplan. Several other FcRn antagonists are in development for MG. Argenx and UCB are in Phase 3 clinical trials, Immunovant is in Phase 2 clinical trials, and Alexion announced its intention to enter Phase 2 clinical trials in 2020. For HDFN, we are not aware of any other FcRn antagonists in development nor any other novel biologic therapies. In wAIHA, Alexion and Immunovant are conducting or expect to conduct clinical studies of their anti-FcRn agents. Rigel Pharmaceuticals is in a Phase 3 clinical trial with its syk inhibitor fostamatinib.
M254 Competing Immunoglobulins
We are not aware of other companies developing a hypersialylated immunoglobulin. M254 would compete with currently marketed intravenous and subcutaneous IgG products in the United States, including Octagam 5% and Octagam 10% marketed by Octapharma, Gammagard S/D, Gammagard Liquid 10%, Cuvitru 20% and HyQvia 10% marketed by Shire, Privigen Liquid 10%, Carimune NF, Hizentra 20% marketed by CSL Behring, Flebogamma 5% DIF, Gamunex-C, Flebogamma 10% DIF marketed by Grifols, Gammaplex marketed by BPL Holdings, and Bivigam marketed by ADMA Biologics, as well as other intravenous and subcutaneous IgG products marketed ex-US and those that are currently in development.
M254 Competing in Disease Indications
Momenta has commenced a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in ITP. Current therapies for ITP include IVIg, steroids, TPO receptor agonists, a syk inhibitor, Tavalisse (fostamatinib), Rituxanr (rituximab) and splenectomy. Several companies are in development with novel agents to treat ITP patients, including Argenx and UCB with FcRn antagonists, Principia with a BTK inhibitor and Protalex with a form of Staphylococcal protein A.
M230
CSL, our collaboration partner, is conducting a Phase 1 normal healthy volunteer study with M230. Pfizer (licensed from Gliknik), and Shire (licensed from AB Biosciences) have compounds in development that we believe to be mechanistically similar to M230. The Pfizer product recently started a Phase 1 clinical trial. Shire’s product is preclinical. Once the Phase 1 clinical trial for M230 is completed, we will assess the competitive landscape for M230 based on the selected disease indication for further development.
Biosimilars
If approved, our biosimilar candidate would compete with their applicable branded reference products, other biosimilars to those reference products, as well as other therapies used to treat the indications for which our biosimilar candidate would be approved.
EYLEA
Coherus, Formycon, Alteogen, Insight Biopharmaceuticals, and Lupin Limited have announced plans to develop a biosimilar to EYLEA.
GLATOPA
GLATOPA 20 mg/mL is a substitutable generic equivalent for, and competes directly with, Teva's once-daily COPAXONE 20 mg/mL. It also competes with Teva's three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL. GLATOPA 40 mg/mL is a substitutable generic for, and competes directly with, Teva's three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL. In October 2017, Mylan N.V. announced the launch of its generic equivalents to once-daily COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL.
ANDAs for generic versions of COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and/or 40 mg/mL have also been submitted to the FDA by Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, and Biocon Ltd. Other ANDAs or other regulatory applications may have been submitted or may be submitted in the future. In addition, GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and GLATOPA 40 mg/mL compete with other FDA approved multiple sclerosis therapies. These currently include, among others, Rebif (interferon-beta-1a), marketed by EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer Inc.; Avonex (interferon beta-1a), Tysabri (natalizumab), Tecfidera (dimethyl fumarate), and Plegridy (peginterferon beta-1a), each marketed by Biogen Idec Inc.; Betaseron (interferon-beta-1b), marketed by Bayer Schering Pharma; Extavia (interferon-Beta-1b) and Gilenya (fingolimod), each marketed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Lemtrada (alemtuzumab), marketed by Sanofi and Bayer; Aubagio (teriflunomide), marketed by Sanofi; and Ocrevus (ocrelizumab) marketed by Genentech and Roche.
Employees
We believe that our success will depend greatly on our ability to identify, attract and retain capable employees. As of December 31, 2019, we had 118 employees, including 25 employees who hold Ph.D. degrees and 2 employees who hold an M.D. degree. Our employees are not represented by any collective bargaining group or labor union, and we believe our relations with our employees are good.
Company Background and
Securities Exchange Act Reports
We were incorporated in Delaware in May 2001 under the name Mimeon, Inc. In September 2002, we changed our name to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 301 Binney Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, and our telephone number is (617) 491-9700.
In this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the terms "Momenta," "we," "us" "the Company" and "our" refer to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its subsidiary.
Our internet address is www.momentapharma.com. We are not including the information contained on our web site as a part of, or incorporating it by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We make available free of charge on our website at http://ir.momentapharma.com/investor-relations 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 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Our logo, trademarks, and service marks are the property of Momenta. Other trademarks or service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective holders.
Item 1A. RISK FACTORS
Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks, uncertainties and other important factors described below in addition to other information included or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K before purchasing our securities. The risks, uncertainties and other important factors described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks, uncertainties and other important factors of which we are unaware, or that we currently believe are not material, may also affect us. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations would likely suffer.
Risks Relating to Our Business
Our new corporate strategy and restructuring may not be successful.
On October 1, 2018, as a result of the previously disclosed strategic business review, we announced our intention to focus our resources on the discovery and development of our pipeline of novel drug candidates for immune-mediated diseases and the advancement of two of our late stage biosimilar assets, M923, our proposed biosimilar to HUMIRA, and M710, our proposed biosimilar to EYLEA. We have ceased active development activities for, and do not anticipate any future investments in, M923, due to changes in market opportunity relating to its launch. The success of this strategic shift will depend on our ability to successfully develop our novel and biosimilar candidates, hire and retain senior management or other highly qualified personnel, prioritize competing projects and efforts and obtain sufficient resources, including additional capital. Development of novel drug candidates is highly unpredictable due to the lengthy and expensive process of clinical drug development, potential for safety, efficacy or tolerability problems with such product candidates, unexpected expenses or inaccurate financial assumptions or forecasts, potential delays or unfavorable decisions of regulatory agencies and competition for targeted indications or within targeted markets. Our ability to develop and commercialize our biosimilar candidate depends on our ability to successfully navigate potential litigation efforts by our competitors, potential disputes with our collaboration partner and our collaboration partner's ability to supply and commercialize our product. Accordingly, there are no assurances our change in strategic focus will be successful, which may have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.
Also on October 1, 2018, as a result of our strategic business review, we restructured our executive team and commenced a reduction of our workforce by 50%. Our executive team and workforce after these actions may not be sufficient to fully execute our shift to a novel drug biotechnology company, and we may not be able to effectively retain or attract qualified executive management or employees needed to implement this strategy.
If we or our collaborative partners encounter difficulties or interruptions in our supply or manufacturing arrangements, including an inability by third party manufacturers to satisfy FDA quality standards and related regulatory requirements, our development and commercialization efforts may be materially harmed.
We have limited personnel with experience in, and we do not own facilities for, manufacturing any products. We depend upon our collaborators and other third parties, including sole source suppliers, to provide raw materials meeting FDA quality standards and related regulatory requirements, manufacture the drug substance, produce the final drug product and provide certain analytical services with respect to our products and product candidates. We cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain and/or maintain continuous supply and acceptable supply arrangements of those materials. In addition, our third-party manufacturers, some of which are located in foreign countries, may have the supply of materials to us impacted by public health epidemics or pandemic disease outbreaks, such as the coronavirus currently impacting China and elsewhere, equipment failure, natural disaster, labor shortages, cyber-attack or geopolitical risks, including import trade restrictions or significant tariffs or other economic sanctions or other governmental action. If we are unable to arrange for third-party manufacturing, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to complete development of our product candidates or market them, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
The FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our products be manufactured according to current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations and that proper procedures are implemented to assure the quality of our sourcing of raw materials and the manufacture of our products. Any failure by us, our collaborators or our third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP and/or scale-up manufacturing processes could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of proposed products or the delay or cessation of commercial sales of our approved products . In addition, such failure could be the basis for action by the FDA to withdraw approvals for products previously granted to us and for other regulatory action, including product recall or seizure, fines, imposition of operating restrictions, total or partial suspension of production or injunctions. To the extent we rely on a third-party manufacturer, the risk of non-compliance with cGMPs may be greater and the ability to effect corrective actions for any such noncompliance may be compromised or delayed. For example, on February 17, 2017, we announced that Sandoz’ third party fill/finish manufacturer for GLATOPA, Pfizer Inc., received an FDA warning letter. The FDA applied a compliance hold on the approval of pending drug applications listing the Pfizer Inc. facility, including the ANDA for GLATOPA 40 mg/mL, until satisfactory resolution of the compliance observations in the FDA warning letter. On January 30, 2018, we announced that the FDA had changed the status of Pfizer’s manufacturing facility to Voluntary Action Indicated, which lifted the compliance hold and was followed by a marketing approval in February 2018. The FDA delay in ability to approve GLATOPA 40 mg/mL until satisfactory resolution of the compliance observations in the FDA warning letter greatly increased the risk to us and Sandoz of prior or contemporaneous competition from other generic versions of COPAXONE 40 mg/mL, limiting revenue. Any additional interruption or delay in Pfizer Inc.'s manufacturing of GLATOPA could have a further material adverse impact on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.
Moreover, in order to generate revenue from the sales of Enoxaparin Sodium Injection, GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and GLATOPA 40 mg/mL, sufficient quantities of such product must also be produced in order to satisfy demand. If these contract manufacturers and suppliers, which include sole source suppliers, are unable to manufacture sufficient quantities of product or breach or terminate their manufacturing arrangements with us or Sandoz, as applicable, the commercialization of the affected products could be delayed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
We have ceased active development of our biosimilar product candidate, M923, and if we do not resume development of the program our business may be adversely affected.
We have ceased active development activities for, and do not anticipate additional investment in, our wholly owned HUMIRA biosimilar, M923, due to changes in market opportunity relating to its launch. We may seek to license M923 to a third party entirely or opt to otherwise monetize M923 or to terminate the program, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, including paying our remaining take or pay minimum purchase obligation under our manufacturing agreement with GSK without receiving a benefit therefor.
The patient populations of the target indications for our novel therapeutic candidates are small and have not been established with precision. If the actual number of patients are smaller than we estimate, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability with respect to such candidates may be adversely affected.
We estimate that there are approximately 65,000 patients in the United States with generalized myasthenia gravis, or gMG, approximately 4,000 to 8,000 patients in the United States with hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, or HDFN, and approximately 45,000 patients in the United States with warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia, or wAIHA, all potential indications for our product candidate M281. We estimate that chronic idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, or ITP, a potential indication for our product candidate M254, affects approximately 30,000 to 40,000 patients in the United States. Our estimates of the size of these patient populations are based on published studies as well as internal analyses. If these studies or our analyses of them do not accurately reflect the number of patients with gMG, HDFN or ITP our assessment of the market may be inaccurate, making it difficult or impossible for us to meet our revenue goals if and when any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, or to obtain or maintain profitability. The small population of gMG, HDFN or ITP patients may also create difficulties in the timely enrollment of patients in our clinical trials, especially in light of competing clinical trials or the availability of new therapies.
Since these candidates target small patient populations, the per-patient drug pricing must be higher in order to recover our development and manufacturing costs, fund adequate patient support programs, fund additional research and achieve profitability. Many of the other novel therapeutic product candidates will have indications in rare immune-mediated diseases and face similar risks. We may be unable to maintain or obtain sufficient sales volume at a price high enough to justify our product development efforts and our sales, marketing and manufacturing expenses.
We rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and if they fail to fulfill their obligations, our development plans may be adversely affected.
We rely on independent clinical investigators, contract research organizations, or CROs, and other third-party services providers to assist us in managing, monitoring and otherwise carrying out our clinical trials. We have contracted, and we plan to continue to contract with, certain third-parties to provide certain services, including site selection, enrollment, monitoring, auditing and data management services. Although we depend heavily on these parties, we control only certain aspects of their activity and therefore, we cannot be assured that these third parties will adequately perform all of their contractual obligations to us in compliance with regulatory and other legal requirements and our internal policies and procedures. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities, We and our CROs are required to comply with GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations.
If our third-party service providers cannot adequately and timely fulfill their obligations to us, or if the quality and accuracy of our clinical trial data is compromised due the failure by such third-party to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or if such third parties otherwise fail to meet deadlines, our development plans and/or regulatory reviews for
marketing approvals may be delayed or terminated. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.
Our current and near term product revenue is dependent on the continued successful commercialization of GLATOPA.
Our ability to generate GLATOPA product revenue depends, in large part, on Sandoz’ ability to continue to successfully manufacture and profitably commercialize GLATOPA.
Our ability to generate GLATOPA product revenue also depends in large part on Sandoz' ability to maintain market share and favorable pricing levels for GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and achieve profitable sales and market share for GLATOPA 40 mg/mL. In October 2017, Mylan N.V. announced the launch of its generic equivalents of COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL. Following Mylan N.V.’s entry into the market, Sandoz has defended GLATOPA’s share of the 20 mg/mL glatiramer acetate injection market by using one or more contracting strategies, including but not limited to, lowering its GLATOPA 20 mg/mL price or increasing the discounts or rebates it offers for GLATOPA 20 mg/mL, which has decreased contractual profit share revenue. Since Sandoz' launch of GLATOPA 40 mg/mL, we believe Sandoz has encountered aggressive pricing and contracting tactics from competitors, which has limited uptake of the product and as a result we expect modest sales for the product in the future. Our near-term ability to generate GLATOPA 40 mg/mL product revenue will depend on Sandoz' ability to compete with Teva's three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL product and any generic equivalents. As of December 31, 2019, 40 mg/mL glatiramer acetate injection accounted for approximately 84% of the overall U.S. glatiramer acetate injection market (20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL) based on volume prescribed. If other competitors receive approval to market generic versions of the 20 mg/mL or 40 mg/mL formulations of COPAXONE, our product revenue and profits would be further impacted, and as a result, our business, including our near-term financial results and our ability to utilize GLATOPA revenue to fund future discovery and development programs, may suffer.
If our settlement agreement with NGH is not approved by the court or is otherwise not completed, NGH's class action suit against us will continue. We may have to devote substantial time and resources to such a defense and an adverse judgment against us could have a material adverse effect on our business.
On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit against us and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection alleging that we and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. On December 10, 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with NGH in which the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of $35.0 million as consideration for the release of all alleged claims. The settlement agreement remains subject to class notice periods and opt-out provisions, a fairness hearing and final court approval pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Action Fairness Act. If the settlement is not approved by the court or is otherwise not completed, the Company will continue to vigorously defend against the suit. We cannot be certain of the time or resources required for such a defense, and an adverse judgment against us could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, potential class members who affirmatively opt out of the class will not be bound by the settlement and will be free to make their own claims against us, if they should choose to do so, which would also require us to devote our resources and time to defend against.
If we or our collaborators are unable to establish and maintain key customer distribution arrangements, sales of our products, and therefore revenue, would be adversely impacted.
Drug products and biologics are sold through various channels, including retail, mail order, and to hospitals through group purchasing organizations, or GPOs. The distribution of such products is also managed by pharmacy benefit management firms, or PBMs, such as Express Scripts or CVS. These GPOs and PBMs rely on competitive bidding, discounts and rebates across their purchasing arrangements. We believe that we, in collaboration with commercial collaboration partners, will need to maintain adequate drug supplies, remain price competitive, comply with FDA regulations and provide high-quality products to establish and maintain relationships with GPOs and PBMs. The GPOs, PBMs and other customers with whom we or our collaborators have established contracts may also have relationships with our competitors and may decide to contract for or otherwise prefer products other than ours, limiting access of products to certain market segments. Our sales could also be negatively affected by any rebates, discounts or fees that are required by, or offered to, GPOs, PBMs, and customers, including wholesalers, distributors, retail chains or mail order services, to gain and retain market acceptance for our or our competitors’ products. For example, if PBMs, distributors and other customers contracted with Teva for net price discounts or rebates on COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL, or with Mylan N.V. for net price discounts or rebates on its generic equivalents of COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL, in exchange for exclusivity or preferred status for COPAXONE prior to the February 2018 approval and launch of GLATOPA 40 mg/mL, our opportunity to capture market share would be significantly restricted
for the term of these contracts. If we or our collaborators are unable to establish and maintain competitive distribution arrangements with all of these customers, sales of our products, our revenue and our profits would suffer.
Even if we receive approval to market our product candidates, the market may not be receptive to our product candidates upon their commercial introduction, which could adversely affect our ability to generate sufficient revenue from product sales to maintain or grow our business.
Even if our product candidates are successfully developed and approved for marketing, our success and growth will also depend upon the acceptance of our products by patients, physicians and third-party payers. Acceptance of our products will be a function of our products being clinically useful, being cost effective and demonstrating sameness, in the case of our generic product candidate, and biosimilarity or interchangeability, in the case of our biosimilar product candidates, with an acceptable side effect profile as compared to existing or future treatments. In addition, even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time.
Factors that we believe will materially affect market acceptance of our product candidates under development include:
|
|
|
|
•
|
the timing of our receipt of any marketing approvals, the terms of any approval and the countries in which approvals are obtained;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the safety, efficacy and ease of administration of our products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the competitive pricing of our products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
physician confidence in the safety and efficacy of our products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the absence of, or limited clinical data available from, sameness testing of our complex generic products and biosimilarity or interchangeability testing of our biosimilar products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the success and extent of our physician education and marketing programs;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the clinical, medical affairs, sales, distribution and marketing efforts of competitors; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the availability and amount of government and third-party payer reimbursement.
|
If our products do not achieve market acceptance, we will not be able to generate sufficient revenue from product sales to maintain or grow our business.
If we are not able to retain our current management team or attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and business personnel, our business will suffer.
We recently restructured our management team and are dependent on the current members of our team for our business to succeed. In the restructuring we terminated a number of senior executives and many of the new members of our current management team have not had previous experience in senior executive positions and have duties that are in addition to those of our prior senior executives, all of which may affect our ability to further our business success. Our employment arrangements with our executive officers are terminable by either party on short notice or no notice. We do not carry key person life insurance on the lives of any of our personnel. The loss of any of our executive officers would result in a significant loss in the knowledge and experience that we, as an organization, possess and could cause significant delays, or outright failure, in the development and approval of our product candidates. In addition, there is intense competition from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and other research institutions, for human resources, including qualified executives and management, in the technical fields in which we operate, and we may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates. Another component of retention is the intrinsic value of equity awards, including stock options. Stock options granted to our executives and employees may be under pressure given the volatility of our stock performance and at such times may not always provide a retentive effect. In addition, our recent restructuring may negatively affect employee morale and our corporate culture, which may have a negative impact on retention and recruitment. If we lose key members of our management team, or are unable to attract and retain qualified personnel, our business could be negatively affected.
There is a substantial risk of product liability claims in our business. If our existing product liability insurance is insufficient, a product liability claim against us that exceeds the amount of our insurance coverage could adversely affect our business.
Our business exposes us to significant potential product liability risks that are inherent in the development, manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in a recall of our products or a change in the approved indications for which they may be used. We cannot be sure that the product liability insurance coverage we maintain will be adequate to cover any incident or all incidents. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to maintain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business. These liabilities could prevent or interfere with our product development and commercialization efforts.
Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures or security breaches.
Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our and our third party contractors' computer systems and networks. Our internal computer systems are vulnerable to breakdown or breach, including as a result of computer viruses, security breaches by individuals with authorized access, unauthorized access, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. The increased use of mobile and cloud technologies can heighten these and other operational risks. Moreover, systems breaches are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity, and are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. Any breakdown or breach by employees or others may pose a risk that sensitive data, including clinical trial data, intellectual property, trade secrets or personal information belonging to us, our patients or our collaborators may be exposed to unauthorized persons or to the public. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on third parties to manufacture and commercialize our products and conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, the further development and commercialization of our products and product candidates could be delayed, we could suffer reputational harm, we could be subject to regulatory action, and the trading price of our common stock could be adversely affected. In addition, our liability insurance may not be sufficient in type or amount to cover us against claims related to breakdown or breach of our computer systems and other related breaches.
As we continue to evolve from a company primarily involved in discovery and development of pharmaceutical products into one that is also involved in the commercialization of multiple pharmaceutical products, we may have difficulty managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.
As we advance an increasing number of product candidates through the development process, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, quality, distribution, sales and marketing capabilities or contract with other organizations to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various collaborative partners, suppliers and other organizations.
In addition, our ability to manage our operations and growth requires us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. For example, some jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, have imposed licensing requirements for sales representatives. In addition, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as the federal government, by way of the Sunshine Act provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, have established reporting requirements that would require public reporting of consulting and research fees to health care professionals. Because the reporting requirements vary in each jurisdiction, compliance can be complex and expensive and may create barriers to entering the commercialization phase. The need to build new systems as part of our growth could place a strain on our administrative and operational infrastructure. We may not be able to make improvements to our management information and control systems in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls. Such requirements may also impact our opportunities to collaborate with physicians at academic research centers as new restrictions on academic-industry relationships are put in place. In the past, collaborations between academia and industry have led to important new innovations, but the new laws may have an effect on these activities. While we cannot predict whether any legislative or regulatory changes will have negative or positive effects, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and potential profitability.
We may incur costs and allocate resources to identify and develop additional product candidates or acquire or make investments in companies or technologies without realizing any benefit, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition or cash flows.
Along with continuing to progress our current product candidates, the long-term success of our business also depends on our ability to successfully identify, develop and commercialize additional product candidates. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs and product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.
In addition, we may acquire or invest in companies, products and technologies. Such transactions involve a number of risks, including:
|
|
|
|
•
|
we may find that the acquired company or assets does not further our business strategy, or that we overpaid for the company or assets, or that economic conditions change, all of which may generate a future impairment charge;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
difficulty integrating the operations and personnel of the acquired business, and difficulty retaining the key personnel of the acquired business;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
difficulty incorporating the acquired technologies;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
difficulties or failures with the performance of the acquired technologies or products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
we may face product liability risks associated with the sale of the acquired company’s products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
disruption or diversion of management’s attention by transition or integration issues and the complexity of managing diverse locations;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
difficulty maintaining uniform standards, internal controls, procedures and policies;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the acquisition may result in litigation from terminated employees or third parties; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
we may experience significant problems or liabilities associated with product quality, technology and legal contingencies.
|
These factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition or cash flows, particularly in the case of a larger acquisition or multiple acquisitions in a short period of time. From time to time, we may enter into negotiations for acquisitions that are not ultimately consummated. Such negotiations could result in significant diversion of management time, as well as out-of-pocket costs.
The consideration paid in connection with an acquisition also affects our financial results. If we were to proceed with one or more significant acquisitions in which the consideration included cash, we could be required to use a substantial portion of our available cash to consummate any acquisition. To the extent we issue shares of stock or other rights to purchase stock, including options or other rights, existing stockholders may be diluted and earnings per share may decrease. In addition, acquisitions may result in the incurrence of debt, large one-time write-offs and restructuring charges. They may also result in goodwill and other intangible assets that are subject to impairment tests, which could result in future impairment charges.
If we fail to maintain appropriate internal controls in the future, we may not be able to report our financial results accurately, which may adversely affect our stock price and our business.
Our efforts to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, and the related regulations regarding our required assessment of our internal controls over financial reporting and our external auditors’ audit of that assessment requires the commitment of significant financial and managerial resources.
Internal control over financial reporting has inherent limitations, including human error, the possibility that controls could be circumvented or become inadequate because of changed conditions, and fraud. If we are unable to maintain effective internal controls, we may not have adequate, accurate or timely financial information, and we may be unable to meet our reporting obligations as a publicly traded company or comply with the requirements of the SEC or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended. This could result in a restatement of our financial statements, the imposition of sanctions, including the inability of registered broker dealers to make a market in our stock, or investigation by regulatory authorities. Any such action or other negative results caused by our inability to meet our reporting requirements or comply with legal and regulatory requirements or by disclosure of an accounting, reporting or control issue could adversely affect the trading price of our stock and our business.
Failure to comply with evolving data privacy and data protection laws and regulations or to otherwise protect personal data, may adversely impact our business and financial results.
Because we have commenced and will continue to conduct clinical trials in the European Union, we and our CROs are subject to many rapidly evolving privacy and data protection laws and regulations in Europe. This requires us and our CROs to operate in a complex environment where there are significant constraints on how we can process personal data across our business. The European General Data Protection Regulation (the GDPR), which became effective in May 2018, has established stringent data protection requirements for companies doing business in or handling personal data of individuals in the European Union. The GDPR imposes obligations on data controllers and processors including the requirement to maintain a record of their data processing and to implement policies and procedures as part of their mandated privacy governance framework. In addition, the GDPR allows EU member states to make additional laws and regulations further regulating teh processing of genetic, biometric or health data. Breaches of the GDPR could result in substantial fines, which in some cases could be up to four percent of our worldwide revenue. In addition, a breach of the GDPR or other data privacy or data protection laws or regulations could result in regulatory investigations, reputational damage, orders to cease/change our use of data, enforcement notices, as well potential civil claims including class action type litigation. There is a risk that we or our CROs may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation and reputational harm if we or they fail to properly process or protect the data or privacy of third parties or comply with the GDPR or other applicable data privacy and data protection regimes.
Risks Relating to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital
We have incurred a cumulative loss since inception. If we do not generate significant revenue, we may not return to profitability.
We have incurred significant losses since our inception in May 2001. At December 31, 2019, our accumulated deficit was approximately $1.0 billion. We may incur annual operating losses over the next several years as we expand our product development, commercialization and discovery efforts. In addition, we must successfully develop and obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, and effectively manufacture, market and sell any products we successfully develop. Accordingly, we may not generate significant revenue in the longer term and, even if we do generate significant revenue, we may never achieve long-term profitability.
To be profitable, we and our collaborative partners must succeed in developing and commercializing products with significant market potential. This will require us and our collaborative partners to be successful in a range of challenging activities: developing product candidates, completing nonclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates; obtaining regulatory approval for product candidates through either existing or new regulatory approval pathways; clearing allegedly infringing patent rights; enforcing our patent rights; and manufacturing, distributing, marketing and selling products. Our potential profitability will also be adversely impacted by the entry of competitive products and, if so, the degree of the impact could be affected by whether the entry is before or after the launch of our products. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, discover or develop other therapeutic candidates or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could cause our shareholders to lose all or part of their investment.
We will require substantial funds and may require additional capital to execute our business plan and, if additional capital is not available, we may need to delay, limit or cease our product development efforts or other operations. If we are unable to fund our obligations under our collaboration and license agreements, we may breach those agreements and our collaboration partners could terminate those agreements.
As of December 31, 2019, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities totaling approximately $545.1 million. For the twelve months ended December 31, 2019, we had a net loss of $290.1 million and our operations used cash of $204.8 million. We will continue to require substantial funds to conduct research and development, process development, manufacturing, nonclinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, as well as funds necessary to manufacture and market products that are approved for commercial sale. Because successful development and commercialization of our product candidates is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require to complete research and development and commercialize our products under development.
Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:
|
|
|
|
•
|
the cost of advancing our product candidates and funding our development programs, including the costs of nonclinical and clinical studies, obtaining reference product for nonclinical and clinical studies, manufacturing nonclinical and clinical supply material, and obtaining regulatory approvals;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the level of sales of GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and of GLATOPA 40 mg/mL;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the successful commercialization of our other product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the impact of prior or contemporaneous competition on our products and product candidates, such as Mylan N.V.'s generic equivalents of COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL on GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and GLATOPA 40 mg/mL;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the receipt of milestone payments under our CSL License Agreement;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the timing of FDA approval of the products of our competitors;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the cost of litigation maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending intellectual property related claims, that is not otherwise covered by our collaboration agreements, or potential patent litigation with others, as well as any damages, including possibly treble damages, that may be owed to third parties should we be unsuccessful in such litigation;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the ability to enter into additional strategic alliances for our non-partnered programs, as well as the terms and timing of any milestone, royalty or profit share payments thereunder;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the scope, progress, results and costs of our research and development programs, including completion of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the cost of acquiring and/or in-licensing other technologies, products or assets; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales activities, if any.
|
We expect to finance and manage our planned operating and capital expenditure requirements principally through our current cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities, capital raised through our collaboration and license agreements and equity financings, contingent milestone payments, continuation and milestone payments and product revenues under existing collaboration and license agreements. We believe that these funds will be sufficient to meet our operating requirements through at least the third quarter of 2021. We may seek additional funding in the future through third-party collaborations and licensing arrangements, public or private debt financings or from other sources. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail one or more of our research or development programs. We also may not be able to fund our obligations under one or more of our collaboration and license agreements, which could enable one or more of our collaborators to terminate their agreements with us, and therefore harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Raising additional capital by issuing securities or through collaboration and licensing arrangements may cause dilution to existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish proprietary rights.
We may seek to raise the additional capital necessary to fund our operations through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, and collaboration and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of such securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights or, in the case of debt securities, require us to pay interest that would reduce our cash flows from operations or comply with certain covenants that could restrict our operations. If we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.
Risks Relating to Development and Regulatory Approval
Results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of results of future clinical trials.
The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of clinical trials do not necessarily predict success in future clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we could face similar setbacks. The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for the product candidates. Even if we, or our collaborators, believe that the results of clinical trials for our product candidates warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates.
If nonclinical studies and clinical trials are required for regulatory approval of our product candidates or any study or trial is delayed or not successful, we may incur additional costs, experience delays in obtaining, or ultimately be unable to obtain regulatory approval for commercial sale of those product candidates.
To obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of our novel product candidates, we are required to demonstrate through nonclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective. Nonclinical studies and clinical trials of novel product candidates are lengthy and expensive and there is a high probability of significant delays to or failure of novel product candidates during nonclinical studies or clinical trials.
To obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of our biosimilar product candidates, the BPCI Act requires nonclinical studies and clinical trials to demonstrate biosimilarity, unless the FDA in its discretion determines such studies and trials are not necessary.
A delay or failure of one of our product candidates during nonclinical studies or clinical trials, if required, can occur at any stage of testing. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, nonclinical studies and clinical trials, if required, that could delay or prevent our ability to receive regulatory approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:
|
|
|
|
•
|
regulators or institutional review boards may not authorize us to commence a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at a prospective trial site;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
our nonclinical studies or clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we may be required to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials or we may abandon projects that we previously expected to be promising;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
enrollment in our clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate, resulting in significant delays, and participants may drop out of our clinical trials at a higher rate than we anticipate;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
we might have to suspend or terminate our clinical trials if the participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
regulators or institutional review boards may require that we hold, suspend or terminate clinical research for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or if, in their opinion, participants are being exposed to unacceptable health risks;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the cost of our clinical trials may be greater than we anticipate;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the effects of our product candidates may not be the desired effects or may include undesirable health risks or our product candidates may have other unexpected characteristics; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
we may decide to modify or expand the clinical trials we are undertaking if new agents are introduced that influence current standard of care and medical practice, warranting a revision to our clinical development plan.
|
The results from nonclinical studies of a product candidate and in initial human clinical studies of a product candidate may not predict the results that will be obtained in subsequent human clinical trials, if required. If we are required by regulatory authorities to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates that we did not anticipate, if we are
unable to successfully complete our clinical trials or other tests, or if the results of these trials are not positive or are only modestly positive, we may be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates or we may not be able to obtain marketing approval at all. Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or approvals. Significant clinical trial delays could allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates. If any of these events occur, our business will be materially harmed.
Our product candidates may cause serious adverse events or undesirable side effects or have other properties which may delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or, result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.
Serious adverse events or undesirable side effects caused our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of health risks or unexpected characteristics. If unacceptable health risks arise in the development of our product candidates, we, the FDA, the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted, or the data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related health risks could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these health risks may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable health risks caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:
|
|
|
|
•
|
regulatory authorities may withdraw approvals of such product;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
we may be required to recall a product or change the way such product is administered to patients;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
additional restrictions may be imposed on the marketing of the particular product or the manufacturing processes for the product;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
regulatory authorities may require additional warnings on the label, such as a “black box” warning or contraindication;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
we may be required to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or create a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the product could become less competitive;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
our reputation may suffer.
|
Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the product in question and could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.
Interim, top-line and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.
From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line or preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line or preliminary data we previously published. As a result, top-line and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.
From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Interim data from
clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Disclosure of interim data by us or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock.
Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.
If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.
Even if we successfully complete necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, provide evidence of therapeutic equivalence or provide evidence of biosimilarity or interchangeability, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. If we or our collaborators are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we or they will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, our product candidates, and our ability to generate 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, export and import, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and comparable regulatory authorities in other countries. With the exception of our generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection, GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and GLATOPA 40 mg/mL, we and our collaborators have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate.
Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data; strength, quality, purity, identity and therapeutic equivalence data; or biosimilarity or interchangeability data, as applicable, and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authority. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.
The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, 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. The FDA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application we submit, or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we or our collaborators ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved medicine not commercially viable.
Accordingly, if we or our collaborators experience delays in obtaining approval or if we or they fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.
We have obtained Fast Track Designation for M281 for the treatment of HDFN and wAIHA, and we may seek Fast Track designation for other indications or for our other product candidates, but we might not receive such designations, and even if we do, such designations may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.
If a product is intended for the treatment of a serious condition and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, a product sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation. We have obtained
Fast Track designation for M281 for the treatment of HDFN and wAIHA, and we may seek Fast Track designation for other indications for M281 or for one or more of our other product candidates, but we might not receive such designations from the FDA. However, even if we receive Fast Track designation, Fast Track designation does not ensure that we will receive marketing approval or that approval will be granted within any particular timeframe. We may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process with Fast Track designation compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.
Our opportunity to realize value from the potential of the biosimilars market is difficult and challenging due to the significant scientific and development expertise required to develop and consistently manufacture complex protein biologics.
The market potential of biosimilars may be difficult to realize, in large part due to the challenges of successfully developing and manufacturing biosimilars. Biologics are therapeutic proteins and are much more complex and much more difficult to characterize and replicate than small-molecule, chemically synthesized drugs. Proteins tend to be 100 to 1000 times larger than conventional drugs, and are more susceptible to physical factors such as light, heat and agitation. They also have greater structural complexity. Protein molecules differ from one another primarily in their sequence of amino acids, which results in folding of the protein into a specific three-dimensional structure that determines its activity. Although the sequence of amino acids in a protein is consistently replicated, there are a number of changes that can occur following synthesis that create inherent variability. Chief among these is the glycosylation, or the attachment of sugars at certain amino acids. Glycosylation is critical to protein structure and function, and thoroughly characterizing and matching the glycosylation profile of a targeted biologic is essential and poses significant scientific and technical challenges. Furthermore, it is often challenging to consistently manufacture proteins with complex glycosylation profiles, especially on a commercial scale. Protein-based therapeutics are inherently heterogeneous and their structure is highly dependent on the production process and conditions. Products from one production facility can differ within an acceptable range from those produced in another facility. Similarly, physicochemical differences can also exist among different lots of the same product produced at the same facility. The physicochemical complexity and size of biologics creates significant technical and scientific challenges in their replication as biosimilar products. Accordingly, the technical complexity involved and expertise and technical skill required to successfully develop and manufacture biosimilars poses significant barriers to entry. Any difficulties encountered in developing and producing, or any inability to develop and produce, biosimilars could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Failure to obtain regulatory approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent us from marketing our products abroad.
We intend in the future to market our products, if approved, outside of the United States, either directly or through collaborative partners. In order to market our products in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with the numerous and varying regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction. The approval procedure and requirements vary among countries, and can require, among other things, conducting additional testing in each jurisdiction. The time required to obtain approval abroad may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval, and we may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in any other foreign country or by the FDA. We and our collaborators may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market outside of the United States. The failure to obtain these approvals could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Even if we obtain regulatory approvals, our marketed products will be subject to ongoing regulatory review. If we fail to comply with continuing United States and foreign regulations, we could lose our approvals to market products and our business would be seriously harmed.
Even after approval, any pharmaceutical products we develop will be subject to ongoing regulatory review, including the review of clinical results that are reported after our products are made commercially available. Any regulatory approvals that we obtain for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. In addition, the manufacturer and manufacturing facilities we use to produce any of our product candidates will be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA, or foreign equivalent, and other regulatory agencies. We will be required to report any serious and unexpected adverse experiences and certain quality problems with our products and make other periodic reports to the FDA. The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with the product, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions
on the product or manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the product from the market. Certain changes to an approved product, including in the way it is manufactured or promoted, often require prior FDA approval before the product as modified may be marketed. If we fail to comply with applicable FDA regulatory requirements, we may be subject to fines, warning letters, civil penalties, refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls and seizures, injunctions, operating restrictions, refusal to permit the import or export of products, and/or criminal prosecutions and penalties.
Similarly, our commercial activities will be subject to comprehensive compliance obligations under state and federal reimbursement, Sunshine Act, anti-kickback and government pricing regulations. If we make false price reports, fail to implement adequate compliance controls or our employees violate the laws and regulations governing relationships with health care providers, we could also be subject to substantial fines and penalties, criminal prosecution and debarment or exclusion from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid, or other government reimbursement programs. Additionally, we may be subject to federal and state health information privacy, security and data breach notification laws, which govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. State laws may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to protected health information than federal privacy laws, and state laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts.
Non-compliance with EU requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance can also result in significant financial penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with the EU requirements regarding the protection of personal information can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.
In addition, the FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit, or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.
We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the current administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the current administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these Executive Orders will be implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to exercise its regulatory authority. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.
Changes in funding for the FDA and other government agencies could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.
The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.
Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA 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.
If third-party payers do not adequately reimburse customers for any of our approved products, they might not be purchased or used, and our revenue and profits will not develop or increase.
Our revenue and profits will depend heavily upon the availability of adequate reimbursement for the use of our approved product candidates from governmental and other third-party payers, both in the United States and in foreign markets. Reimbursement by a third-party payer may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payer’s determination that use of a product is:
|
|
|
|
•
|
a covered benefit under its health plan;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
safe, effective and medically necessary;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
appropriate for the specific patient;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
neither experimental nor investigational.
|
Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from each government or other third-party payer is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to each payer. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. There is substantial uncertainty whether any particular payer will reimburse the use of any product incorporating new technology. Even when a payer determines that a product is eligible for reimbursement, the payer may impose coverage limitations that preclude payment for some uses that are approved by the FDA or comparable authority. Moreover, eligibility for coverage does not imply that any product will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that allows us to make a profit or even cover our costs. Interim payments for new products, 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 product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower-cost products that are already reimbursed, may be incorporated into existing payments for other products or services, and may reflect budgetary constraints and/or imperfections in Medicare, Medicaid or other data used to calculate these rates. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government health care programs or by any future relaxation of laws that restrict imports of certain medical products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.
There have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, federal and state proposals to constrain expenditures for medical products and services, which may affect payments for our products. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, frequently change product descriptors, coverage policies, product and service codes, payment methodologies and reimbursement values. Third-party payers often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and both CMS and other third-party payers may have sufficient market power to demand significant price reductions. Due in part to actions by third-party payers, the health care industry is experiencing a trend toward containing or reducing costs through various means, including lowering reimbursement rates, limiting therapeutic class coverage and negotiating reduced payment schedules with service providers for drug products.
We also anticipate that application of the existing and evolving reimbursement regimes to biosimilar products will be somewhat uncertain. In the 2016 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule, CMS made it clear that the payment amount for a biosimilar is based on the average sales price of all products included within the same billing and payment code. In general, this means that CMS will group biosimilar products that rely on a common reference product’s biologics license application into the same payment calculation, and these products will share a common payment limit and billing code. In the 2018 Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule, CMS reversed course and instead of classifying biosimilars with the same reference product in the same Healthcare Common Procedural System (“HCPCS”) code, CMS will establish a unique code for each biosimilar product; and instead of calculating a single blended payment rate, starting January 1, 2018, CMS calculates a payment rate specific to each biosimilar product. In addition, for qualifying biosimilars, instead of considering only the first biosimilar product for the reference product for OPPS pass-through payment status, each biosimilar is now eligible. It is unclear what effect, if any, CMS's changes this will have on private payers. Reimbursement uncertainty could adversely impact market acceptance of biosimilar products.
Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from government-funded and private payers for our products could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition.
Federal legislation will increase the pressure to reduce prices of pharmaceutical products paid for by Medicare or may otherwise seek to limit healthcare costs, either of which could adversely affect our revenue, if any.
Healthcare reform legislation known as the Affordable Care Act that was enacted in 2010 could significantly change the United States health care system and the reimbursement of products. A primary goal of the law is to reduce or limit the growth of health care costs, which could change the market for pharmaceuticals and biological products. The law contains provisions that will affect companies in the pharmaceutical industry and other healthcare-related industries by imposing additional costs and changes to business practices. Provisions affecting pharmaceutical companies include an increase to the mandatory rebates for pharmaceutical products sold into the Medicaid program, an extension of the rebate requirement to pharmaceutical products used in risk-based Medicaid managed care plans, an extension of mandatory discounts for pharmaceutical products sold to certain critical access hospitals, cancer hospitals and other covered entities, and discounts and fees applicable to brand-name pharmaceutical products. Although many of these provisions may not apply directly to us, they may change business practices in our industry and, assuming our products are approved for commercial sale, such changes could adversely impact our profitability.
In 2017, members of Congress and the President sought to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, and, while those efforts did not succeed, it is possible that similar efforts will be made in the future. Recently, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or Tax Act, was enacted, which, among other things, removes penalties for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance. It is uncertain whether regulatory changes to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act will restrict patient access to affordable insurance and impact their access to novel, biosimilar and complex generic products. The full effects of any repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, or regulatory changes to its implementation cannot be known until a new law is implemented through regulations or guidance is issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, and other federal and state health care agencies. Any legislative or regulatory changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and potential profitability. In addition, litigation may prevent some or all of the legislation from taking effect. For example, on December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. While the Trump Administration and the CMS have both stated that the ruling will have no immediate effect, it is unclear how this decision, subsequent appeals, if any, will impact the law. In 2019 and beyond, we may face additional uncertainties as a result of likely federal and administrative efforts to repeal, substantially modify or invalidate some or all of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. There is no assurance that the Affordable Care Act, as amended in the future, will not adversely affect our business and financial results, and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform will affect our business.
Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payers, in the United States and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare costs or introduce price controls or price negotiation may cause the government or other organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our products and product candidates. 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. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our products and product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.
Lastly, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for medical products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical 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.
All of such measures may reduce demand for our products or put pressure on our product pricing, which could negatively affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our ability to use net operating losses and research and development credits to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.
As of December 31, 2019, we had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $785.0 million and $766.0 million, respectively. Our net operating loss carryforwards generated before January 1, 2018 are subject to expiration and will expire at various dates through 2038. As of December 31, 2019, we also had federal and state research and development and other tax credit carryforwards, including the orphan drug credit, of approximately $31.6 million and $8.1 million, respectively, available to reduce future tax liabilities. The federal and state research and development and other tax credit carryforwards expire at various dates through 2039, while the orphan drug credit does not expire. These net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. In addition, in general, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses or tax credits, or NOLs or credits, to offset future taxable income or taxes. For these purposes, an ownership change generally occurs where the aggregate stock ownership of one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who owns at least 5% of a corporation’s stock increases its ownership by more than 50 percentage points over its lowest ownership percentage within a specified testing period. Our existing NOLs or credits may be subject to limitations arising from previous ownership changes, and if we undergo an ownership change in connection with or after this offering, our ability to utilize NOLs or credits could be further limited by Sections 382 and 383 of the Code. In addition, future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Sections 382 and 383 of the Code. Our NOLs or credits may also be impaired under state law. Accordingly, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs or credits. The reduction of the corporate tax rate under the Tax Act may cause a reduction in the economic benefit of our net operating loss carryforwards and other deferred tax assets available to us. Furthermore, under the Tax Act, although the treatment of tax losses generated before December 31, 2017 has generally not changed, tax losses generated in calendar year 2018 and beyond will only be able to offset 80% of taxable income. This change may require us to pay federal income taxes in future years despite generating a loss for federal income tax purposes in prior years.
Foreign governments tend to impose strict price or reimbursement controls, which may adversely affect our revenue, if any.
In some foreign countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the pricing and/or reimbursement of prescription pharmaceuticals are subject to governmental control. 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 candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be adversely affected.
If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected.
Our research and development involves, and may in the future involve, the use of hazardous materials and chemicals and certain radioactive materials and related equipment. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of biohazardous materials. Insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities, and we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations.
Risks Relating to Competition
Competition in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries is intense, and if we are unable to compete effectively, our financial results will suffer.
The markets in which we intend to compete are undergoing, and are expected to continue to undergo, rapid and significant technological change. We expect competition to intensify as technological advances are made or new biotechnology products are introduced. New developments by competitors may render our current or future product candidates and/or technologies non-competitive, obsolete or not economical. Our competitors’ products may be more efficacious or marketed and sold more effectively than any of our products.
Many of our competitors have:
|
|
|
|
•
|
significantly greater financial, technical and human resources than we have at every stage of the discovery, development, manufacturing and commercialization process;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
more extensive experience in commercializing generic drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics, conducting nonclinical studies, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, challenging patents and manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
products that have been approved or are in late stages of development; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and/or research institutions.
|
We face, and will continue to face, competition with regard to our products and, if approved, our product candidates, based on many different factors, including:
|
|
|
|
•
|
the safety and effectiveness of our products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
with regard to our generic products and our generic and biosimilar product candidates, the differential availability of clinical data and experience and willingness of physicians, payers and formularies to rely on biosimilarity data;
|
the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these products and regulatory opposition to any product approvals;
|
|
|
|
•
|
the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sales capabilities;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the effectiveness of our marketing, distribution and sales capabilities;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the price of our products;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the availability and amount of discounts, rebates and third-party reimbursement for our products; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the strength of our patent positions.
|
Our competitors may develop or commercialize products with significant advantages in regard to any of these factors. Our competitors may therefore be more successful in commercializing their products than we are, which could adversely affect our competitive position and business.
If other generic versions of the brand name drugs, or other biosimilars of the reference products, for which we have products or product candidates, including GLATOPA 20 mg/mL, GLATOPA 40 mg/mL and M710, are approved and successfully commercialized, our business would suffer.
Pricing and market share of generic and biosimilar products may decline, often dramatically, as other generics or biosimilars of the same brand name drug or reference product, respectively, enter the market. Competing generics include brand name manufacturers’ “authorized generics” of their own brand name products. Generally, earlier-to-market generics and biosimilars are better able to gain significantly greater market share than later-to-market competing generics and biosimilars, respectively. Accordingly, revenue and profits from our generic products and, if approved, our generic and biosimilar product candidates, may be significantly reduced based on the timing and number of competing generics and biosimilars, respectively. We expect our generic products and, if approved, certain of our generic and biosimilar product candidates may face intense and increasing competition from other generics and biosimilars. For example, in October 2017, Mylan N.V. announced the launch of its generic equivalents of COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL. Following Mylan N.V.’s entry into the market, Sandoz has defended GLATOPA’s share of the 20 mg/mL glatiramer acetate injection market by using one or more contracting strategies, including but not limited to, lowering its GLATOPA 20 mg/mL price or increasing the discounts or rebates it offers for GLATOPA 20 mg/mL, which has decreased contractual profit share revenue. Since Sandoz’ launch of GLATOPA 40mg/mL in February 2018, Sandoz has encountered aggressive pricing and contracting tactics from competitors and as a result we expect modest sales for the product in the future. In addition, several other companies have submitted ANDAs to the FDA for generic versions of COPAXONE. A launch of one or more additional generic versions of COPAXONE could further reduce anticipated revenue from GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and GLATOPA 40 mg/mL.
In addition, the first biosimilar determined to be interchangeable with a particular reference product for any condition of use is eligible for a period of market exclusivity that delays an FDA determination that a second or subsequent biosimilar product is interchangeable with that reference product for any condition of use until the earlier of: (1) one year after the first
commercial marketing of the first interchangeable product; (2) 18 months after resolution of a patent infringement suit instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product, based on a final court decision regarding all of the patents in the litigation or dismissal of the litigation with or without prejudice; (3) 42 months after approval of the first interchangeable product, if a patent infringement suit instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product is still ongoing; or (4) 18 months after approval of the first interchangeable product if the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product has not been sued under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6). A determination that another company’s product is interchangeable with EYLEA prior to approval of M710 may therefore delay any determination that our product is interchangeable with the reference product, which may materially adversely affect our results of operations and delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue.
If an alternative version of a reference product, such as COPAXONE or EYLEA , is developed that has a new product profile and labeling, the alternative version of the product could significantly reduce the market share of the original reference product, and may cause a significant decline in sales or potential sales of our corresponding generic or biosimilar product.
Brand companies may develop alternative versions of a reference product as part of a life cycle extension strategy, and may obtain approval of the alternative version under a supplemental new drug application, for a drug, or supplemental biologics license application, for a biologic. The alternative version may offer patients added benefits such as a more convenient form of administration or dosing regimen. Should the brand company succeed in obtaining an approval of an alternative product, it may capture a significant share of the collective reference product market and significantly reduce the market for the original reference product and thereby the potential size of the market for our generic or biosimilar products. For example, as of December 31, 2019, Teva’s three-times-weekly COPAXONE 40 mg/mL and Mylan N.V.’s three-times-weekly generic equivalent product accounted for approximately 84% of the overall U.S. glatiramer acetate injection market (20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL) based on volume prescribed. As a result, the market potential for GLATOPA 20 mg/mL has decreased, and may decrease further as additional patients are converted from once-daily COPAXONE or any generic equivalent to three-times-weekly COPAXONE or generic equivalent. In addition, the alternative product may be protected by additional patent rights as well as have the benefit, in the case of drugs, of an additional three years of FDA marketing approval exclusivity, which would prohibit a generic version of the alternative product for some period of time. As a result, our business, including our financial results and our ability to fund future discovery and development programs, would suffer.
If efforts by manufacturers of reference products to delay or limit the use of generics or biosimilars are successful, our sales of generic and biosimilar products may suffer.
Many manufacturers of branded products have increasingly used legislative, regulatory and other means to delay regulatory approval and to seek to restrict competition from manufacturers of generic drugs and biosimilars. These efforts have included:
|
|
|
|
•
|
settling patent lawsuits with generic or biosimilar companies, resulting in such patents remaining an obstacle for generic or biosimilar approval by others;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
seeking to restrict biosimilar commercialization options by seeking to delay the right to adjudicate patent rights under Section 351(l) of the Biologics Price, Competition and Innovation Act or restricting access by biosimilar and generic applicants by litigation or legislative action to the use of inter partes patent review proceedings at the U.S. Patent Office to challenge invalid biologic patent rights;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
settling paragraph IV patent litigation with generic companies to prevent the expiration of the 180-day generic marketing exclusivity period or to delay the triggering of such exclusivity period;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
submitting Citizen Petitions to request the FDA Commissioner to take administrative action with respect to prospective and submitted generic drug or biosimilar applications or to influence the adoption of policy with regard to the submission of biosimilar applications;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
appealing denials of Citizen Petitions in United States federal district courts and seeking injunctive relief to reverse approval of generic drug or biosimilar applications;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
restricting access to reference products for equivalence and biosimilarity testing that interfere with timely generic and biosimilar development plans, respectively;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
conducting medical education with physicians, payers and regulators that claim that generic or biosimilar products are too complex for generic or biosimilar approval and influence potential market share;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
seeking state law restrictions on the substitution of generic and biosimilar products at the pharmacy without the intervention of a physician or through other restrictive means such as excessive recordkeeping requirements or patient and physician notification;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
seeking federal or state regulatory restrictions on the use of the same non-proprietary name as the reference brand product for a biosimilar or interchangeable biologic;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
seeking federal reimbursement policies that do not promote adoption of biosimilars and interchangeable biologics;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
seeking changes to the United States Pharmacopeia, an industry recognized compilation of drug and biologic standards;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
pursuing new patents for existing products or processes which could extend patent protection for a number of years or otherwise delay the launch of generic drugs or biosimilars; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
influencing legislatures so that they attach special regulatory exclusivity or patent extension amendments to unrelated federal legislation.
|
If these efforts to delay or block competition are successful, we may be unable to sell our generic and biosimilar products, if approved, which could have a material adverse effect on our sales and profitability.
If the market for a reference product, such as COPAXONE or EYLEA, significantly declines, sales or potential sales of our corresponding generic and biosimilars product and product candidates may suffer and our business would be materially impacted.
Competition in the biotechnology industry is intense. Reference products face competition on numerous fronts as technological advances are made or new products are introduced that may offer patients a more convenient form of administration, increased efficacy or improved safety profile. As new products are approved that compete with the reference product to our generic products and product candidates and our biosimilar product candidates, respectively, sales of reference products and biosimilar and generics may be significantly and adversely impacted and may render the reference products obsolete.
Current injectable treatments commonly used to treat multiple sclerosis, including COPAXONE, are competing with novel therapeutic products, including oral therapies. These oral therapies may offer patients a more convenient form of administration than COPAXONE and may provide increased efficacies. If the market for the reference product is impacted, we in turn may lose significant market share or market potential for our generic or biosimilar products and product candidates, and the value for our generic or biosimilar pipeline could be negatively impacted. As a result, our business, including our financial results and our ability to fund future discovery and development programs, would suffer.
Risks Relating to Intellectual Property
If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection for our discoveries, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will be harmed, and we may not be able to operate our business profitably.
Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect proprietary methods and technologies that we develop under the patent and other intellectual property laws of the United States and other countries, so that we can prevent others from using our inventions and proprietary information. Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in scientific literature lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in our patent applications. As a result, we may be required to obtain licenses under third-party patents to market our proposed products. If licenses are not available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, we will not be able to market the affected products.
Assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent. We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or U.S. PTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, IPR, or interference proceedings challenging our patent
rights or the patent rights of others. For example, several of our European patents are being challenged in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.
Our strategy depends on our ability to rapidly identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. This process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.
Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may be able to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. The issuance of a patent does not guarantee that it is valid or enforceable, so even if we obtain patents, they may not be valid or enforceable against third parties.
Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents. The patent position of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including ours, is generally uncertain and involves complex legal and factual considerations. The standards which the U.S. PTO and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. There is also no uniform, worldwide policy regarding the subject matter and scope of claims granted or allowable in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary information to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems and costs in protecting their proprietary information in these foreign countries.
The breadth of patent claims allowed in any patents issued to us or to others may be unclear. The allowance of broader claims may increase the incidence and cost of patent interference proceedings and/or opposition proceedings, and the risk of infringement litigation. On the other hand, the allowance of narrower claims may limit the value of our proprietary rights. Our issued patents may not contain claims sufficiently broad to protect us against third parties with similar technologies or products, or provide us with any competitive advantage. Moreover, once they have issued, our patents and any patent for which we have licensed or may license rights may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. If our patents are invalidated or otherwise limited, other companies will be better able to develop products that compete with ours, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.
We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and technology, which are not protected by patents, to maintain our competitive position. If any trade secret, know-how or other technology not protected by a patent were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our business and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.
Third parties may allege that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, forcing us to expend substantial resources in resulting litigation, the outcome of which would be uncertain. Any unfavorable outcome of such litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.
The issuance of our own patents does not guarantee that we have the right to practice the patented inventions. Third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from marketing our own patented product and practicing our own patented technology.
If any party asserts that we are infringing its intellectual property rights or that our creation or use of proprietary technology infringes upon its intellectual property rights, we might be forced to incur expenses to respond to and litigate the claims. Furthermore, we may be ordered to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed a party’s patent rights. In addition, if we are unsuccessful in litigation, or pending the outcome of litigation, a court could issue a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction preventing us from marketing and selling the patented drug or other technology for the life of the patent that we have been alleged or deemed to have infringed. Litigation concerning intellectual property and proprietary technologies is widespread and can be protracted and expensive, and can distract management and other key personnel from performing their duties for us.
Any legal action against us or our collaborators claiming damages and seeking to enjoin any activities, including commercial activities relating to the affected products, and processes could, in addition to subjecting us to potential liability for damages, require us or our collaborators to obtain a license in order to continue to manufacture or market the affected products and processes. Any license required under any patent may not be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, some licenses may be non-exclusive, and therefore, our competitors may have access to the same technology licensed to us.
If we fail to obtain a required license or are unable to design around a patent, we may be unable to effectively market some of our technology and products, which could limit our ability to generate revenue or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations.
If we remain involved in patent litigation or other proceedings to determine or enforce our intellectual property rights, we could incur substantial costs or experience delays that could adversely affect our business.
We may need to continue to resort to litigation to enforce a patent issued to us or to determine the scope and validity of a third-party patent or other proprietary rights such as trade secrets in jurisdictions where we intend to market our products, including the United States, the European Union, and many other foreign jurisdictions. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding relating to determining the validity of intellectual property rights, or any delays to the development of our product candidates resulting from such litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial and could divert our management’s efforts. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs and resulting development delays associated with complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they may have substantially greater resources. Moreover, the failure to obtain a favorable outcome in any litigation in a jurisdiction where there is a claim of patent infringement could significantly delay the marketing of our products in that particular jurisdiction and could ultimately lead to a decision to discontinue a program. Counterclaims for damages and other relief may be triggered by such enforcement actions. The costs, uncertainties and counterclaims resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could limit our ability to continue our operations.
We in-license a portion of our proprietary technologies, and if we fail to comply with our obligations under any of the related agreements, we could lose license rights that are necessary to develop our product candidates.
We are a party to and rely on a number of in-license agreements with third parties, such as those with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Rockefeller University, which give us rights to intellectual property that may be necessary for certain parts of our business. In addition, we expect to enter into additional licenses in the future. Our current in-license arrangements impose various diligence, development, royalty and other obligations on us. If we breach our obligations with regard to our exclusive in-licenses, they could be converted to non-exclusive licenses or the agreements could be terminated, which would result in our being unable to develop, manufacture and sell products that are covered by the licensed technology.
Risks Relating to Our Dependence on Third Parties
The 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement is important to our business. If Sandoz AG fails to adequately perform under this collaboration, or if we or Sandoz AG terminate all or a portion of this collaboration, the commercialization of some of our products and product candidates, including GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and GLATOPA 40 mg/mL, would be impacted, delayed or terminated and our business would be adversely affected.
Either we or Sandoz AG may terminate the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement for material uncured breaches or certain events of bankruptcy or insolvency by the other party. For some of the products, for any termination of the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement other than a termination by Sandoz AG due to our uncured breach or bankruptcy, or a termination by us alone due to the need for clinical trials, we will be granted an exclusive license under certain intellectual property of Sandoz AG to develop and commercialize the particular product. In that event, we would need to expand our internal capabilities or enter into another collaboration, which could cause significant delays that could prevent us from completing the development and commercialization of such product. For some products, if Sandoz AG terminates the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement due to our uncured breach or bankruptcy, or if there is a termination by us alone due to the need for clinical trials, Sandoz AG would retain the exclusive right to develop and commercialize the applicable product. In that event, we would no longer have any influence over the development or commercialization strategy of such product. In addition, for other products, if Sandoz AG terminates due to our uncured breach or bankruptcy, Sandoz AG retains a right to license certain of our intellectual property without the obligation to make any additional payments for such licenses. For certain products, if the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement is terminated other than due to our uncured breach or bankruptcy, neither party will have a license to the other party’s intellectual property. In that event, we would need to expand our internal capabilities or enter into another collaboration, which, if we were able to do so, could cause significant delays that could prevent us from completing the development and commercialization of such product. Any alternative collaboration could also be on less favorable terms to us. Accordingly, if the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement is terminated, our introduction of certain products may be significantly delayed, or our revenue may be significantly reduced, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Under our collaboration agreement, we are dependent upon Sandoz AG to successfully continue to commercialize GLATOPA 20 mg/mL and GLATOPA 40 mg/mL. We do not fully control Sandoz AG’s commercialization activities or the resources it allocates to our products. While the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration Agreement contemplates joint decision making and alignment, our interests and Sandoz AG’s interests may differ or conflict from time-to-time or we may disagree with Sandoz AG’s level of effort or resource allocation. Sandoz AG may internally prioritize our products and product candidates differently than we do or it may fail to allocate sufficient resources to effectively or optimally commercialize our products and alignment may only be achieved through dispute resolution. In the future, we and Sandoz may compete on other products outside of our collaboration, which could negatively impact our ability to work effectively with one another. If these events were to occur, our business would be adversely affected.
The Mylan Collaboration Agreement is important to our business. If we or Mylan fail to adequately perform under the Agreement, or if we or Mylan terminate the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, the development and commercialization of our biosimilar candidate, M710, could be delayed or terminated and our business would be adversely affected.
The Mylan Collaboration Agreement may be terminated by either party for breach by, or bankruptcy of, the other party; for its convenience; or for certain activities involving competing products or the challenge of certain patents. Other than in the case of a termination for convenience, the terminating party shall have the right to continue the development, manufacture and commercialization of the terminated products in the terminated countries. In the case of a termination for convenience, the other party shall have the right to continue. If a termination occurs, the licenses granted to the non-continuing party for the applicable product will terminate for the terminated country. Subject to certain terms and conditions, the party that has the right to continue the development or commercialization of a given product candidate may retain royalty-bearing licenses to certain intellectual property rights, and rights to certain data, for the continued development and sale of the applicable product in the country or countries for which termination applies. In October 2018, we announced that we would notify Mylan of our intention to discontinue participation in five of our collaboration programs and will only continue to advance our late-stage biosimilar candidate M710, our proposed biosimilar to EYLEA. We delivered a formal notice of this partial termination to Mylan in November 2018, which became effective as of January 31, 2019.
If the Mylan Collaboration Agreement were terminated and we had the right to continue the development and commercialization of M710, to fully exercise that right, we would need to expand our internal capabilities or enter into another collaboration, which, if we were able to do so, could cause significant delays that could prevent us from commercializing those products. Any alternative collaboration could be on less favorable terms to us. In addition, we may need to seek additional financing to support the development and commercialization of M710, or alternatively we may decide to discontinue M710, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If the Mylan Collaboration Agreement were terminated with respect to M710 and Mylan had the right to continue the development and commercialization of such product, we would have no influence or input into those activities.
Under the Mylan Collaboration Agreement, we are dependent upon Mylan to successfully perform its responsibilities and activities, including conducting clinical trials for certain products and leading the commercialization of products. We do not control Mylan’s execution of its responsibilities, including commercialization activities, or the resources it allocates to our products. Our interests and Mylan’s interests may differ or conflict from time to time, or we may disagree with Mylan’s level of effort or resource allocation. Mylan may internally prioritize our products and product candidates differently than we do or it may not allocate sufficient resources to effectively or optimally execute its responsibilities or activities. Competition between us and Mylan on other products outside of our collaboration, such as our respective generic equivalents of COPAXONE, could negatively impact our ability to work effectively with one another. If these events were to occur, our business would be adversely affected.
The CSL License Agreement is important to our business. If we or CSL fail to adequately perform under the Agreement, or if we or CSL terminate the Agreement, the development and commercialization of our novel therapeutic, M230, could be delayed or terminated and our business would be adversely affected.
CSL may terminate the CSL License Agreement on a product-by-product basis subject to notice periods and certain circumstances related to clinical development. We may terminate the CSL License Agreement under certain circumstances related to the development of M230 and if no activities are being conducted under the CSL License Agreement. Either party may terminate the Agreement on a product-by-product basis if certain patent challenges are made, on a product-by-product for material breaches, or due to the other party’s bankruptcy. Upon termination of the CSL License Agreement, subject to certain exceptions, the licenses granted under the CSL License Agreement terminate. In addition, dependent upon the circumstances under which the CSL License Agreement is terminated, we or CSL have the right to continue the research, development, and commercialization of terminated products, including rights to certain data, for the continued development and sale of terminated products and, subject to certain limitations, obligations to make sales-based royalty payments to the other party.
If the CSL License Agreement were terminated and we had the right to continue the research, development, and commercialization of one or more terminated products, to fully exercise that right, we would need to expand our internal capabilities or enter into another collaboration, which, if we were able to do so, could cause significant delays that could prevent us from commercializing those products. Any alternative collaboration could be on less favorable terms to us. In addition, we may need to seek additional financing to support the research, development and commercialization of any terminated products, or alternatively we may decide to discontinue one or more terminated products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If the CSL License Agreement were terminated and CSL had the right to continue the development and commercialization of one or more terminated products, we would have no influence or input into those activities.
Under the CSL License Agreement, we are dependent upon CSL to successfully perform its responsibilities and activities, including the research, development and commercialization of M230 and research on other Fc multimer proteins. We do not control CSL’s execution of its responsibilities or the resources it allocates to our products and product candidates. Our interests and CSL’s interests may differ or conflict from time to time, or we may disagree with CSL’s level of effort or resource allocation. CSL may internally prioritize our products and product candidates differently than we do or it may not allocate sufficient resources to effectively or optimally execute its responsibilities or activities. If these events were to occur, our business would be adversely affected.
We may need to enter into additional strategic alliances with other companies that can provide capabilities and funds for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. If we are unsuccessful in forming or maintaining these arrangements on favorable terms, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans, and our business could be adversely affected.
Because we have limited internal capabilities for late-stage product development, manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution, we may need to enter into strategic alliances with other companies in addition to our current alliances with Sandoz, Mylan and CSL. In such alliances, we would expect our collaboration partners to provide substantial capabilities in clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, sales and marketing. We may not be successful in entering into any such alliances as a result of many factors including the following:
|
|
|
|
•
|
competition in seeking appropriate collaborators;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
restrictions on future strategic alliances in existing strategic alliance agreements;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
a reduced number of potential collaborators due to recent business combinations of large pharmaceutical companies;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
inability to negotiate strategic alliances on a timely basis; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
inability to negotiate strategic alliances on acceptable terms.
|
Even if we do succeed in securing such alliances, we may not be able to maintain them or they may be unsuccessful. We may be unable to maintain a strategic alliance if the development or approval of a product candidate that is the subject of the alliance is delayed or sales of an approved product that is the subject of the alliance are disappointing. The success of our collaboration agreements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborators generally have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these collaborations. Any such alliance would entail numerous operational and financial risks, including significant integration and implementation challenges that could disrupt our business and divert our management's time and attention. If we are unable to secure or maintain such alliances or if such alliances are unsuccessful, we may not have the capabilities necessary to continue or complete development of our product candidates and bring them to market, which may have an adverse effect on our business.
In addition to product development and commercialization capabilities, we may depend on our alliances with other companies to provide substantial additional funding for development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. These arrangements may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies, product candidates or products which we would otherwise pursue on our own. These alliances may also involve the other company purchasing a significant number of shares of our common stock. Future alliances may involve similar or greater sales of equity, debt financing or other funding arrangements. We may not be able to obtain funding on favorable terms from these alliances, and if we are not successful in doing so, we may not have sufficient funds to develop a particular product candidate internally or to bring product candidates to market. Failure to bring our product candidates to market will prevent us from generating sales revenue, and this may substantially harm our business. Furthermore, any delay in entering into these alliances could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market. As a result, our business and operating results may be adversely affected.
If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate product revenue.
We do not have a sales organization and have no experience as a company in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities, as well as entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, developing a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. In addition, to the extent that we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing or distribution services, we will have less control over sales of our products and our future revenue would depend heavily on the success of the efforts of these third parties.
A significant change in the business operations of, a change in the financial condition of, a change in senior executive management within, or a change in control of our third-party collaborators, or any future collaboration partners or third party manufacturers could have a negative impact on our business operations.
Since many of our product candidates are developed under collaborations or licenses with third parties, we do not have sole decision making authority with respect to commercialization or development of those product candidates. We have built relationships and work collaboratively with our third-party collaborators and manufacturers to ensure the success of our development and commercialization efforts. A significant change in the senior management team, a change in the financial condition or a change in the business operations, including a change in control or internal corporate restructuring, of any of our collaboration partners or third-party manufacturers, could result in delayed timelines on our products. In addition, we may have to re-establish working relationships and familiarize new counterparts with our products and business. Any such change may result in the collaboration partner or third party manufacturer internally re-prioritizing our programs or decreasing resources or funding allocated to support our programs. Changes with respect to any of our collaborators may negatively impact our business operations.
General Company Related Risks
Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.
Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our by-laws may delay or prevent an acquisition of us or a change in our management. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions could in turn affect any attempt by our stockholders to replace current members of our management team. These provisions include:
|
|
|
|
•
|
a classified board of directors;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
a prohibition on actions by our stockholders by written consent; and
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
limitations on the removal of directors.
|
Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibit a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Finally, these provisions establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings. These provisions would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders.
Our stock price may be volatile, and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.
The stock market in general and the market prices for securities of biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that often has been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. The trading price of our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. Furthermore, our stock price could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:
|
|
|
|
•
|
delays in achievement of, or failure to achieve, program milestones that are associated with the valuation of our company or significant milestone revenue;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
failure of GLATOPA 20 mg/mL to sustain or GLATOPA 40 mg/mL to achieve profitable sales or market share that meet expectations of securities analysts;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
litigation involving our company or our general industry or both;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
a settlement related to any case; or a decision in favor of third parties in antitrust litigation filed against us;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
announcements by other companies regarding the status of their ANDAs for generic versions of COPAXONE;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
marketing and/or launch of other companies’ generic versions of COPAXONE, such as Mylan N.V.'s October 2017 launch of its generic equivalents of COPAXONE 20 mg/mL and 40 mg/mL;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
adverse FDA decisions regarding the development requirements for one of our biosimilar product candidates or failure of our other product applications to meet the requirements for regulatory review and/or approval;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
results or delays in our or our competitors’ clinical trials or regulatory filings;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
enactment of legislation that repeals the law enacting the biosimilar regulatory approval pathway or amends the law in a manner that is adverse to our biosimilar development strategy;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
failure to demonstrate biosimilarity or interchangeability with respect to our biosimilar product candidates such as M710;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
demonstration of or failure to demonstrate the safety and efficacy for our novel product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
our inability to manufacture any products in conformance with cGMP or in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the commercial sale of the product or to meet market demand;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
failure of any of our product candidates, if approved, to achieve commercial success;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
the discovery of unexpected or increased incidence in patients’ adverse reactions to the use of our products or product candidates or indications of other safety concerns;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
developments or disputes concerning our patents or other proprietary rights;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
changes in estimates of our financial results or recommendations by securities analysts;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
termination of any of our product development and commercialization collaborations, or changes in our development or commercialization strategy for wholly-owned product candidates;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
investors’ general perception of our company, our products, the economy and general market conditions;
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
rapid or disorderly sales of stock by holders of significant amounts of our stock; or
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
significant fluctuations in the price of securities generally or biotechnology company securities specifically.
|
If any of these factors cause an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition, the price of our common stock could fall and investors may not be able to sell their common stock at or above their respective purchase prices.
We could be subject to class action litigation due to stock price volatility, which, if it occurs, will distract our management and could result in substantial costs or large judgments against us.
The stock market in general has recently experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. In addition, the market prices of securities of companies in the biotechnology industry have been extremely volatile and have experienced fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of or other events at these companies. These fluctuations could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against companies following periods of volatility in the market prices of their securities. We may be the target of similar litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention and resources, which could cause serious harm to our business, operating results and financial condition.
