UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
_______________________________________
FORM 10-K
_______________________________________
(Mark One)
| ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 | |||||
For the fiscal year ended December 31 , 2022
OR
| TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM TO | |||||
Commission File Number: 001-39206
_______________________________________
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)
_______________________________________
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | ||||
| (Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code) | ||||
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (212 ) 295-5800
_______________________________________
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
| Title of each class | Trading Symbol(s) | Name of each exchange on which registered | ||||||||||||
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes x No ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
x | Accelerated filer | ¨ | |||||||||
| Non-accelerated filer | ¨ | Smaller reporting company | |||||||||
| Emerging growth company | |||||||||||
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. x
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No x
As of June 30, 2022 the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $1,287,853,411 based upon the closing sale price of the registrant’s common stock on that date.
As of February 21, 2023, the registrant had 62,321,454 shares of common stock and 9,164,193 shares of limited common stock outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
| Auditor Firm Id: | Auditor Name: | Auditor Location: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table of Contents
| Page | ||||||||
F-1 | ||||||||
CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS AND INDUSTRY DATA
This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or this Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management, are forward-looking statements. The words "aim," “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” "goal," “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would” or the negative of these words or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.
The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, among other things, statements about:
•the potential advantages of our physics-based computational platform;
•our strategic plans to accelerate the growth of our software business;
•our research and development efforts for our proprietary drug discovery programs and our computational platform;
•the initiation, timing, progress, and results of drug discovery programs, preclinical studies and clinical trials of ours and those of our collaborators;
•our plans to submit investigational new drug applications to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for
our proprietary drug discovery programs;
• our plans to discover and develop product candidates and to maximize their commercial potential by
advancing such product candidates ourselves or in collaboration with others;
•our plans to leverage the synergies between our businesses;
•the timing of, the ability to submit applications for and the ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals for any product candidates we or one of our collaborators may develop;
•our drug discovery collaborations and our estimates or expectations regarding any milestone or other payments we may receive from such collaborations, including pursuant to our collaboration with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company;
•our expectations regarding our ability to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements with our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities;
•the potential advantages of our drug discovery programs;
•the rate and degree of market acceptance of our software solutions;
•the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and of economic developments, including rising inflation and interest rates, on our business, operations, liquidity and prospects;
•the rate and degree of market acceptance and clinical utility of our products;
•our estimates regarding the potential market opportunity for our software solutions and any product candidate we or any of our collaborators may develop;
•our marketing capabilities and strategy;
•our intellectual property position;
•our ability to identify technologies with significant commercial potential that are consistent with our commercial objectives;
•our expectations related to the use of our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities;
•our expectations related to the key drivers of our performance;
•the impact of government laws and regulations;
•our competitive position and expectations regarding developments and projections relating to our competitors and any competing products, technologies, or therapies that are or become available;
2
•our ability to maintain and establish collaborations or obtain additional funding; and
•our reliance on key personnel and our ability to identify, recruit, and retain skilled personnel.
We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions, or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions, and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report, particularly in “Risk Factor Summary” and “Risk Factors” below, that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Moreover, we operate in a competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks and uncertainties emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all risks and uncertainties that could have an impact on the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, collaborations, joint ventures, or investments we may make or enter into.
You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report are made as of the date of this Annual Report, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete. Our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.
This Annual Report includes statistical and other industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys, and studies conducted by third parties as well as our own estimates of potential market opportunities. All of the market data used in this Annual Report involves a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such data. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys, and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research, surveys and studies, which may be based on a small sample size and may fail to accurately reflect market opportunities. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions.
Unless the context otherwise requires, we use the terms “company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” in this Annual Report to refer to Schrödinger, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.
3
RISK FACTOR SUMMARY
Our business is subject to a number of risks of which you should be aware before making an investment decision. Below we summarize what we believe are the principal risk factors but these risks are not the only ones we face, and you should carefully review and consider the full discussion of our risk factors in the section titled “Risk Factors”, together with the other information in this Annual Report.
•We have a history of significant operating losses, and we expect to incur losses over the next several years.
•If we are unable to increase sales of our software, increase revenue from our drug discovery collaborations, or if we and our current and future collaborators are unable to successfully develop and commercialize drug products, our revenues may be insufficient for us to achieve or maintain profitability.
•Our quarterly and annual results may fluctuate significantly, which could adversely impact the value of our common stock.
•If our existing customers do not renew their licenses, do not buy additional solutions from us, or renew at lower prices, our business and operating results will suffer.
•A significant portion of our revenues are generated by sales to life sciences industry customers, and factors that adversely affect this industry could adversely affect our software sales.
•The markets in which we participate are highly competitive, and if we do not compete effectively, our business and operating results could be adversely affected.
•We may never realize a return on our investment of resources and cash in our drug discovery collaborations.
•Although we believe that our computational platform has the potential to identify more promising molecules than traditional methods and to accelerate drug discovery, our focus on using our platform technology to discover and design molecules with therapeutic potential may not result in the discovery and development of commercially viable products for us or our collaborators.
•We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, discover or develop product candidates and may fail to capitalize on programs, collaborations, or product candidates that may present a greater commercial opportunity or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.
•As a company, we have very limited experience in clinical development and have not yet demonstrated our ability to complete any clinical trials.
•Conducting successful clinical trials requires the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit.
•We rely on, and plan to continue to rely on, third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, which may prevent or delay our ability to seek or obtain marketing approval for or commercialize our product candidates or otherwise harm our business.
•The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.
•A widespread outbreak of an illness or other health issue, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, could negatively affect various aspects of our business and make it more difficult to meet our obligations to our customers, and could result in reduced demand from our customers as well as delays in our drug discovery and development programs.
•If we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing license agreements with Columbia University, under any of our other intellectual property licenses, or under any future intellectual property licenses, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our current or any future licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.
•If we are unable to obtain, maintain, enforce, and protect patent protection for our technology and product candidates or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates may be adversely affected.
4
•Our internal information technology systems, or those of our third-party vendors, contractors, or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, loss or leakage of data, and other disruptions, which could result in a material disruption of our services, compromise sensitive information related to our business, or prevent us from accessing critical information, potentially exposing us to liability or otherwise adversely affecting our business.
•Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain, and motivate qualified personnel.
•We are pursuing multiple business strategies and expect to expand our development and regulatory capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our multiple business units and our growth, which could disrupt our operations.
•Our executive officers, directors, and principal stockholders, if they choose to act together, have the ability to influence all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.
•Our actual operating results may differ significantly from our guidance.
•We identified a material weakness in our internal control over our financial reporting. If we are unable to remediate this material weakness, we may not be able to accurately or timely report our financial condition or results of operations, and we may conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is not effective, which could adversely impact our investors' confidence and our stock price.
5
PART I
Item 1. Business.
Overview
We are transforming the way therapeutics and materials are discovered.
Our differentiated, physics-based computational platform enables discovery of high-quality, novel molecules for drug development and materials applications more rapidly and at a lower cost, compared to traditional methods. Our software platform is licensed by biopharmaceutical and industrial companies, academic institutions, and government laboratories around the world. We are applying our computational platform to discover and advance a broad pipeline of development programs in collaboration with leading biopharmaceutical companies. In addition, we use our platform to advance a pipeline of partnered and wholly-owned drug discovery programs, which we refer to collectively as our proprietary drug discovery programs.
Traditional drug discovery and development efforts have become increasingly complex, lengthy and capital-intensive, and are prone to high failure rates. Traditional drug discovery relies upon many iterations of costly and time-consuming manual molecule design, chemical synthesis, and experimental testing. One of the primary reasons for long timelines, high costs, and high failure rates in drug discovery is that predicting properties of molecules in advance of chemical synthesis is extremely complex and not amenable to traditional approaches.
Over the past several decades and with the concerted efforts of our scientists and software engineers, we have developed a physics-based computational platform that is capable of predicting critical properties of molecules with a high degree of accuracy. This key capability enables drug discovery teams to design and selectively synthesize molecules with more optimal properties, reducing the average time and costs required to identify a development candidate and increasing the probability that a drug discovery program will enter clinical development. Furthermore, we believe that development candidates with more optimized property profiles will have a higher probability of success in clinical development. Additionally, since the physics underlying the properties of drug molecules and materials is the same, we have been able to extend our computational platform to materials science applications in fields such as aerospace, energy, semiconductors, and electronic displays.
We offer our customers a variety of software solutions that accelerate all stages of molecule discovery, design, and optimization. In 2022, all of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies, measured by 2021 revenue, licensed our solutions, accounting for $43.2 million, or 32%, of our software revenue in 2022. The widespread adoption of our software, supported by our global team of sales, technical, and scientific personnel, has driven steady growth in our software revenue. Biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly adopting our software at a larger scale, and we anticipate this scaling-up will drive future revenue growth. Our ability to expand within our customer base is demonstrated by the increasing number of our customers with an annual contract value, or ACV, in excess of $100,000. We had 227, 190, and 153 such customers, which represented 82%, 80%, and 79% of our total ACV, for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively. Furthermore, the number of customers with an ACV in excess of $1.0 million increased to 18 for the year ended December 31, 2022 compared to 15 and 16 for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. We also had four customers with an ACV in excess of $5.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2022, compared to two such customers for the year ended December 31, 2021. In addition, our customer retention rate for our customers with an ACV over $100,000 for the year ended December 31, 2022 was 96% and was 96% or higher for each of the previous nine fiscal years. We believe the growth in the number of our customers demonstrates that companies are increasingly recognizing the power and appreciating the scientific and financial benefits of using our platform at scale while the retention in this group is indicative of the continued value of our platform. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Key Factors Affecting Our Performance” for additional information regarding ACV and customer retention rate.
We also leverage our platform and capabilities across a portfolio of collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs spanning a wide range of disease targets and indications. Our drug discovery group, which we refer to as the Schrödinger Therapeutics Group, is comprised of a multidisciplinary team of approximately 150 experts in protein science, biochemistry, biophysics, medicinal and computational chemistry, and discovery scientists with expertise in preclinical and early clinical development. Our collaborative and partnered programs generate drug discovery revenue, including upfront payments, research funding payments, and discovery and development milestones, and have the potential to produce additional milestone payments, option fees, and future royalties.
6
In 2018, we began to develop a pipeline of wholly-owned drug discovery programs with the goal of using our platform to produce a portfolio of novel, high value therapeutics. Our initial programs were focused on discovering and developing inhibitors for targets in DNA damage response pathways and genetically defined cancers. Since then, we have expanded into other therapeutic areas, including in the areas of immunology and neurology. We submitted an investigational new drug application, or IND, for our MALT1 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-1505, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, cleared the IND in June 2022. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas and currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505. In addition, we continue to advance other wholly-owned programs through IND-enabling studies. We expect to submit an IND application to the FDA for our CDC7 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-2921, in the first half of 2023 and for our WEE1 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-3515, in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies. In addition, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-2921 in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance.
In November 2020, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, or BMS, pursuant to which we and BMS agreed to collaborate in the discovery, research and development of small molecule compounds for biological targets in the oncology, neurology and immunology therapeutic areas. The initial collaboration targets included HIF-2 alpha and SOS1/KRAS, which were two of our wholly-owned pipeline programs. In November 2021, we and BMS mutually agreed to replace the HIF-2 alpha target with another precision oncology target. Following the replacement election, all rights to the HIF-2 alpha target program reverted to us. In September 2022, BMS elected not to proceed with further development of another target and all rights to this program reverted to us. In December 2022, we and BMS entered into an amendment to our collaboration and license agreement to include an additional target in neurology on terms similar to the original agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, as amended, we received a $55.0 million upfront payment from BMS in November 2020 and an additional upfront payment in December 2022 related to the additional target, and we are eligible to receive up to $2.7 billion in total milestones from BMS across all potential targets, as well as a tiered percentage royalty on net sales of each product commercialized by BMS ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits, subject to certain specified reductions. See “—Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company” for additional information relating to this agreement.
We generated revenue of $181.0 million, $137.9 million, and $108.1 million in 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, representing year-over-year growth of 31% and 28%, respectively. Our net loss was $149.2 million, $101.2 million, and $26.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively.
Strategy
Our mission is to improve human health and quality of life by transforming the way therapeutics and materials are discovered. We aim to do this by:
•Advancing the science that underlies our computational platform: We are the leader in the field of physics-based computational drug discovery, and we believe our computational platform is far ahead of that of our nearest competitors. We intend to maintain our industry-leading position by introducing new capabilities and refining our software to further strengthen our technology and advance the science underlying our platform.
•Growing and expanding our software business: We have experienced steady growth in our software revenues, achieving $135.6 million in revenue in 2022, an increase of 20% compared to 2021, primarily driven by broad adoption of our software solutions by the biopharmaceutical industry and the expansion of our materials science business. We aim to continue to grow our software sales by increasing the adoption of our software by our existing customers and identifying and adding new customers. Further, we believe there remains a large opportunity for growth as there are thousands of biopharmaceutical companies that could benefit from our software solutions.
▪Progressing our wholly-owned and partnered drug discovery programs: We plan to progress our wholly-owned drug discovery programs, including SGR-1505, SGR-2921 and SGR-3515, and continue to add new programs that leverage our computational platform. As we progress these programs, we will strategically evaluate on a program-by-program basis advancing them into preclinical and clinical development ourselves, entering into collaborations to co-develop them with leading industry partners, or out-licensing them to maximize clinical and commercial opportunity. As part of this strategy, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with BMS in November 2020, as well as collaboration agreements with Zai Lab Limited, or Zai Lab, in August 2021, with Eli Lilly and Company, or Lilly, in September 2022, and with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Otsuka, in December 2022.
7
▪Advancing our collaborative programs: We intend to continue to work with our collaborators on advancing our collaborative programs, which generate revenues through upfront payments, research funding, preclinical and clinical milestones as well as potentially through option fees, commercial milestones, and future royalties. We achieved drug discovery revenue of $45.4 million in 2022, an increase of 84% compared to 2021, largely driven by the achievement of milestones from our collaborative and partnered programs. We also benefit from equity positions in certain of our collaborators.
•Leveraging the synergies between our businesses: We believe that there are significant synergies within our business. We leverage the feedback that we receive from our software customers, collaborators, and internal drug discovery experts to improve the functionality of our platform, which we believe supports increased customer adoption of our solutions and more rapid advancement of our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. In addition, the success of our collaborators in advancing drug discovery programs provides significant validation of our platform and approach, which we believe increases the attractiveness of our platform to customers, helps us establish new collaborations, and validates the potential of our own proprietary drug discovery programs. Central to our ability to pursue these distinct lines of business is a firewall policy consisting of a set of well-established protocols and technology measures designed to ensure that the intellectual property of our software customers and drug discovery collaborators remains confidential and segregated.
Industry Overview
Traditional drug discovery and development efforts have become increasingly complex, lengthy and capital-intensive, and are prone to high failure rates. Traditional drug discovery involves experimental screening of existing libraries of molecules to find molecules with detectable activity, or “hit molecules,” followed by many iterations of chemical synthesis to attempt to optimize those hit molecules to a development candidate that can be advanced into human clinical trials. Efforts to optimize initial hit molecules for a drug discovery project involve costly and iterative synthesis and testing of molecules seeking to identify a molecule with the required property profile. The optimal profile has the acceptable balance of properties such as potency, selectivity, solubility, bioavailability, half-life, permeability, drug-drug interaction profile, synthesizability, and toxicity. These properties are often inversely correlated, meaning that optimizing one property often de-optimizes others. The challenge of optimizing hit molecules is amplified by the limited number of molecules that can be feasibly tested across these properties with traditional methods. As a result, this optimization process often fails to yield a molecule with a satisfactory property profile to be a development candidate, which is why many drug discovery programs fail to advance into clinical development.
Being able to predict molecular properties before initiating costly and time-consuming experimental synthesis would accelerate drug discovery, reduce costs, and increase the probability of success. If it were possible to accurately predict critical properties of molecules, fewer molecules would have to be experimentally synthesized and tested. As a result, larger pools of molecules could be analyzed allowing for more selective synthesis of molecules, leading to higher-quality molecules. In addition, with predictive computational methods, better selections of molecules would be synthesized through exploration of larger portions of chemical space, leading to higher-quality molecules that would in turn have a higher probability of progressing through clinical development and obtaining regulatory approval for commercial sale.
There have been many attempts to improve the efficiency of the drug discovery process by using computational methods to predict properties of molecules. One of the primary computational methods that many companies have attempted to deploy is machine learning, often referred to as artificial intelligence, or AI. One of the main benefits of machine learning is its ability to rapidly process data at scale. However, machine learning on its own has significant limitations and has therefore had a limited impact on improving the efficiency of the drug discovery process. Machine learning requires input data, referred to as a training set, to build a predictive model. This model is expected to accurately predict properties of molecules similar to the training set, but cannot extrapolate to molecules that are not similar to the training set. Accordingly, since the number of possible molecules that could be synthesized is effectively infinite, machine learning can only cover a minuscule fraction of the total number of molecules that could potentially be synthesized.
The other primary computational method that has been explored to improve drug discovery involves using fundamental, “first-principles” physics-based methods, which require a deep and thorough understanding of the specific property to be computed. However, physics-based methods are difficult to develop and can be slow compared to machine learning. Further, to apply such methods to design molecules that will bind with high affinity to a particular protein target, the three-dimensional structure of that protein must be generated with sufficient atomic detail to enable application of these physics-based approaches, which is referred to as being “structurally enabled,” and such structures have been historically difficult to obtain and are only available today for a relatively small subset of the universe of human proteins. Another
8
factor preventing computational chemistry from realizing its promise has been limited compute speed. However, despite all of these challenges, physics-based methods have a significant advantage over machine learning in that they do not require a training set and can, in principle, compute properties of molecules that are well beyond existing industry experience and data.
Our Platform
Over the past several decades and with the concerted effort of hundreds of our scientists and software engineers, we have developed a computational platform that is capable of predicting critical properties of molecules with a high degree of accuracy. We have built our platform on a foundation of rigorous, physics-based methods, combined with the rapid data processing and scaling advantages of machine learning, that together provide a significant advantage over traditional methods. We believe that physics-based simulation is at an inflection point as a result of the increased availability of massive computing power, combined with a more sophisticated understanding of models and algorithms and the growing availability of high-resolution protein structures.
We have demonstrated that our software platform can have a transformative impact on the drug discovery process by:
•reducing the average time and cost required to identify a development candidate; and
•increasing the probability of drug discovery programs entering clinical development.
Based on our drug discovery efforts to date, including in our collaborative programs, we believe that the development candidates discovered using our platform have a higher probability of successfully progressing through clinical development than the industry average.
As shown below, we achieve these outcomes by tightly integrating our predictive physics-based methods, which have a high degree of accuracy, with machine learning, which is highly scalable. In addition, our platform enables real-time collaboration on drug discovery projects to inform decision-making and maximize the impact of the predictive capabilities of our computational platform.
Our computational platform provides the following significant technological advantages over traditional approaches to drug discovery, all of which enable shortening timelines, decreasing costs, and increasing the probability of success of drug discovery efforts:
•Speed. Our platform is able to evaluate molecules in hours rather than the weeks that it typically takes to synthesize and assay molecules in the laboratory.
9
•Scale. Our platform can explicitly evaluate billions of molecules per day, whereas traditionally operated discovery projects only synthesize approximately one thousand molecules per year, thereby increasing the probability that we find a novel molecule with the desired property profile.
•Quality. In a peer-reviewed study, our platform was tested against traditional methods for selecting tight-binding molecules and resulted in an eight-fold increase in the number of molecules with the desired affinity.
The figure below compares the optimization process of drug discovery using traditional methods and our approach.
Our computational platform includes a broad array of proprietary capabilities:
•Faster Lead Discovery: the ability to rapidly identify potent molecules suitable to initiate hit-to-lead and lead optimization efforts via solutions for virtual screening of extremely large libraries of molecules, as well as physics-based replacement of the central core of a molecule, known as scaffold hopping, to identify novel, highly potent molecules unavailable in library collections;
•Accurate Property Prediction: the ability to assess key properties of drug-like molecules using physics-based calculations with accuracy comparable to that of experimental laboratory assays, to facilitate optimization of drug properties, including drug potency, selectivity, and bioavailability;
•Large-Scale Molecule Exploration: the ability to computationally ideate and explore novel, high-quality drug-like molecules for consideration by discovery project teams utilizing computational enumeration and generative machine learning techniques that are trained and constructed to yield molecules that are synthetically feasible;
10
•Large-Scale Molecule Evaluation: the ability to scale our calculations of key drug properties to ultra-large idea sets of billions of molecules to enable more rapid and successful identification of high-quality drug candidate molecules; and
•Integrated Data Management and Visualization: the ability to generate, access, and analyze the data derived from complex calculations integrated with assay data through a powerful and user-friendly graphical interface.
Recognition of our scientific advances has come through customer adoption, in citations of publications in peer reviewed journals and in the progress of our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. For example, the initial paper describing our ligand-protein docking program, Glide, published in 2004 is one of the most cited papers in the history of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, a premier journal in its field. Glide continues to be broadly used as a hit-finding technology throughout the biopharmaceutical industry by our customers. We have made many similar scientific advances in fields including druggability assessment, affinity calculation, protein structure refinement, and molecule ideation and design. These advances were achieved by our team of hundreds of Ph.D.-level scientists and software engineers with extensive input from our Scientific Advisory Board, which includes thought leaders in computational chemistry, physics-based simulations, statistical mechanics, and machine learning.
Our computational platform is also applicable to new problems of interest and new fields of study. Since the underlying physics that drives a biologic to bind to its target is no different than the physics that drives a small drug molecule to bind to a protein, we have been able to successfully apply these technologies to the discovery of biologics. Similarly, the physics underlying the properties of materials is no different than the physics underlying the properties of drug molecules. Therefore, we have successfully applied our computational platform to materials science applications, including in the fields of aerospace, energy, semiconductors, and electronic displays.
Software Business
Overview
We are the leading provider of computational software solutions for drug discovery to the biopharmaceutical industry. In 2022, all of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies, measured by 2021 revenue, licensed our solutions, accounting for $43.2 million, or 32%, of our software revenue in 2022. Additionally, in 2022, our software was used by researchers around the world at more than 1,720 academic institutions. The widespread adoption of our software is supported by an approximately 230-person global team of sales, technical, and scientific personnel. Our direct sales operations span across the United States, Europe, Japan, India, and South Korea, and we have sales distributors in other important markets, including China.
We have a diverse and large existing customer base, ranging from startup biotechnology companies to the largest global pharmaceutical companies as well as an increasing number of materials science customers. Our ten largest software customers represented approximately 32% of our software revenue in 2022, including one customer that makes up 16% of total revenue. We continue to expand our customer base as we provide education and information to increase the awareness of the potential of our computational platform across different industries. As of December 31, 2022, we had 1,748 active customers, which we define as the number of customers who had an ACV of at least $1,000 in a given fiscal year.
We believe there is a significant opportunity to expand the adoption of our platform within our growing customer base. Biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly adopting our software at a larger scale, and we anticipate that this scaling-up will drive future revenue growth. Our ability to expand within our customer base is demonstrated by the increasing number of our customers with an ACV over $100,000. We had 227, 190, and 153 such customers for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively. In addition, we had 18, 15, and 16 customers for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, with an ACV of over $1.0 million. Furthermore, we also had four customers with an ACV in excess of $5.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2022, compared to two such customers for the year ended December 31, 2021. For the year ended December 31, 2022, our top 10 customers, measured by ACV, accounted for $46.5 million of our total ACV compared to $34.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. We believe biopharmaceutical companies are increasingly recognizing and appreciating the scientific and financial benefits of using our platform at scale.
Furthermore, we believe our sales and marketing approach and the quality of our software solutions help us cultivate long-standing relationships and reoccurring sales. This is demonstrated by the length of our key relationships, with the average tenure of our 10 largest software customers in 2022 being nearly 19 years. Furthermore, our ability to
11
expand our customer relationships over time is exemplified by our ability to retain our customers with an ACV over $100,000. For the year ended December 31, 2022, our year-over-year customer retention rate for our customers with an ACV over $100,000 was 96% and was 96% or higher for each of the previous nine fiscal years. We believe the continued expansion of our customer base coupled with our ability to expand our customers’ use of our software will continue to drive revenue growth. The figure below shows the different ways in which we are accelerating our growth.
See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Key Factors Affecting Our Performance” for additional information regarding ACV and customer retention rate.
Our Software Solutions for Drug Discovery
We offer our customers a variety of software solutions that accelerate all stages of molecule discovery, design, and optimization pursuant to agreements with terms typically for one year. Our licenses give our customers the ability to execute a certain number of calculations across specified software solutions. Certain of our key software solutions are highlighted below, along with the particular stage of drug discovery in which they are employed.
•Target Identification and Validation: the identification and evaluation of a protein target that might be worthwhile to pursue as the subject of a drug discovery campaign.
◦WaterMap characterizes the locations and energetics of water molecules occupying the binding site of, or solvating, a target protein. From this analysis, one can infer the druggability of a protein, as well as uncover opportunities to significantly increase binding affinity by exploiting the water structure in the binding site.
◦SiteMap allows binding site identification and evaluation to help locate potential protein binding sites, including allosteric sites, and predict the approximate druggability of those sites.
◦GlideEM, PrimeX and Phenix/OPLS4 enable optimization of intermediate quality experimental protein structures to a quality sufficient to drive structure-based drug discovery.
•Hit Discovery: the identification of hit molecules.
◦FEP+ is our free energy calculation software. In hit discovery, this software can be used to replace the central core of earlier known tight binding molecules to identify novel, highly potent molecules unavailable in library collections. Often these molecules have much higher binding affinity and have a better property profile than typical hit molecules. FEP+ can also be used to calculate absolute binding affinities, which enables the software to evaluate and triage diverse molecules sharing no common peripheral features in a hit discovery context.
◦Glide is our virtual screening program that is used to screen libraries of molecules to find hit molecules likely to bind a particular protein target in a specific conformation.
◦WScore is our next-generation virtual screening program that utilizes a more accurate and robust description of protein-ligand interaction solvation effects. This and other novel features enable WScore to more reliably find hit molecules for challenging protein targets when screening libraries of molecules.
◦Shape uses the three-dimensional structure and shape of earlier known hit molecules to find new hits when screening libraries of molecules.
12
◦AutoQSAR/DeepChem uses modern machine-learning methods trained to earlier known hit molecules to find novel hits when screening libraries of molecules.
◦Induced Fit Docking can computationally predict the binding mode of molecules to a binding site of a protein, including predicting how the conformation of the protein binding site may reorganize upon binding the molecule.
•Hit to Lead and Lead Optimization: Hit to lead is the stage at which small molecule hits are evaluated and undergo limited optimization to identify promising lead molecules. Lead optimization improves on the property profile of lead molecules by designing new analogs with improved potency, reduced off-target activities, and favorable physicochemical/metabolic properties.
◦FEP+ is our free energy calculation software. In the hit to lead and lead optimization phases of drug discovery, FEP+ is used to predict the binding affinity of ligands to proteins with accuracy approaching that of physical experiments. It allows precise rank-ordering of large libraries of virtual molecules so that only the most potent molecules are synthesized in a program, which can save time and reduce cost. FEP+ can also be used to calculate the binding selectivity, solubility, and mutational resistance profiles of molecules, which are key properties for the optimization of bioavailability, toxicology, and efficacy.
◦AutoQSAR/DeepChem uses modern machine-learning methods to produce predictive quantitative structure-activity relationship, or QSAR, models. This allows more accurate methods, such as FEP+, to be applied at a much greater scale but with less accuracy to much larger sets of molecules than would otherwise be possible and enables predictive QSAR models of other properties to be developed and deployed on drug discovery projects.
◦PathFinder is an enumeration tool that enables the rapid exploration of synthetically tractable ligands. When PathFinder is deployed in conjunction with multiparameter optimization, machine learning, and FEP+ simulations, it provides a streamlined approach to create and evaluate large sets of synthetically tractable, lead-like, potent ligands.
•Software Solutions Used Throughout the Drug Discovery Process:
◦LiveDesign is our user-friendly enterprise informatics solution that enables interactive and collaborative molecule design, aggregation and sharing of data, and end-to-end discovery project coordination between chemists, modelers, and biologists.
◦Maestro is our user-friendly modeling environment, which allows expert modelers to utilize our advanced modeling solutions.
Our Software Solutions for Materials Science
We also sell software licenses to customers engaged in molecule design for industrial purposes. The software solutions for our materials science customers leverage much of the same technology as our software for biopharmaceutical companies. In addition, similar to traditional drug discovery efforts, traditional approaches to discovering new molecules in these fields also suffer from long timelines, and it can take as long as 10 to 20 years to bring new materials to the market. We are focused on leveraging our technology to transform the way new materials are discovered, and we believe that materials science industries are only beginning to recognize the potential of computational methods. We are continuing to build a team of subject matter experts to further drive adoption of our computational platform in each of the following areas in which we currently operate:
•mobile electronics and displays—organic electronics (OLED);
•aerospace and defense—polymers, composites;
•microelectronics—semiconductors, thin film processing;
•oil and gas—catalysis, reactivity;
•energy—alternative energy, batteries; and
•consumer packaged goods—soft matter, formulations.
As part of our ongoing efforts to further advance our software solutions for materials science applications, in June 2020, we entered into a three-year agreement with Gates Ventures, LLC to develop and apply atomistic simulations methods to improve battery performance. Furthermore, in March 2022, we entered into a three-year collaboration with Eonix LLC, or Eonix, to accelerate the discovery and design of materials for safer, energy dense lithium ion batteries. Under the terms of this collaboration, we received an equity stake in Eonix, and will be eligible to receive additional equity upon the successful completion of certain technical milestones.
13
Drug Discovery Business
Overview
We are using our computational platform in both our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. The figure below illustrates the advantages in time, cost, and molecule quality of our computational drug design approach over traditional drug discovery approaches.
The figures below show the number of collaborative and partnered programs we have worked on in each given year, as well as the amount of drug discovery revenue we have generated for the years presented. Collaborative programs on which our discovery work is completed, but for which we remain eligible for future milestones and royalties are not included in the figures below.
As of December 31, 2022, we also had an aggregate of 15 collaborative and partnered programs for which we are eligible to receive future royalties on sales, if any, compared to 13 programs as of December 31, 2021.
While our revenue-generating collaborations are an important component of our business, our strategy is also to invest in wholly-owned drug discovery programs. We evaluate these programs individually to determine the advisability of entering into preclinical and clinical development ourselves, entering into collaboration, or out-licensing programs to optimize their development and clinical and commercial potential. As part of this strategy, we have entered into collaboration agreements with BMS, Zai Lab Limited, and Lilly, which are more fully described in "—Our Proprietary Drug Discovery Programs."
Our drug discovery revenue consists of revenue generated from collaborations through the combination of upfront payments, research funding payments, discovery and development milestones, and other fees, as well as any revenue generated from our pipeline of proprietary drug discovery programs.
14
Our Drug Discovery Collaborations
Over the last decade, leveraging our platform and expertise, we have steadily grown our portfolio of collaborative programs. These programs have provided us with significant income and have the potential to produce additional milestone payments, option fees, and royalties in the future. These programs pursue the discovery and development of clinical candidates across a wide range of therapeutic target protein classes and indications. Many of these programs are pursuing novel molecules for targets where a low-dose small molecule inhibitor or activator with optimal drug-like properties has been difficult to achieve or where selectivity for the target of interest has been difficult to achieve relative to other proteins. We have steadily grown our pipeline of collaborative programs by selectively entering into drug discovery collaborations with leading drug development and commercialization companies. Among the factors that we use to embark on collaborations are whether the targets are well-validated, have high therapeutic potential, and are amenable to the strengths of our computational platform, and whether or not the collaborator brings complementary capabilities, all of which we believe contribute to an increased probability of success.
Through access to the maximum potential scale of our computational platform and our drug discovery and software development teams, our collaborators receive the following key benefits:
•Immediate utilization of our platform: Ability to immediately and efficiently leverage the full benefits of our computational platform, without the need for training or ramp-up time, thereby enabling accelerated drug discovery.
•Access to massive compute power: Ability to run our computational software at scale, thereby avoiding the time and cost needed to build such computational infrastructure on their own.
•Early access to cutting-edge functionality: Real-time access to emerging solutions as they are being developed.
•Target exclusivity: Under our collaboration agreements, we agree to design drugs for a particular protein target or targets using our computational platform and know-how exclusively for the collaborator.
Collaboration Agreements
We have entered into a number of collaborations with biopharmaceutical companies under which our collaborators are pursuing research in a number of therapeutics areas, including without limitation, various programs in oncology, antifungal diseases, fibrosis, inflammatory bowel disease, metabolic disease, autoimmune disease, immuno-oncology, cardiopulmonary disease and tuberculosis. Our current collaborators include, but are not limited to, Ajax Therapeutics, Inc., Bright Angel Therapeutics Inc., Morphic Holding, Inc., or Morphic, Nimbus Therapeutics, LLC, or Nimbus, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., or Otsuka, Petra Pharma Corporation, Sanofi S.A., and Structure Therapeutics Inc. (formerly ShouTi, Inc.). All of the programs being pursued under these collaborations are fully owned and controlled by each respective collaborator. Our opportunity to receive potential revenues from any of these programs is generally limited to research funding payments, development, regulatory, and commercial milestones, and royalties on commercial sales, if any. We are not responsible for advancing their preclinical or clinical development or their commercialization, if approved.
Equity Stakes. We have received equity consideration in certain of our collaborators, and from time to time, we have also made additional equity investments in certain of these collaborators. As noted above, all of these programs are fully owned and controlled by each respective collaborator, with the exception of Faxian Therapeutics, LLC, which is a
15
50/50 joint venture. The following table presents our equity stakes on an issued and outstanding basis (unless otherwise noted) as of December 31, 2022:
| Company | Ownership % | |||||||
| Ajax Therapeutics, Inc. | 6.3% | |||||||
Apollo, LLC (1) | 7.9% | |||||||
| Bright Angel Therapeutics Inc. | 33.3% | |||||||
| Faxian Therapeutics, LLC (JV) | 50.0% | |||||||
Morphic Holding, Inc. (2) | 2.1% | |||||||
Nimbus Therapeutics, LLC (3) | 3.8% | |||||||
| Ravenna Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 3.1% | |||||||
Structure Therapeutics, Inc. (4) | 3.7% | |||||||
(1)Represents our equity in the entity, which entity holds the rights to any future payments received in connection with Gilead Sciences, Inc.’s acquisition of Nimbus’ ACC inhibitor program.
(2)Based on the number of shares of common stock outstanding as of February 21, 2023, as reported on Morphic’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2022, as filed with the SEC on February 23, 2023.
(3)On a fully diluted basis
(4)Based on the number of ordinary shares outstanding as of December 31, 2022, as reported on Structure Therapeutics Inc.'s prospectus, as filed with the SEC on February 6, 2023.
From time to time, we may also receive distributions on account of our equity stakes in our collaborators. For example, in February 2023, Nimbus announced the closing of the acquisition by Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company Limited, or Takeda, of Nimbus Lakshmi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nimbus, and its tyrosine kinase 2, or TYK2, program, which includes the TYK2 inhibitor, NDI-034858, which is being evaluated for the treatment of multiple immune-mediated diseases following positive results from the Phase 2b clinical trial in psoriasis. Following the closing of the acquisition, in February 2023, we received a cash distribution in the amount of $111.3 million from Nimbus, and we expect to receive a second cash distribution in the amount of $36.0 million from Nimbus in the second quarter of 2023, for a total cash distribution of $147.3 million.
Financial Rights. In addition to our equity stakes in certain of our collaborators, we also have rights to various payments on a collaborator-by-collaborator agreement basis including research funding payments, discovery, development, and commercial milestones, and potential royalties in the single-digit range. Under certain of our collaboration agreements, we are also eligible to receive a percentage of our collaborators’ sublicense revenue.
Many of our collaborative programs are currently still in the discovery stages. Generally, the size of the payments we are eligible to receive from a collaborative program increases as the program advances. As a result of the broader validation of our platform, we intend to pursue an increasing number of wholly-owned drug discovery programs, and we will continue evaluating new collaborative programs that fit our selection criteria and where the collaborator’s particular expertise, resources or intellectual property has the potential to create substantial value. Importantly, our current collaboration agreements typically also contemplate additional program targets being added, allowing our collaborators to potentially increase the number of programs under our current collaboration agreements, subject to our pre-existing exclusivity obligations and interests.
However, because these collaborations are not under our control, we cannot predict whether or when we might achieve any event-based increases in research funding payments, milestone payments, royalty or other payments under these collaborations or estimate the full amount of such payments, and we may never receive any such payments. For a further discussion of the risks we face with respect to receipt of any of these payments, please refer to “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Drug Discovery—We may never realize a return on our investment of resources and cash in our drug discovery collaborations”.
How We Work with Our Collaborators. Generally, our existing collaboration agreements provide that we agree to design drugs for a particular target or targets using our computational platform and know-how exclusively for the collaborator. The collaborator retains the intellectual property related to any molecules developed under the collaboration. Generally, our collaborators are not contractually required to provide us with, nor do we expect generally to receive, access to nonpublic information regarding key developments related to the advancement of these collaboration programs, such as clinical trial results, including safety and efficacy data, regulatory communications, or commercialization plans and
16
strategies. To the extent we do receive such information, our collaboration agreements generally require us to maintain the confidentiality of information we receive under the collaboration.
In December 2022, we entered into a multi-part agreement with Otsuka, together with Otsuka’s subsidiary Astex Pharmaceuticals, which includes a collaboration for the discovery and development of a program focused on an emerging central nervous system, or CNS, disease target. Under the collaboration, we are responsible for drug design through lead optimization and Otsuka will be responsible for all other drug discovery and clinical development activities. We received an upfront payment and will be eligible to receive discovery, development and regulatory milestones, as well as tiered royalties on net sales of any products emerging from the drug discovery collaboration in all markets.
Our Proprietary Drug Discovery Programs
In 2018, we began to develop a pipeline of wholly-owned drug discovery programs with the goal of using our platform to produce a portfolio of novel, high value therapeutics. Our initial programs were focused on discovering and developing inhibitors for targets in DNA damage response pathways and genetically defined cancers. Since then, we have expanded into other therapeutic areas, including in the areas of immunology and neurology. The FDA cleared our IND for SGR-1505 in June 2022. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas and currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505. In addition, we continue to advance other wholly-owned programs through IND-enabling studies. We expect to submit an IND application to the FDA for SGR-2921 in the first half of 2023 and for SGR-3515 in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies. In addition, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-2921 in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance. Our strategy is to pursue an increasing number of wholly-owned programs and strategically evaluate on a program-by-program basis advancing them into preclinical and clinical development ourselves, entering into collaborations to co-develop them with leading industry partners, or out-licensing them to maximize their clinical and commercial opportunities.
As part of this strategy, in November 2020, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with BMS pursuant to which we and BMS agreed to collaborate in the discovery, research and development of small molecule compounds for biological targets in the oncology, neurology and immunology therapeutic areas. The initial collaboration targets included HIF-2 alpha and SOS1/KRAS, which were two of our wholly-owned programs. In November 2021, we and BMS mutually agreed to replace the HIF-2 alpha target with another precision oncology target. Following the replacement election, all rights to the HIF-2 alpha target program reverted to us. In September 2022, BMS elected not to proceed with further development of another target and all rights to this program reverted to us. In December 2022, we and BMS entered into an amendment to the agreement to include an additional target in neurology on terms similar to the original agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, as amended, we received a $55.0 million upfront payment from BMS in November 2020 and an additional upfront payment in December 2022, and we are eligible to receive up to $2.7 billion in total milestones from BMS across all potential targets, as well as a tiered percentage royalty on net sales of each product commercialized by BMS ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits, subject to certain specified reductions. We recently announced we are expecting the first program from this collaboration to advance to development candidate status. Following finalization of this advancement, we expect to recognize a drug discovery milestone associated with advancement of the program, which is projected in the first quarter of 2023. See “—Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company” for additional information relating to this agreement.
In August 2021, we entered into a global discovery, development and commercialization collaboration with Zai Lab Limited focused on a novel program in oncology targeting DNA damage response. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and if we elect to co-fund clinical development of a product candidate under the collaboration, we will be entitled to receive 50% of any profits from the commercialization of an approved therapeutic in the United States. We are also eligible to receive up to approximately $338.0 million in preclinical, clinical, regulatory and sales-based milestone payments from Zai Lab Limited for any product candidate developed under the collaboration, and we are entitled to receive tiered royalties on net sales outside the United States.
In September 2022, we entered into a collaboration with Lilly, under which we are responsible for the discovery and optimization of small molecule compounds addressing a specific target. Lilly will be responsible for the completion of preclinical development, clinical development and commercialization. Under the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront payment, and we are eligible to receive up to $425.0 million in discovery, development and commercial milestone payments. We are also eligible to receive low single- to low double-digit royalties on net sales of any products emerging from the collaboration in all markets.
17
In addition to the above, we are also advancing a program in collaboration with Takeda focusing on an oncology target. Under this collaboration, we conduct all drug discovery research and pharmacology activities through the development candidate stage, and Takeda has the option to acquire the program at either the lead optimization stage or development candidate stage and to develop and commercialize such product candidate from the program. We control the drug discovery process and retain all intellectual property rights to any product candidate that is discovered under the program until Takeda exercises its option to acquire the program.
The following is a summary of our proprietary drug discovery programs:
Our Approach to Target Selection
Our selection of targets is based on an extensive analysis of human targets and drug discovery programs. We analyze targets using automated methods at scale. The key steps we take in prioritizing programs involve:
•Structural and modeling enablement. We use our computational platform to analyze protein structure quality as well as druggability of binding sites across thousands of target proteins in parallel. For a subset of high-quality structures of interest, we confirm amenability to our computational platform.
•Evaluation of therapeutic potential. Our selection of targets is strongly influenced by the level of validation of the target, including analysis of human genetics and prior clinical data.
•Identification of unsolved design challenges. We determine whether there are property profile challenges that could be solved by the application of our computational platform and provide a clinically meaningful differentiated, novel, high value product opportunity.
•Assessment of potential value of pathways and mechanisms. We evaluate industry and commercial interest as well as the clinical utility with the aim of prioritizing programs with high commercial and therapeutic potential.
Using this comprehensive analysis, we have identified a large number of protein targets that we believe are amenable to our technology. We continue to evaluate a number of additional targets using this analysis methodology.
SGR-1505: Our MALT1 Inhibitor
We are advancing SGR-1505, our novel MALT1 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas. Constant activation of nuclear factor-kappa B, or NF-κB, a key signaling molecule in B cells, is a hallmark of several subtypes of lymphoma. MALT1 is a key mediator of the NF-κB signaling pathway, the main driver of a subset of B-cell lymphomas, and functions by forming a complex with CARMA1 (Caspase recruitment domain-containing protein 11 also known as CARD-containing MAGUK protein 1) and BCL10 (B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 10) to mediate antigen receptor-induced lymphocyte activation. MALT1 is considered a potential therapeutic target for several subtypes of non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas.
18
Activated B-cell, or ABC, a subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, or ABC-DLBCL, is the most common type of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s B-cell lymphoma. ABC-DLBCL is associated with a number of mutations that trigger a constitutively active NF-κB signaling pathway, which often is mediated by increased MALT1 protease activity. Among these mutations is a gain of function mutation or amplification of MALT1, which has also been identified in ABC-DLBCL patients.
Our program utilized our physics-based software platform to enable the identification and advancement of multiple novel series of MALT1 inhibitors from hit finding to lead optimization. Combining multi-parameter optimization, FEP+, and machine learning, we were able to prioritize tight-binding compounds with drug-like properties, and identified multiple novel and distinct chemical series which showed strong anti-tumor activity, ultimately enabling us to select SGR-1505 as our development candidate in under two years.
19
As shown in the figures below, in preclinical studies, SGR-1505 showed anti-tumor activity in a MALT1 enzymatic assay and strong anti-proliferative effect in cell viability in a Bruton's tyrosine kinase, or BTK, inhibitor resistant OCI-LY3 B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cell line, when compared to ibrutinib, a covalent BTK inhibitor.
As shown in the figures below, in preclinical studies, SGR-1505 also demonstrated strong anti-tumor activities as a single agent in BTK inhibitor resistant OCI-LY3 cells and in BTK sensitive OCI-LY10 B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in vivo cell-line derived xenograft (CDX) models.
TPGS = D-alpha-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate, a solvent used in co-administration for drug dosing in animals; TID = three times a day dosing; SDD = spray dried dispersion; SEM = scanning electron microscopy, a method used to measure cell volume
In addition, as shown in the figures below, SGR-1505 demonstrated strong anti-tumor activities in combination with ibrutinib in the BTK inhibitor sensitive in vivo models, such as the ABC-DLBCL patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model LY2298 and the OCI-LY10 CDX model. Beyond ABC-DLBCL disease models, as shown in the figures below, SGR-1505 also demonstrated single agent anti-tumor activity in an in vivo mantle cell lymphoma REC-1 CDX model.
20
SGR-1505 also showed strong combination effects with venetoclax (an inhibitor of the anti-apoptotic protein B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2)) on inhibition of cancer cell viability in the OCI-LY10 CDX model.
QD = once per day dosing; BID = twice a day dosing
These data suggest that targeting MALT1 with SGR-1505 may expand therapeutic options for patients with selected B-cell lymphomas, such as ABC-DLBCL, with the possibility of expanding into other B-cell lymphomas such as mantle cell lymphoma. Furthermore, SGR-1505 demonstrated potential in combination with BTK inhibitors to overcome drug-induced resistance to BTK inhibitors in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas.
The FDA cleared the IND for SGR-1505 in June 2022. Our Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 is designed as an open-label, multi-center dose escalation clinical trial in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas. We anticipate enrolling up to 52 patients with confirmed mature B-cell malignancies who are 18 years or older and have a life expectancy of equal to or greater than 12 weeks. SGR-1505 will be administered orally. The trial is designed to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, maximum tolerated dose and/or recommended dose of SGR-1505. Exploratory cohorts will evaluate additional pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, preliminary anti-tumor activity and safety to establish the recommended dose, and a sub-study will also evaluate the effect of food and drug-drug interactions.
We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 and we currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505.
SGR-2921: Our CDC7 Inhibitor
We are advancing SGR-2921, our novel CDC7 inhibitor, for the treatment of advanced solid and liquid tumors. CDC7 is a serine/threonine protein kinase that has been shown to play important roles in DNA replication initiation and in response to replication stress and DNA damage. CDC7 levels are high in certain tumors, and are thought to be linked to these cancer cells’ proliferative capacity and ability to bypass normal DNA damage responses.
CDC7 phosphorylates and activates the enzymes responsible for DNA replication initiation and proteins involved in replication stress response. Disruption of CDC7 activity in cancer cells leads to delayed DNA replication, increased replication stress, cell cycle abnormalities, and cell death.
The antiproliferative potential of CDC7 inhibition was validated by a third party in Phase 1 clinical trials of a CDC7 inhibitor in which responses were observed in patients, including those with duodenal, esophageal and cervical cancer. Prior to this positive result, existing CDC7 inhibitors were not sufficiently tight-binding, lacked selectivity, and demonstrated poor pharmacokinetic properties.
In order to maximize the anti-cancer activities of CDC7 inhibitors, very tight-binding inhibitors are required to achieve durable clinical impact as monotherapy or in the context of clinical combinations. Using our computational platform, we identified multiple tight-binding, selective, and novel CDC7 inhibitor series, and selected SGR-2921 as our development candidate.
As shown in Tables 1 and 2 below, SGR-2921 demonstrated inhibition of recombinant human CDC7 in a biochemical kinase assay and in a biophysical assay, as measured by the average IC50 value, which is a measure of the
21
potency of a compound in inhibiting specific biological functions. Table 1 also shows that SGR-2921 demonstrated strong binding affinity to CDC7 with an average equilibrium dissociation constant, or KD, which is a measure of binding affinity between a protein and a binding partner, in the picomolar range. Further, SGR-2921 showed inhibition of the phosphorylation of the serine in position 53, or S53, of the protein MCM2, or pMCM2, a downstream substrate of CDC7, in COLO205, a colorectal cancer cell line, and in two acute myeloid leukemia cell lines, MV-4-11 and MOLM-16.
Table 1 Average IC50 of CDC7 Kinase Activity and Binding Affinity to CDC7 for SGR-2921
Compound | Average IC50 [nM] | KD [pM] | ||||||
SGR-2921 | 0.0277±0.0054 | 10 | ||||||
Table 2 In Vitro Cell Based IC50 Values of pMCM2 (S53) by SGR-2921
Cell line | COLO205 [IC50 (nM)] | MV-4-11 [IC50 (nM)] | MOLM-16 [IC50 (nM)] | ||||||||
pMCM2 (S53) | 1.19±0.41 | 0.92±0.40 | 1.62±0.52 | ||||||||
SGR-2921 also showed anti proliferative activity in vitro in COLO205, MV-4-11 and MOLM-16 cell lines. Table 3 summarizes the average IC50 value from the individual assays.
Table 3 In Vitro Cell Based Viability IC50 Values of SGR-2921
| Cell line | COLO205 [IC50 (nM)] | MV-4-11 [IC50 (nM)] | MOLM-16 [IC50 (nM)] | ||||||||
Cell viability | 9.90±3.72 | 107.55±12.42 | 20.81±7.29 | ||||||||
22
Furthermore, as shown in the figures below, SGR-2921 showed tumor growth inhibition resulting in tumor regression in the COLO205 colorectal cancer CDX model, which is a colorectal cancer cell line derived xenograft model, at doses that did not result in significant body weight loss. SGR-2921 also showed a dose-dependent increase in plasma drug concentration and a dose-dependent decrease in intratumoral pMCM2 in the COLO205 CDX model. In mouse models of acute myeloid leukemia, SGR-2921 also showed strong anti-tumor activity at doses that were tolerated.
We expect to submit an IND application to the FDA for SGR-2921 in the first half of 2023 and plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-2921 in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance.
SGR-3515: Our WEE1 Inhibitor
We are advancing SGR-3515, our novel WEE1 inhibitor for the treatment of gynecological cancers and other solid tumors. WEE1 is a gatekeeper checkpoint kinase that prevents cellular progression through the cell cycle allowing time for DNA repair before cell division takes place. Inhibition of WEE1 allows for accumulation of DNA damage, triggering DNA breakage and apoptosis in tumor cells. Third party WEE1 inhibitors have shown clinically meaningful tumor regression with partial responses and stable disease in ovarian and uterine cancer in clinical trials. A third party WEE1 inhibitor is currently being studied in combinations with chemotherapy, PARP inhibitors, and immunotherapy.
We identified a number of tight-binding, selective WEE1 inhibitor series using our computational platform and we have recently selected SGR-3515 as our development candidate. We believe SGR-3515's physicochemical properties make it well suited for combinations with DNA damage response inhibitors such as PARP and ATR inhibitors and other targeted therapies for the treatment of ovarian, colorectal, breast, and other solid tumors.
Prior third party WEE1 inhibitors may have off-target effects resulting from inhibition of other kinases and proteins, some of which are liver enzymes responsible for elimination of drug and drug metabolites from the body,
23
potentially making dosing and combinations more challenging. As shown in the figure below, we have benchmarked SGR-3515 against AZD1775, a WEE1 inhibitor from AstraZeneca, and Zn-C3, a WEE1 inhibitor being advanced by Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, and SGR-3515 demonstrated an improved kinase selectivity profile and we believe has lower potential for drug-drug interaction, or DDI, liabilities associated with liver enzyme inactivation.
As shown in the figure below, SGR-3515 also showed better potency against WEE1 in cells measured by target engagement marker pCDC2 Y15. The selectivity of SGR-3515 was evaluated by profiling it at 1 uM across a panel of over 400 kinases. SGR-3515 demonstrated a more desirable selectivity profile compared to Zn-C3 and AZD1775.
SGR-3515 has also shown comparable or better effects on the viability of various tumor cells including the A427 non-small cell lung cancer cell line and the OVCAR3 high grade serous ovarian cancer cell line compared to Zn-C3 and ADZ1775. SGR-3515 demonstrated robust and sustainable anti-tumor activity in vivo in A427 and OVCAR3 tumor models. These effects and anti-tumor activity are shown in the figure below with SGR-3515 demonstrating lower IC50 values in these models as compared to Zn-C3 and AZD1775.
All competitor data is internally generated by contract research organizations, using commercially available tools or synthesized by third-party research chemists using publicly available structure information.
We plan to submit an IND application to the FDA for SGR-3515 in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies.
SOS1/KRAS Inhibitor Program
In collaboration with BMS, we are developing a SOS1/KRAS protein-protein interaction inhibitor for the treatment of KRAS-driven cancers. SOS1, or Son of sevenless-1, is involved in the activation and regulation of KRAS. Oncogenic mutant KRAS stimulates the growth of some of the most intractable tumors, such as lung, pancreatic, and colon cancer. Strategies to disrupt the persistently active Ras pathway have focused on targeting Cys12 of the oncogenic mutant KRAS G12C with covalent inhibitors. Disruption of the SOS1/KRAS interaction has emerged as an alternative approach based on third party preclinical data.
Pursuant to our collaboration and license agreement with BMS, once we have discovered or identified a SOS1/KRAS protein-protein interaction inhibitor that meets specified, mutually agreed criteria (or upon BMS's selection), BMS will be solely responsible for the further preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing and commercialization of such candidate at its own expense. See “—Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company” for additional information relating to this agreement.
24
LRRK2 Inhibitor Program
We are developing a LRRK2 inhibitor for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2, a genetically validated target, is a large multifunctional kinase enzyme and mutations in the LRRK2 gene have been shown to be associated with the development of Parkinson’s disease. In 2022, we generated cryo-electron microscopy structures of LRRK2, which have helped us to accelerate the identification of novel LRRK2 inhibitors. We expect to select a development candidate for this program in 2024.
Other and Future Programs
We have identified a large number of protein targets that we believe are amenable to our computational platform, and now have a significant inventory of targets that we can potentially advance into discovery programs. The Schrödinger Therapeutics Group also intends to pursue targets with strong biological validation and therapeutic potential that currently lack protein structures of sufficient quality to permit the use of our computational platform for drug discovery. We are actively pursuing strategic alliances with collaborators, as well as progressing internal initiatives, that enable us to generate high-quality protein structures for these targets, which will enable us to initiate discovery efforts. For example, as part of these efforts, in 2020 we entered into strategic partnerships with Viva Biotech to access new x-ray crystal structures as well as with Thermo Fisher Scientific to obtain structures of protein complexes leveraging cryo-EM technology. Furthermore, in January 2022, we acquired XTAL BioStructures, Inc., a company that provides structural biology services, including biophysical methods, protein production and purification, and X-ray crystallography, which we believe will augment our ability to produce high quality target structures for our drug discovery programs.
Our initial programs are focused on discovering and developing inhibitors for targets in DNA damage response pathways and genetically defined cancers. Genomic instability of malignant cells leads to genetic mutations that can drive resistance to kinase inhibitors, creating the need for second and third generation drugs targeting the same disease. Our computational platform has been shown to be capable of predicting the impact that mutations in the kinase domain have on drug binding, potency, and drug sensitivity. Use of our platform to assess and evaluate the impact of clinical mutations on drug potency can be a powerful tool for drug discovery. We believe that deploying our platform at scale with access to genomic profiling data for patients puts us in a strong position to predict the impact of active-site resistance mutations with clinically relevant accuracy to optimize the design of molecules that are robust against common resistant mutations.
In addition to our programs highlighted above, we are also progressing a number of undisclosed programs in the areas of oncology, immunology, and neurology. We are pursuing certain of these programs on our own and certain of these programs are partnered with others pursuant to our collaboration agreements described above. All of these programs are currently in the discovery stage, and we have not yet identified a development candidate for any of these programs.
Technical Details of Our Key Technologies
Calculation of key drug properties using physics-based methods
Over the past several decades and with the concerted effort of hundreds of our scientists and software engineers, we have developed a physics-based computational platform that is capable of predicting the binding affinity of a drug molecule with a high degree of accuracy. The binding affinity of a drug molecule to a target protein is the key driving force of its in vivo efficacy. Specifically, when a drug binds to a target protein, the affinity with which it binds directly affects the extent to which it will modulate the function of the protein. Therefore, the ability to predict the binding affinity of a drug molecule to a target protein with a high degree of accuracy can significantly accelerate discovery of new efficacious medicines.
Accurately calculating the binding affinity of a drug molecule to a protein is enormously complex and requires a full characterization of all the physical contributions to the binding. These contributions include the deformation and/or rigidification of the small molecule into the bound conformation (ΔG(1) in the figure below) and the rigidification of the protein in the bound conformation (ΔG(2)), the removal of waters surrounding the molecule (ΔG(3)) and the removal of
25
waters within the protein binding site (ΔG(4)), and finally the interactions achieved between the molecule and protein when binding to form the protein-molecule complex (ΔG(5)).
We have developed a solution to consistently assess all of these contributions to binding with a high degree of accuracy, building on a method called “free energy perturbation.” Free energy perturbation perturbs, or transforms, an initial molecule into another molecule of interest and evaluates how that transformation changes binding affinity to a particular protein target. Our solution for conducting these calculations is called FEP+. FEP+ is enabled by the following differentiated constituent technologies:
•classical molecular mechanics force field with broad coverage of drug-like molecules with a high degree of accuracy;
•an automated workflow allowing for force field coverage to be extended on the fly utilizing our accurate quantum mechanics software;
•computationally efficient molecular dynamics engine that runs on graphic processing units;
•efficient, enhanced sampling methods that allow the calculation to be converged with reduced simulation times;
•automated atom-mapping and interaction-mapping assignment; and
•ability to scale these calculations to leverage large cloud computing environments.
All of these constituent technologies are necessary to achieve the accuracy, scalability and applicability of our free energy perturbation implementation.
In a notable peer-reviewed study including approximately 3,000 molecules across approximately 90 distinct projects, FEP+ exhibited an error profile that indicates its affinity predictions approach the accuracy of running a laboratory experiment. FEP+ is also able to perform these computations more rapidly than experimental assays. Computational assessment of a molecule utilizing FEP+ requires only a few hours. In comparison, it often takes weeks to synthesize a drug-like molecule and assay its binding affinity for the target of interest in a laboratory. As a result, our FEP+ solution can be used to explore very large numbers of molecules to identify drug candidates much more rapidly than would be possible solely using experimental approaches.
In a peer-reviewed article published in collaboration with a large biopharmaceutical company, the ability of FEP+ to prioritize molecules for synthesis expected to bind more tightly than an initial hit was compared with several other industry-standard approaches. We found that FEP+ succeeded in prioritizing the synthesis of molecules with improved
26
binding affinity with eight times greater success than any other technique tested. This evidence supports the essential role that FEP+ can play in advancing drug discovery programs.
Enumeration of extremely large libraries of molecules
We have developed methods to enumerate extremely large libraries of molecules with our PathFinder software solution, thereby allowing our software customers, our drug discovery collaborators, and the Schrödinger Therapeutics Group to explore a much larger portion of chemical space than is possible through manual design. The chemical enumeration technology we have developed incorporates the most commonly used chemical reactions and can, in a fully automated fashion, computationally explore billions of alterations of a molecule of interest.
Scaling accurate physics-based calculations to extremely large libraries of molecules
Although FEP+ calculations have been shown to be accurate, it is not possible to apply these calculations to billions of molecules given the current availability of computing resources. To address this problem, we developed an approach that leverages the accuracy of FEP+, but allows for exploration of billions of molecules rapidly by leveraging machine learning. We have succeeded in integrating our physics-based molecule scoring with highly computationally efficient modern machine-learning methods. This combined approach allows us to apply our physics-based calculations to much larger sets of molecules than would otherwise be computationally tractable. This allows us to both increase the speed and likelihood of identifying clinically viable molecules.
Advances in deep learning, a type of machine learning, in the past several years have required very large data sets as input to train the model. In a drug discovery program, the experimental data is typically sparse and expensive to procure, which is particularly problematic given that relevant drug-like chemical space is effectively infinitely large, estimated to be 10^60 molecules. For this reason, we believe that it would be extremely difficult to realize competitive advantage in a drug discovery program by using a platform exclusively based on machine learning or deep learning. Instead, we have developed an approach to integrate physics-based and machine-learning based scoring methodologies that allows the machine learning model to interactively prioritize additional molecules for physics-based analyses, known as active learning. Active learning retains the computational efficiency of machine learning while also taking advantage of the accuracy of the physics-based method. One can evaluate the utility of any particular prediction method with regard to both its accuracy and its computational efficiency. Modern machine learning methods, such as deep learning, do provide a small improvement over conventional machine learning methods. However, for much of its history, conventional molecular simulations were much less computationally efficient than machine learning but not that much more accurate.
In developing FEP+, we were able to resolve deficiencies in early attempts to develop physics-based methods. FEP+ calculations are much more accurate than either conventional machine learning or modern machine learning when scoring molecules structurally distinct from the training set data. In addition, by integrating FEP+ with our machine learning implementation, which we refer to as AutoQSAR/DeepChem, we developed a solution that we refer to as Active Learning FEP+. Active Learning FEP+ combines the accuracy of free energy calculations with the speed of machine learning calculations and can be used to explore up to billions of molecules within a day. By further combining this functionality with our ability to enumerate large sets of molecules provided by PathFinder and our ability to build and manage complex workflows utilizing cloud resources, we are able to deploy these capabilities at scale to advance projects.
Active Learning FEP+ is depicted in the figure below.
27
FEP+ is used to build a local model for a large library of molecules instead of relying on experimental data to provide the training set for the machine learning model. That machine learning model is then used to filter the large library of molecules down to a number that is small enough to be able to prioritize with FEP+. The result is that we can prioritize one billion molecules in as little as a day, rather than one million days.
Rapid identification of novel active hit molecules suitable to initiate hit-to-lead and lead optimization efforts
Several hit-finding technologies we have developed are routinely used to identify active hit molecules to initiate small molecule drug discovery programs. In our hit-finding campaigns, we and our software customers typically utilize:
•modern machine learning models trained to the two-dimensional structures of known active molecules using our software solution, AutoQSAR/DeepChem;
•shape-based methods trained to the known or computationally deduced three-dimensional bioactive conformations of known active molecules using our software solution, Shape;
•structure-based docking methods that evaluate the number and kind of interactions possible utilizing a static atomistic representation of the experimentally determined three-dimensional structure of the target protein receptor using our software solutions, Glide and WScore; and
•free energy calculations using our software solution FEP+, which provides a fully dynamic atomistic representation of the target protein receptor.
These four approaches are complementary to each other, and their integrated use has led to successful hit-finding campaigns for dozens of protein targets in our collaborative and proprietary drug discovery programs. There are also numerous reports in the literature and in patents of our software customers utilizing some combination of these approaches to identify hit molecules.
AutoQSAR/DeepChem is trained to find known active molecules in a search through a molecule library and operates solely on the two-dimensional structure of the molecule. From this training process, AutoQSAR/DeepChem learns to identify substructures in the molecules that may lead to activity. Then when applied to large libraries of molecules, these methods can identify molecules with measurable activity against the target protein. These methods are highly efficient and can be used to screen billions of molecules in less than one day. However, one significant limitation is that machine learning methods cannot extrapolate into chemical space that differs from the training set and therefore, this method tends to identify molecules similar to already known molecules.
Shape is used to identify molecules with a similar shape to known active molecules. It has been shown that molecules with similar three-dimensional shapes can have similar activities. While the hit rates and computational efficiencies of Shape and AutoQSAR/DeepChem are generally comparable, the hit molecules returned by these techniques tend to be distinct and complementary rather than redundant. This allows results from Shape to augment the AutoQSAR/DeepChem results while still being efficient for screening a large library.
Glide and WScore use knowledge of three-dimensional structure of the binding site of the protein of interest, rather than the structure of active molecules, to evaluate the likelihood that a small molecule will bind to a protein target. Glide and WScore evaluate molecules based on the number and kind of contacts made between the molecule and protein. These methods are much more computationally expensive than AutoQSAR/DeepChem or Shape. However, they can be more readily applied to targets for which there is little or no earlier reported active molecules.
The fourth computational method we routinely use to identify hit molecules to initiate drug discovery programs is the FEP+ solution described above. When used in this context, FEP+ can be used to completely replace the core moiety of an earlier known molecule to yield a novel molecule with similar binding potency. This approach is much more computationally intensive than previous methods, but is also much more accurate. Utilizing this approach on multiple programs, we have been able to identify novel nanomolar or picomolar inhibitors in the first few months of project chemistry that have property profiles typical of molecules only observed in the later hit-to-lead phases of drug discovery. Our FEP+ solution also supports the calculation of absolute binding affinities, which enables the software to evaluate and triage diverse molecules sharing no common peripheral features in a hit discovery context.
28
Computational analysis of the energetic properties of water molecules occupying molecule binding sites in proteins
Subtle structural variations in molecules can have a profound impact on binding affinity to the protein target. The effects of these structural variations can be explained by a detailed examination of the thermodynamics of binding, including the free energy changes resulting from displacing water molecules in the binding site. Our computational software solution WaterMap maps the locations and energetic properties of water molecules that occupy protein binding sites, provides insight into the properties of the binding site, and quantitatively describes the water-mediated forces driving the binding of small molecules. Further, such an analysis can be used to assess the propensity of drug-like molecules to bind to the protein target with high affinity. WaterMap presents the computed results graphically for easy visualization of the water molecules occupying a binding site and their energetic properties. This makes interpretation of binding affinity data more intuitive and provides insights to possible design routes to improve potency and selectivity.
Competition
Software Business
The overall market for molecular discovery and design software is global, rapidly evolving, competitive, and subject to changing technology and shifting customer interests and priorities. The solutions and applications offered by our competitors vary in size, breadth, and scope.
We believe the principal competitive factors in our market include, among other things, accuracy of computations, level of customer satisfaction and functionality, ease of use, breadth and depth of solution and application functionality, brand awareness and reputation, modern and adaptive technology platform, integration, security, scalability and reliability of applications, total cost, ability to innovate and respond to customer needs rapidly, and ability to integrate with legacy enterprise infrastructures and third-party applications.
We believe that we compete favorably on the basis of these factors and that the effort and investment required to develop a computational, physics-based platform similar to ours will hinder new entrants that are unable to invest the necessary capital and time, and lack the breadth and depth of technical expertise required to develop competing technology. Our ability to remain competitive will largely depend on our ability to continue to improve our computational platform and demonstrate success in our drug discovery efforts.
Our software solutions face competition from competitors in the business of selling or providing simulation and modeling software to biopharmaceutical companies. These competitors include BIOVIA, a brand of Dassault Systèmes SE, or BIOVIA, Chemical Computing Group (US) Inc., Cresset Biomolecular Discovery Limited, Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Optibrium Limited, Cyrus Biotechnology, Inc., Molsoft LLC, Insilico Medicine, Inc., Iktos, XtalPi Inc., and Simulations Plus, Inc.
We also have competitors in materials science, such as BIOVIA and Materials Design, Inc., and in enterprise software for the life sciences, such as BIOVIA, Certara USA, Inc., ChemAxon, PerkinElmer, Inc., and Dotmatics, Inc. In some cases, these competitors are well-established providers of these solutions and have long-standing relationships with many of our current and potential customers, including large biopharmaceutical companies. In addition, there are academic consortia that develop physics-based simulation programs for life sciences and materials applications. In life sciences, the most prominent academic simulation packages include AMBER, CHARMm, GROMACS, GROMOS, OpenMM, and OpenFF. These packages are primarily maintained and developed by graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, often without the intent of commercialization.
We also face competition from solutions that biopharmaceutical companies develop internally, smaller companies that offer products and services directed at more specific markets than we target, enabling these competitors to focus a greater proportion of their efforts and resources on these markets, as well as a large number of companies that have been founded with the goal of applying machine learning technologies to drug discovery.
Drug Discovery Business
The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. While we believe that our computational platform, technology, knowledge, experience, and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, our drug discovery business faces potential competition from many sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty biopharmaceutical companies, technology companies, academic institutions and government agencies, and public and
29
private research institutions. Any product candidates that we or one of our collaborators successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.
The key competitive factors affecting the success of the product candidates we develop, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, tolerability, convenience and price, the level of branded and generic competition and the availability of adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. If any of our product candidates are approved and successfully commercialized, it is likely that we will face increased competition as a result of other companies pursuing development of similar products or products that address similar diseases.
In particular, there is intense competition in the field of oncology, which is a focus of our drug discovery efforts. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, emerging and start-up companies, universities and other research institutions. We also compete with these organizations to recruit management, scientists and clinical development personnel, which could negatively affect our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan. We also face competition in finding and establishing clinical trial sites, enrolling subjects for clinical trials, accessing combination studies and recruiting credible principal investigators and advisors from key clinical disciplines and academic centers.
For example, with respect to our MALT1 inhibitor, SGR-1505, which we are advancing for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas, we are aware of several MALT1 inhibitors in clinical development, including by Janssen Research and Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company, AbbVie Inc., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Zentalis Pharmaceuticals. In addition, we are also aware of other therapeutics, both approved and in clinical development, for the treatment of B-cell lymphomas.
Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in building and accessing networks of expert investigators, designing and conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and manufacturing and commercializing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and development and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or in discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.
Collaboration Agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
In November 2020, we entered into an exclusive, worldwide collaboration and license agreement with BMS, pursuant to which we and BMS agreed to collaborate in the discovery, research and preclinical development of small molecule compounds (other than protein-degrader compounds) for biological targets in the oncology, neurology and immunology therapeutic areas.
Under the agreement, during a limited research term, we will be responsible, at our own cost and expense, for the discovery of small molecule compounds (other than protein-degrader compounds) directed to five specified biological targets pursuant to a mutually agreed research plan for each such target. The initial collaboration targets included HIF-2 alpha and SOS1/KRAS, which were two of our early-stage programs. In November 2021, we and BMS mutually agreed to replace the HIF-2 alpha target with another precision oncology target. Following the replacement election, all rights to the HIF-2 alpha target program reverted to us. In September 2022, BMS elected not to proceed with further development of another target and all rights to this program reverted to us. In December 2022, we and BMS entered into an amendment to the agreement to include an additional target in neurology on terms similar to the original agreement.
Once we have discovered or identified a compound for a target that meets specified, mutually-agreed criteria or upon BMS selection of a compound as a development candidate, BMS will be solely responsible for the further preclinical and clinical development, manufacturing and commercialization of such candidate at its own cost and expense. The
30
research term will end on the earlier of four years or until we have delivered a candidate for each specified target. We may elect to extend the research term for a limited period of time to deliver a candidate for a given target. In addition, the parties may mutually agree to extend the initial research term for an additional year. Under the agreement, BMS has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, seek and obtain regulatory approval for, and commercialize at least one product that contains a licensed compound for each target in each of the United States, Japan and the European Union. The research component of the collaboration will be overseen by a joint steering committee comprised of an equal number of representatives from each of us and BMS. In addition to the initial specified targets, the parties have also agreed on a list of four reserved targets. BMS may replace one of the initial specified targets with a reserved target during a limited substitution period in the research term.
Pursuant to the agreement, for a given target, we have granted to BMS an exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses, under certain patent rights, know-how and materials controlled by us to clinically develop, manufacture, use, sell, offer for sale, export and import and otherwise exploit, and have others do the same, any compound, molecule or product for such target throughout the world.
Under the terms of the agreement, BMS paid us an initial upfront fee payment of $55.0 million, and we received an additional upfront fee payment in connection with the amendment in December 2022. We are also entitled to receive up to $2.7 billion in total milestones across all potential targets. Such milestones consist of up to $585.0 million in total milestones per oncology target, including $360.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified research, development and regulatory milestones and $225.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified commercial milestones, as well as up to $489.0 million in total milestones per neurology and immunology target, including $264.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified research, development and regulatory milestones and $225.0 million in the aggregate for certain specified commercial milestones. With respect to the additional neurology target we and BMS added pursuant to the December 2022 amendment, we are entitled to similar research, development, and regulatory milestones and commercial milestones for such target as under the original agreement.
We are also entitled to a tiered percentage royalty on annual global net sales of licensed products ranging from mid-single digits to low-double digits, subject to certain specified reductions. Royalties are payable by BMS on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis until the later of the expiration of the last valid claim of certain specified patent rights covering the licensed product in such country, expiration of all applicable regulatory exclusivities in such country for such licensed product and the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country.
The agreement excludes any activities relating to protein-degrader compounds. However, under the terms of the agreement, for a limited period of time after the execution of the agreement, we and BMS agreed to negotiate a separate definitive agreement pursuant to which we will agree to license to BMS the right to conduct research, development and commercialization activities with respect to degrader compounds for the targets under the agreement. In August 2021, we and BMS entered into a definitive agreement to discover, develop and commercialize bifunctional protein degraders consistent with the terms and conditions described in the initial collaboration agreement.
On a target-by-target basis, during the term of the agreement for a given target, we are prohibited from clinically developing or commercializing, ourselves or with a third party, any nucleic acid, antibody, biologic, compound, small molecule or other molecule, or any product that contains the foregoing, that specifically modulates as its primary mechanism of action such target, or is designed to specifically modulate such target. Such prohibition encompasses both the initial specified targets listed as of the effective date of the agreement and those targets on the reserved target list for the limited substitution period.
Unless earlier terminated, the agreement will expire on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis on the expiration of the applicable royalty term for such licensed product in such country and in its entirety upon expiration of the last royalty term for the last licensed product. Either party may terminate the agreement earlier upon an uncured material breach of the agreement by the other party on a target-by-target basis, or upon the occurrence of certain events of insolvency of the other party.
Additionally, BMS may terminate the agreement for any or no reason, in its entirety or on a target-by-target basis, upon specified written notice to us. BMS may also terminate the agreement on a target-by-target basis for safety reasons. We may terminate the agreement on a target-by-target basis to the extent BMS commences or participates in challenging certain patents licensed by us to BMS under the agreement.
31
In the event that BMS terminates the agreement at will, or if we terminate for a breach, insolvency or patent challenge by BMS, we are entitled to certain reversionary rights with respect to certain compounds and products for the applicable terminated target(s).
In the event that BMS has the right to terminate the agreement, in whole or with respect to a particular target, upon our uncured material breach or an event of insolvency with respect to us, then in lieu of so terminating, BMS has the right to elect to the have the agreement continue in full force and effect; provided that all royalties and milestones thereafter payable by BMS to us with respect to such applicable target(s) shall be reduced by 50%.
License Agreements with Columbia University
We have entered into several license agreements with Columbia University, or the Columbia License Agreements. The Columbia License Agreements establish our rights and obligations with respect to certain patents, software code, technology, and improvements thereto that we license from Columbia University and that are used in, and integrated into, our software solutions, and our physics-based computational platform. Our rights and obligations under, and the terms and conditions of, the Columbia License Agreements that we consider material to the operation of our business are described more fully below.
On November 1, 2008, we entered into an amendment, or the Royalty Amendment, to certain Columbia License Agreements, including each of the agreements described below. The Royalty Amendment simplified the royalties payable under each agreement on gross revenues generated from the use of any product which contains any code or software, or is covered by any patent, that we license from Columbia University, or a Licensed Product, in connection with a services agreement. We also pay royalties under the Columbia License Agreements on gross revenues generated from the sale, licensing or renting of our Licensed Products, which we calculate on a product-by-product basis. In the event that one or more Licensed Products are sold together with other products for a single aggregate license fee, we have agreed to pay to Columbia University the applicable royalty on the gross revenues attributable to each Licensed Product based on the relative list prices of each product covered by such license fee.
For a description of the royalties payable by us to Columbia University in connection with our services agreements, see “—Services Royalty Amendment” below.
PS-GVB License Agreement
On May 5, 1994, we entered into a license agreement, or the 1994 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on September 9, 2004 and November 1, 2008. The technology licensed under the 1994 Columbia Agreement is incorporated into our Jaguar quantum mechanical program, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. The 1994 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, exclusive, license to the software code developed by Columbia University and incorporated into the electronic structure software program PS-GVB v1.0, or the PS-GVB Code, and all improvement to the PS-GVB v1.0 software program and PS-GVB Code developed by Columbia University, or the PS-GVB Improvements, including all PS-GVB Code and PS-GVB Improvements that are incorporated into any new products, new releases, and new versions related to the software, or the New PS-GVB Module Code, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. We may only sublicense the PS-GVB Code, the PS-GVB Improvements, and the New PS-GVB Module Code, or the Licensed PS-GVB Software, to the extent they are incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. Under the 1994 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to conduct, research using the Licensed PS-GVB Software.
As consideration for entering into the 1994 Columbia Agreement, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in the low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable PS-GVB v1.0 software program on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, or renting of the PS-GVB v1.0 software program, including any improvements and modifications thereto, regardless of whether such improvement or modification is marketed as a new version, new release, or new product, excluding any sales to Columbia University and any revenue generated under services agreements.
The 1994 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by us or Columbia University only upon the other party’s material breach of the agreement and such party’s failure to cure such breach. Upon
32
termination, any third party that has licensed the Licensed PS-GVB Software from us will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software.
Fast Multipole RESPA License Agreement
On July 15, 1998, we entered into a license agreement, or the 1998 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on September 4, 2004, and November 1, 2008. The 1998 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, non-exclusive, license to the Fast Multipole RESPA code developed at Columbia University, or the RESPA Code, which was incorporated into the IMPACT software program used in our Glide ligand-protein docking program, PrimeX protein modelling program, QSite QM/MM program, and Combglide automated library generation program, and all improvements to the IMPACT software program, including any new versions and new releases thereof, that are developed by Columbia University, or the IMPACT Improvements, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, compile, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. We may sublicense the RESPA Code and the IMPACT Improvements, or the Licensed IMPACT Software, to the extent it is incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. Under the 1998 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to conduct, research using the Licensed IMPACT Software.
As consideration for entering into the 1998 Columbia Agreement, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in the low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable IMPACT software program on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, or renting of the IMPACT software program, including any improvements and modifications thereto and any new versions and new releases thereof, excluding any sales to Columbia University and revenue generated under services agreements.
The 1998 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by us or Columbia University only upon the other party’s material breach of the agreement and such party’s failure to cure such breach. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed software from us subject to the 1998 Columbia Agreement will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software.
Protein Folding License Agreement
In September 2001, we entered into a license agreement, or the 2001 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on September 9, 2004 and November 1, 2008. The technology licensed under the 2001 Columbia Agreement is incorporated into our Prime protein modelling program, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. The 2001 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, exclusive license to the protein folding code developed by Columbia University, or the Folding Code; all improvements to the Folding Code and to any of our products, software, or code that incorporates any part of the Folding Code, including any improvements thereto and new versions or new releases thereof, that are developed by Columbia University, or the Folding Code Improvements; and the issued patent covering the Folding Code, or the Folding Code Patent, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, compile, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. We may sublicense the Folding Code, the Folding Code Improvements and the Folding Code Patent, or the Licensed Folding Code Software, to the extent it is incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. Under the 2001 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to conduct, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to conduct, research using the Licensed Folding Code Software.
As consideration for entering into the 2001 Columbia Agreement, we paid Columbia University a one-time, nominal license fee. In addition, we have paid royalties to Columbia University in low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable product, software program, or code on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, or renting of any commercial product, software program, or code incorporating the Licensed Folding Code Software, excluding any sales to Columbia University and revenues generated under services agreements. Our obligation to pay any royalty under the 2001 Columbia Agreement, including any royalty paid pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, terminated with the expiration of the last to expire patent licensed under the 2001 Columbia Agreement in January 2014.
33
The 2001 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by Columbia University only upon our material breach of the agreement and our failure to cure such breach. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed software from us subject to the 2001 Columbia Agreement will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software.
PLOP License Agreement
On June 19, 2003, we entered into a license agreement, or the 2003 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on November 1, 2008. The technology licensed under the 2003 Columbia Agreement is incorporated into our Prime and PrimeX protein modelling programs and our Membrane Permeability model, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. The 2003 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide, exclusive license to the protein local optimization program software code, or the PLOP Code, developed at Columbia University and the University of California and all software code comprising improvements to the PLOP Code that are developed by Columbia University or the University of California, or the PLOP Improvements, in each case, to reproduce, use, execute, copy, compile, operate, sublicense, and distribute in connection with the marketing and sale of our products and services, to develop improvements thereto, and to conduct research and backup disaster recovery. Pursuant to an interinstitutional agreement between Columbia University and the University of California, the University of California granted Columbia University the sole right to license the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements and has agreed not to license the PLOP Code or PLOP Improvements to any third party for as long as the interinstitutional agreement remains in effect. We may sublicense the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements to the extent they are incorporated into a product that is sold directly by us or that is distributed on our behalf. We are restricted from distributing the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements source code without the prior written consent of Columbia University.
Columbia University and the University of California retain the right to use, and to permit other academic and non-profit research institutions to use, the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements for teaching and academic research purposes.
As consideration for entering into the 2003 Columbia Agreement, we paid Columbia University a one-time, nominal license fee. In addition, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in low-single digit to low-double digit percentages based upon the contribution of Columbia University generated code to the applicable product, software program, or code on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, leasing, or renting any commercial product, software program, or code incorporating the PLOP Code or any PLOP Improvements, excluding any sales to Columbia University or the University of California and revenues generated under services agreements. Our obligation to pay any royalty under the 2003 Columbia Agreement, including any royalty paid pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, will terminate on June 19, 2023.
Columbia University is responsible for the copyright registration of the PLOP Code and PLOP Improvements. We are responsible for paying all reasonable copyright registration and attorney fees in connection with such copyright registrations.
The 2003 Columbia Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated by us or Columbia University only upon the other party’s material breach of the agreement and such party’s failure to cure such breach. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed software from us subject to the 2003 Columbia Agreement will retain the right to use such software, and we will have the perpetual right to continue to provide support to any such third parties in connection with their use of such software.
Water Site Analysis License
On May 27, 2008, we entered into a software and patent license agreement, or the 2008 Columbia Agreement, with Columbia University, which was amended on November 1, 2008. The 2008 Columbia Agreement grants us a worldwide license, exclusive in the field of computational chemistry software and related services, to (a) certain software that implements the water site analysis method, or the Water Site Software; (b) all patent rights covering the Water Site Software, or the Water Site Patents; and (c) any products that incorporate or include the Water Site Software, or that is covered by the Water Site Patents, or the Water Site Products, in each case, to reproduce, modify, distribute, and perform and display in connection with the development, marketing, and sale of our products and services, to conduct research using the Water Site Software, and to conduct backup disaster recovery. Our Water Site Products include our WaterMap Core program, which we market and distribute as part of our physics-based computational platform. We are restricted from
34
distributing the Water Site Software source code without the prior written consent of Columbia University. Under the 2008 Columbia Agreement, Columbia University retains the right to use, and to permit other entities and individuals to use, the Water Site Software and Water Site Patents for academic and non-commercial educational purposes in the field of computational chemistry software and related services.
As consideration for entering into the 2008 Columbia Agreement, we paid Columbia University a one-time, nominal license fee. In addition, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in low-double digit percentages on our, and our affiliates’, gross revenues from the sale, licensing, leasing, or renting of any Water Site Product, excluding any sales to Columbia University and revenues generated under services agreement. The royalties under the 2008 Columbia Agreement are paid on a product-by-product basis and vary based on whether or not the gross revenues are generated in countries of manufacture or sale in which the Water Site Product is covered by a Water Site Patent. In the event that there are multiple royalties payable on a single product, we are required to (i) pay the higher of the two royalties, if there are no more than two royalties payable on the particular Water Site Product or (ii) negotiate in good faith with Columbia University on a single royalty, if there are more than two royalties payable on the particular Water Site Product. In the event that we take action against Columbia University with respect to the validity or enforceability of any Water Site Patents, excluding any defensive actions or claims, the royalties paid under the 2008 Columbia Agreement will increase by a specified amount. Our obligation to pay any royalty under the 2008 Columbia Agreement, including any royalty paid pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, will terminate on May 27, 2028.
Columbia University is responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of the Water Site Patents in the jurisdictions that we specify. If we decide to discontinue the prosecution or maintenance of any Water Site Patent in any jurisdiction, but Columbia University objects to such discontinuation, our license to use such Water Site Patent will terminate in that jurisdiction; provided that, if we are using the Water Site Patent or Water Site Software in the jurisdiction at issue, Columbia University is obligated to discuss in good faith whether the licenses should instead be non-exclusive. Columbia University is also responsible for the enforcement of the Water Site Patent at its own expense and in its sole judgment; provided that, if we provide Columbia University with evidence of infringement of a Water Site Patent by a third party, and Columbia University fails to take appropriate enforcement action, we may initiate legal proceedings against the alleged infringer. We are responsible for reimbursing Columbia University for their reasonable expenses in connection with prosecuting and maintaining the Water Site Patents.
Unless terminated earlier, the 2008 Columbia Agreement will expire on a product by product and country by country basis upon the later of (i) the expiration of the last issued Water Site Patent, (ii) fifteen years from the date of the first commercial sale of a Water Site Product in a given country, and (iii) the expiration of the Water Site Software copyright. Columbia University may terminate the 2008 Columbia Agreement if we fail to cure a material breach, become subject to a voluntary or involuntary petition for bankruptcy or any other proceeding relating to insolvency, receivership or liquidation, or initiate any proceeding or assert any claim challenging the validity or enforceability of the Water Site Patents. Upon termination, any third party that has licensed a Water Site Product from us will retain the right to use such product, subject to the terms of their existing license agreement with us, and we will have the right to continue to provide support to any such third parties for the duration of their license agreement.
Services Royalty Amendment
On November 1, 2008, we entered into the Royalty Amendment with Columbia University, which amended and simplified our royalty obligations under each of the Columbia License Agreements described in each of the foregoing sections. Pursuant to the Royalty Amendment, we have agreed to pay royalties to Columbia University in mid-single digit percentages on the service fees generated from services (excluding certain gross revenue, including revenue generated under agreements with Columbia University) that we, or our affiliates, perform using one or more Licensed Products under an agreement with a third party. Upon termination of any of the Columbia License Agreements for any reason other than our material breach, we will have the right to continue to use the Licensed Products to provide services under existing third-party service agreements, until the expiration or termination of such agreements.
Intellectual Property
We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including by seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or jointly, or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation, collaboration opportunities, and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in our field.
35
It is important to our future commercial success to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions, and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our intellectual property rights, in particular our patent, trademark, and copyright rights; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing, misappropriating, or violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing any products we develop may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.
The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific, and factual issues. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. We also cannot ensure that patents will issue with respect to any patent applications that we or our licensors may file in the future, nor can we ensure that any of our owned or licensed patents or future patents will be commercially useful in protecting our software, technology, computational platform, and any product candidates we develop. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any products we develop will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we hold or may hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property.
Our strategy is to file patent applications directed to our key software and our key programs in an effort to secure our intellectual property positions vis-a-vis this software and these programs. The patent portfolio for our software business includes at least 12 published patent families. As of February 6, 2023, we owned or held exclusive license rights to approximately 37 patents and patent applications, including at least 12 issued or allowed U.S. cases, five pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 11 issued or allowed non-U.S. cases, including six granted European patents which have been validated among multiple individual European Patent Convention nations and five non-European patents, and nine pending foreign patent applications relating to our computational platform. While we believe that the specific and generic claims contained in our wholly-owned and licensed pending U.S. and non-U.S. applications provide protection for various aspects of our computational platform, third parties may nevertheless challenge such claims. Any patents that are issued or that may issue from these families are expected to expire between 2026 and 2038, absent any adjustments or extensions.
As of February 6, 2023, there were seven published patent families related to our proprietary drug discovery business, and several of our drug discovery collaborators have filed patent applications related to our collaborations that include employees of ours as inventors, including over 100 compound patents and patent applications since 2010. We do not own any intellectual property rights related to these inventions. As of February 6, 2023, there are seven pending wholly-owned provisional applications, six pending international patent applications, three pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, and 27 pending non-U.S. patent applications related to our proprietary drug discovery business.
Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may be significantly narrowed before issuance, if issued at all. We expect this may be the case with respect to some of our pending patent applications.
The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application, absent any adjustments or extensions.
In addition, in the United States, the term of a patent covering an FDA-approved drug may, in certain cases, be eligible for a patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 as compensation for the loss of patent term during the FDA regulatory review process. The period of extension may be up to five years, but cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. It is possible that issued U.S. patents we may obtain in the future may be entitled to patent term extensions. If our use of product candidates or the product candidate itself receive FDA approval, we intend to apply for patent term extensions, if available, to extend the term of patents that cover the approved use or product candidate. We also intend to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdictions where available, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions.
36
In addition to patent protection, as of February 6, 2023, we had approximately 53 copyright registrations covering our proprietary software code, and we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and confidential know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with any collaborators, scientific advisors, service providers, employees, and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants, scientific advisors, and collaborators. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets and/or confidential know-how may become known or be independently developed by a third party, or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. Despite any measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain or use information that we regard as proprietary. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property.
We also own numerous trademarks registered in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, including “Schrödinger” and “LiveDesign”. We pursue additional trademark registrations to the extent we believe doing so would be beneficial to our competitive position.
Sales and Marketing
Software Business
We commercialize our software solutions in various jurisdictions around the world through our software sales organization. We have sales operations in the United States, Europe, Japan, India, and South Korea and we also have established distribution channels in other important markets, including China. These efforts are led by our approximately 230 person global team of sales, technical, and scientific personnel. Our marketing strategy leverages our strong base of scientific publications to support the continued growth of our computational platform into computational chemistry markets across industries and academia worldwide.
Drug Discovery Business
We have not established a commercial organization or developed distribution capabilities given the current stage of development of our wholly-owned drug discovery programs. We plan to enter into agreements with biopharmaceutical companies that contribute to our ability to efficiently advance development candidates that we discover internally using our computational platform through to commercialization. We expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution, and other arrangements with one or more of these third parties to develop and ultimately commercialize our development candidates. Over time, we may also create a commercial organization for drug product sales if and as we advance the development of any product candidates that we determine to commercialize ourselves.
Manufacturing
We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any product candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations. We rely and expect to continue to rely on third-party contract manufacturers for all of our required raw materials, drug substance, and finished drug product for the preclinical and clinical development of any development candidates we develop ourselves.
Government Regulation and Product Approvals
Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of biopharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining marketing approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.
37
Approval and Regulation of Drugs in the United States
In the United States, drug products are approved and regulated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and applicable implementing regulations and guidance. A company, institution, or organization which takes responsibility for the initiation and management of a clinical development program for such products, and for their regulatory approval, is typically referred to as a sponsor. The failure of a sponsor to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, including non-clinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process or post-approval process, may result in delays to the conduct of a study, regulatory review and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.
A sponsor seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps before the product candidate will be approved by the FDA:
•preclinical testing including laboratory tests, animal studies, and formulation studies, which must be performed in accordance with the FDA’s good laboratory practice, or GLP, regulations and standards;
•design of a clinical protocol and submission to the FDA of an IND for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
•approval by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, representing each clinical site before each clinical trial may be initiated;
•performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for each proposed indication, in accordance with current good clinical practices, or GCP;
•preparation and submission to the FDA of a new drug application, or NDA, for a drug product which includes not only the results of the clinical trials, but also detailed information on the chemistry, manufacture and quality controls for the product candidate and proposed labeling for one or more proposed indication(s);
•review of the product candidate by an FDA advisory committee, where appropriate or if applicable;
•satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities, including those of third parties, at which the product candidate or components thereof are manufactured to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, requirements and to assure that the facilities, methods, and controls are adequate to preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality, and purity;
•satisfactory completion of any FDA audits of the non-clinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of clinical data in support of the NDA;
•payment of user fees and securing FDA approval of the NDA to allow marketing of the new drug product; and
•compliance with any post-approval requirements, including the potential requirement to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, and the potential requirement to conduct any post- approval studies required by the FDA.
Preclinical Studies
Before a sponsor begins testing a product candidate with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage, including in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation, and stability, as well as other studies to evaluate, among other things, the toxicity of the product candidate. These studies are generally referred to as IND-enabling studies.
The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations and standards and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Act, if applicable. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity and long-term toxicity studies may continue after the IND is submitted.
38
The IND and IRB Processes
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their voluntary informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.
An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. Such authorization must be secured prior to interstate shipment and administration of any product candidate that is not the subject of an approved NDA. In support of a request for an IND, sponsors must submit a protocol for each clinical trial, and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. The FDA requires a 30-day waiting period after the filing of each IND before clinical trials may begin. This waiting period is designed to allow the FDA to review the IND to determine whether human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. At any time during this 30-day period, the FDA may raise concerns or questions about the conduct of the trials as outlined in the IND and impose a clinical hold or partial clinical hold. In these cases, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials, or parts of the trial, can begin.
Following commencement of a clinical trial under an IND, the FDA may also place a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on that trial. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, nonclinical, and/or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls, or CMC. A clinical hold is an order issued by the FDA to the sponsor to delay a proposed clinical investigation or to suspend an ongoing investigation. A partial clinical hold is a delay or suspension of only part of the clinical work requested under the IND. For example, a specific protocol or part of a protocol may not be allowed to proceed, while other protocols may be allowed. No more than 30 days after imposition of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, the FDA will provide the sponsor a written explanation of the basis for the hold.
Following issuance of a clinical hold or partial clinical hold, a clinical trial may only resume after the FDA has so notified the sponsor. The FDA will base that determination on information provided by the sponsor correcting the deficiencies previously cited or otherwise satisfying the FDA that the clinical trial can proceed.
A sponsor may choose, but is not required, to conduct a foreign clinical study under an IND. When a foreign clinical study is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical study is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that such studies are conducted in accordance with GCP, including review and approval by an independent ethics committee, or IEC, and informed consent from subjects, if the data from such a foreign study is to be used in support of a marketing application.
In addition to the foregoing IND requirements, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. An IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.
Additionally, some trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization as to whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access that only the group maintains to available data from the study. Suspension or termination of development during any phase of clinical trials can occur if it is determined that the participants or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Other reasons for suspension or termination may be made by us based on evolving business objectives and/or the competitive environment.
Expanded Access
Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational new products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended
39
to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or Treatment IND Application.
When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational product for the requested treatment will not interfere with the initiation, conduct or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.
There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its investigational products available for expanded access; however, as required by amendments to the FDCA included in the 21st Century Cures Act passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it responds to expanded access requests with respect to product candidates in development to treat serious diseases or conditions, it must make that policy publicly available. Sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 trial for a covered investigational product; or 15 days after the investigational product receives designation from the FDA as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.
Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA
Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified investigator in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written clinical trial protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated.
Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may also be required after approval.
Phase 1 clinical trials are initially conducted in a limited population to test the product candidate for safety, including adverse effects, dose tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, and pharmacodynamics in healthy humans or in patients. During Phase 1 clinical trials, information about the investigational drug product’s pharmacokinetics and pharmacological effects may be obtained to permit the design of well-controlled and scientifically valid Phase 2 clinical trials.
Phase 2 clinical trials are generally conducted in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, evaluate the efficacy of the product candidate for specific targeted indications and determine dose tolerance and optimal dosage. Multiple Phase 2 clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more costly Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 clinical trials are well controlled, closely monitored and conducted in a limited patient population. A Phase 2 trial may be further subdivided to Phase 2a and Phase 2b trials. A Phase 2a trial is typically an exploratory (non-pivotal) study that has clinical efficacy, pharmacodynamics, or biological activity as the primary endpoint. A Phase 2b trial is a definite dose range finding study with efficacy as the primary endpoint.
Phase 3 clinical trials proceed if the Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrate that a dose range of the product candidate is potentially effective and has an acceptable safety profile. Phase 3 clinical trials are undertaken within an expanded patient population to further evaluate dosage, provide substantial evidence of clinical efficacy, and further test for safety in an expanded and diverse patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. A well-controlled, statistically robust Phase 3 clinical trial may be designed to deliver the data that regulatory authorities will use to decide whether or not to approve, and, if approved, how to appropriately label a drug. Such Phase 3 studies are referred to as “pivotal.”
40
A clinical trial may combine the elements of more than one phase and the FDA often requires more than one Phase 3 trial to support marketing approval of a product candidate. A company’s designation of a clinical trial as being of a particular phase is not necessarily indicative that the study will be sufficient to satisfy the FDA requirements of that phase because this determination cannot be made until the protocol and data have been submitted to and reviewed by the FDA. Generally, pivotal trials are Phase 3 trials, but they may be Phase 2 trials if the design provides a well-controlled and reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in an area of unmet medical need.
In December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, action plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.
In some cases, the FDA may approve an NDA for a product candidate but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of a larger number of patients in the intended treatment group and to further document a clinical benefit in the case of drugs approved under Accelerated Approval regulations. Failure to exhibit due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the product; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.
In March 2022, the FDA released a final guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how sponsors can utilize an adaptive trial design in the early stages of oncology product development (i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial) to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to product development and reduce developmental costs and time.
Sponsors of clinical trials are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on a public registry (clinicaltrials.gov) maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. In particular, information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. The failure to submit clinical trial information to clinicaltrials.gov, as required, is a prohibited act under the FDCA with violations subject to potential civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the violation continues. Although the FDA has historically not enforced these reporting requirements due to HHS’s long delay in issuing final implementing regulations, those regulations have now been issued and the FDA has issued several Notices of Noncompliance to manufacturers since April 2021.
Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies. They must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.
Pediatric Studies
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, applications and certain types of supplements to applications must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the
41
product is safe and effective. The sponsor must submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan within 60 days of an end-of-phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and the FDA. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information.
The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the sponsor, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the product or therapeutic candidate is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric trials begin. Pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, or FDASIA, the FDA must send a PREA Non-Compliance letter to sponsors who have failed to submit their pediatric assessments required under PREA, have failed to seek or obtain a deferral or deferral extension or have failed to request approval for a required pediatric formulation. FDASIA further requires the FDA to publicly post the PREA Non-Compliance letter and sponsor’s response.
Expedited Review Programs
The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of applications in several ways. None of these expedited programs changes the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.
•Fast Track designation. The sponsor of a product candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.
•Breakthrough therapy designation. To qualify for the breakthrough therapy program, product candidates must be intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence must indicate that such product candidates may demonstrate substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over existing therapies. The FDA will seek to ensure the sponsor of a breakthrough therapy product candidate receives intensive guidance on an efficient development program, intensive involvement of senior managers and experienced staff on a proactive, collaborative and cross-disciplinary review and rolling review.
•Priority review. A product candidate is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious condition and, if approved, it would be a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis or prevention compared to marketed products. FDA aims to complete its review of priority review applications within six months as opposed to 10 months for standard review.
•Accelerated approval. Drug products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and 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 product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.
With passage of FDORA in December 2022, Congress modified certain provisions governing accelerated approval of drug and biologic products. Specifically, the new legislation authorized the FDA to: require a sponsor to have its confirmatory clinical trial underway before accelerated approval is awarded, require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to submit progress reports on its post-approval studies to FDA every six months (until the study is completed; and use expedited procedures to withdraw accelerated approval of an NDA or BLA after the confirmatory trial fails to verify the product’s clinical benefit.
42
Further, FDORA requires the agency to publish on its website “the rationale for why a post-approval study is not appropriate or necessary” whenever it decides not to require such a study upon granting accelerated approval.
•Regenerative advanced therapy. With passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, or the Cures Act, in December 2016, Congress authorized the FDA to accelerate review and approval of products designated as regenerative advanced therapies. A product is eligible for this designation if it is a regenerative medicine therapy that is intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such disease or condition. The benefits of a regenerative advanced therapy designation include early interactions with the FDA to expedite development and review, benefits available to breakthrough therapies, potential eligibility for priority review and accelerated approval based on surrogate or intermediate endpoints.
Filing and Review of an NDA
In order to obtain approval to market a drug product in the United States, a NDA must be submitted to the FDA that provides sufficient data establishing the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for its intended indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent preclinical and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls, and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by independent investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.
The NDA is a vehicle through which sponsors formally propose that the FDA approve a new product for marketing and sale in the United States for one or more indications. Every new drug product candidate must be the subject of an approved NDA before it may be commercialized in the United States. Biologic License Applications, or BLAs, are submitted for licensure of biologic products under the Public Health Service Act. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is subject to an application user fee. The sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation, an exception from the program fee when the program does not engage in manufacturing the drug during a particular fiscal year and a waiver for certain small businesses.
The FDA conducts a preliminary review of the application within 60 calendar days of its receipt, and must inform the sponsor within that period of time whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. In the event that FDA determines that an application does not satisfy this standard, it will issue a Refuse to File, or RTF, determination to the sponsor. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept the application for filing and, the application may be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.
Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Under that agreement, 90% of applications seeking approval of New Molecular Entities, or NMEs, are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date on which the FDA accepts the application for filing, and 90% of applications for NMEs that have been designated for Priority Review are meant to be reviewed within six months of the filing date. For applications seeking approval of products that are not NMEs, the ten-month and six-month review periods run from the date that the FDA receives the application. The review process and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, goal date may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the sponsor to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.
In connection with its review of an application, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is being or will be manufactured. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including component manufacturing, finished product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The PREVENT Pandemics Act, which was enacted in December 2022, clarifies that foreign drug manufacturing establishments are subject to registration and listing requirements even if a drug or biologic undergoes further manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing at a separate establishment outside the United States prior to being imported or offered for import into the United States. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the
43
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, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the data in the application. With passage of FDORA, Congress clarified FDA’s authority to conduct inspections by expressly permitting inspection of facilities involved in the preparation, conduct, or analysis of clinical and non-clinical studies submitted to FDA as well as other persons holding study records or involved in the study process.
In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require a sponsor to develop a REMS. A REMS uses risk-minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, the seriousness of the disease, the expected benefit of the product, the expected duration of treatment, the seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the product is a new molecular entity.
The FDA may also refer an application for a novel product to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that review, evaluate and provide a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but the FDA considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.
The FDA’s Decision on an NDA
The FDA reviews an application to determine, among other things, whether the product is safe and whether it is effective for its intended use(s), with the latter determination being made on the basis of substantial evidence. The FDA has interpreted this evidentiary standard to require at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical investigations to establish effectiveness of a new product. Under certain circumstances, however, the FDA has indicated that a single trial with certain characteristics and additional information may satisfy this standard. Ultimately, the FDA will determine whether the expected benefits of the drug product outweigh its potential risks to patients, and the agency will issue either a complete response letter, or CRL, or an approval letter.
A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the sponsor will have one year to respond to the deficiencies identified by the FDA, at which time the FDA can deem the application withdrawn or, in its discretion, grant the sponsor an additional six-month extension to respond. For those seeking to challenge FDA’s CRL decision, the FDA has indicated that sponsors may request a formal hearing on the CRL or they may file a request for reconsideration or a request for a formal dispute resolution.
If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indications for use of the product, require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling, or require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including a REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. REMS programs can include medication guides, communication plans for health care professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. The FDA may require a REMS before or after approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, changing manufacturing processes, and adding labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.
44
Post-Approval Requirements
Following approval of a new prescription product, the manufacturer, the approved product and the product’s manufacturing locations are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, governing, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product and product problems to the FDA, product sampling and distribution, manufacturing and promotion and advertising. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label uses”), manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. In September 2021, the FDA published final regulations which describe the types of evidence that the agency will consider in determining the intended use of a drug product.
It may be permissible, under very specific, narrow conditions, for a manufacturer to engage in nonpromotional, non-misleading communication regarding off-label information, such as distributing scientific or medical journal information. Moreover, with passage of the Pre-Approval Information Exchange Act, or PIE Act, in December 2022, sponsors of products that have not been approved may proactively communicate to payors certain information about products in development to help expedite patient access upon product approval. Previously, such communications were permitted under FDA guidance but the new legislation explicitly provides protection to sponsors who convey certain information about products in development to payors, including unapproved uses of approved products.
If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes products, as well as adverse public relations and reputational harm. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion, and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.
Patent Term Restoration and Extension
A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch- Waxman Act, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted on a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the IND and the submission date of an application, plus the time between the submission date of an application and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and only those claims covering the approved product, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it, may be extended. Additionally, the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The United States Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.
Healthcare Compliance
In the United States, biopharmaceutical manufacturers and their products are subject to extensive regulation at the federal and state level, such as laws intended to prevent fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry. Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors, and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to healthcare providers and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, including certain laws and regulations applicable only if we have marketed products, include the following:
•federal false claims, false statements and civil monetary penalties laws prohibiting, among other things, any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment of government funds or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid;
45
•federal healthcare program anti-kickback law, which prohibits, among other things, persons from offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual for, or the purchasing or ordering of, a good or service for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;
•the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which, in addition to privacy protections applicable to healthcare providers and other entities, prohibits executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false statements relating to healthcare matters;
•federal laws that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to report certain calculated product prices to the government or provide certain discounts or rebates to government authorities or private entities, often as a condition of reimbursement under government healthcare programs;
•federal Open Payments (or federal “sunshine” law), which requires pharmaceutical and medical device companies to monitor and report certain financial interactions with certain healthcare providers to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for re-disclosure to the public, as well as ownership and investment interests held by certain healthcare providers and their immediate family members;
•federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers;
•analogous state laws and regulations, including: state anti-kickback and false claims laws; state laws requiring pharmaceutical companies to comply with specific compliance standards, restrict financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers or require pharmaceutical companies to report information related to payments to health care providers or marketing expenditures; and state laws governing privacy, security and breaches of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts; and
•laws and regulations prohibiting bribery and corruption such as the FCPA, which, among other things, prohibits U.S. companies and their employees and agents from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, corrupt or improper payments or anything else of value to foreign government officials, employees of public international organizations or foreign government-owned or affiliated entities, candidates for foreign public office, and foreign political parties or officials thereof.
Violations of these laws are punishable by criminal and/or civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ensuring compliance is time consuming and costly. Similar healthcare laws and regulations exist in the EU and other jurisdictions, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers and laws governing the privacy and security of personal information.
Privacy Requirements
Privacy and data security requirements are either in place or underway in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection laws that may be applicable to our activities, and a range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or the CCPA, which became effective on January 1, 2020, requires companies that process information on California residents to make new disclosures to consumers about their data collection, use and sharing practices, allow consumers to opt out of certain data sharing with third parties and provide a new cause of action for data breaches. Many other states are considering similar legislation, and a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level.
46
Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage and Health Care Reform
In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payers to reimburse all or part of the associated health care costs. Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Thus, even if a product candidate of ours or one of our collaborators is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payers, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations provide coverage and establish adequate reimbursement levels for the product. The process for determining whether a payer will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payer will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs.
Third-party payers may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.
In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payer not to cover a product could reduce market acceptance once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payer’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payer’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payers will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payer to payer.
In international markets, reimbursement and health care payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In some countries, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is 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 coverage and adequate reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies.
The containment of health care costs also has become a priority of federal, state, and foreign governments and the prices of products have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage, reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products including those that we are our collaborators may develop. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.
Pharmaceutical Prices
The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020, the prior administration issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries' access to evidence-based care.
47
In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. The final rule is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, but at least six states (Vermont, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The final rule would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has been delayed by Congress to January 1, 2032.
On July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14063, which focuses on, among other things, the price of pharmaceuticals. The Order directs HHS to create a plan within 45 days to combat “excessive pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals and enhance domestic pharmaceutical supply chains, to reduce the prices paid by the federal government for such pharmaceuticals, and to address the recurrent problem of price gouging.” On September 9, 2021, HHS released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.
More recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.
Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at $2,000 a year.
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. A number of states, for example, require drug manufacturers and other entities in the drug supply chain, including health carriers, pharmacy benefit managers, wholesale distributors, to disclose information about pricing of pharmaceuticals. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription pharmaceutical and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
48
Review and Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union
In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety, and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, a sponsor will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Specifically, however, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union.
Clinical Trial Approval
On January 31, 2022, the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 became effective in the European Union and replaced the prior Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new regulation aims at simplifying and streamlining the authorization, conduct and transparency of clinical trials in the European Union. Under the new coordinated procedure for the approval of clinical trials, the sponsor of a clinical trial to be conducted in more than one Member State of the European Union, or EU Member State, will only be required to submit a single application for approval. The submission will be made through the Clinical Trials Information System, a new clinical trials portal overseen by the EMA and available to clinical trial sponsors, competent authorities of the EU Member States and the public.
Beyond streamlining the process, the new Regulation includes a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors, and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.
The new regulation did not change the preexisting requirement that a sponsor must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member State in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. If the clinical trial is conducted in different EU Member States, the competent authorities in each of these EU Member States must provide their approval for the conduct of the clinical trial. Furthermore, the sponsor may only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the applicable ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.
Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the EU at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.
PRIME Designation in the European Union
In March 2016, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated agency contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s Committee
49
level. A kick-off meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.
Marketing Authorization
To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under European Union regulatory systems, a sponsor must submit an MAA either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA, or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in the EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to a sponsor established in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, sponsors have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Paediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted (1) a product-specific waiver, (2) a class waiver, or (3) a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.
The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid across the European Economic Area (i.e. the European Union as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products, and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. The centralized procedure may at the request of the sponsor also be used in certain other cases.
Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP is responsible for conducting the initial assessment of a product and for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing marketing authorization. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the sponsor in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. At the end of this period, the CHMP provides a scientific opinion on whether or not a marketing authorization should be granted in relation to a medicinal product. Within 15 calendar days of receipt of a final opinion from the CHMP, the European Commission must prepare a draft decision concerning an application for marketing authorization. This draft decision must take the opinion and any relevant provisions of European Union law into account. Before arriving at a final decision on an application for centralized authorization of a medicinal product the European Commission must consult the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee is composed of representatives of the EU Member States and chaired by a non-voting European Commission representative. The European Parliament also has a related “droit de regard”. The European Parliament’s role is to ensure that the European Commission has not exceeded its powers in deciding to grant or refuse to grant a marketing authorization.
The European Commission may grant a so-called “marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances”. Such authorization is intended for products for which the sponsor can demonstrate that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use, because the indications for which the product in question is intended are encountered so rarely that the sponsor cannot reasonably be expected to provide comprehensive evidence, or in the present state of scientific knowledge, comprehensive information cannot be provided, or it would be contrary to generally accepted principles of medical ethics to collect such information. Consequently, marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances may be granted subject to certain specific obligations, which may include the following:
•the sponsor must complete an identified program of studies within a time period specified by the competent authority, the results of which form the basis of a reassessment of the benefit/risk profile;
•the medicinal product in question may be supplied on medical prescription only and may in certain cases be administered only under strict medical supervision, possibly in a hospital and in the case of a radiopharmaceutical, by an authorized person; and
50
•the package leaflet and any medical information must draw the attention of the medical practitioner to the fact that the particulars available concerning the medicinal product in question are as yet inadequate in certain specified respects.
A marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is subject to annual review to reassess the risk- benefit balance in an annual reassessment procedure. Continuation of the authorization is linked to the annual reassessment and a negative assessment could potentially result in the marketing authorization being suspended or revoked. The renewal of a marketing authorization of a medicinal product under exceptional circumstances, however, follows the same rules as a “normal” marketing authorization. Thus, a marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is granted for an initial five years, after which the authorization will become valid indefinitely, unless the EMA decides that safety grounds merit one additional five-year renewal.
The European Commission may also grant a so-called “conditional marketing authorization” prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional marketing authorizations may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products), if (i) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (ii) it is likely that the sponsor will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (iii) the product fulfills an unmet medical need, and (iv) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.
The European Union medicines rules expressly permit the EU Member States to adopt national legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale, supply or use of any medicinal product containing, consisting of or derived from a specific type of human or animal cell, such as embryonic stem cells. While the products we have in development do not make use of embryonic stem cells, it is possible that the national laws in certain EU Member States may prohibit or restrict us from commercializing our products, even if they have been granted a European Union marketing authorization.
Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized marketing authorization procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU Member State in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all EU Member States.
The mutual recognition procedure similarly is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU Member States of the marketing authorization of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU Member States. The holder of a national marketing authorization may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU Member State requesting that this authority recognize the marketing authorization delivered by the competent authority of another EU Member State.
As in the United States, information about clinical trials in support of a marketing application must be submitted within specific timeframes to the European Union (EudraCT) website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ and other countries.
Regulatory Data Protection in the European Union
In the European Union, innovative medicinal products approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Directive 2001/83/EC. Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 repeats this entitlement for medicinal products authorized in accordance with the centralized authorization procedure. Data exclusivity prevents sponsors for authorization of generics of these innovative products from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abridged) application for a period of eight years. During an additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing
51
authorization application can be submitted and authorized, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be placed on the European Union market until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests, and clinical trials.
Periods of Authorization and Renewals
A marketing authorization has an initial validity for five years in principle. The marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety, and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five- year period of marketing authorization. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the marketing authorization shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the European Union market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).
Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union took place on January 31, 2020. The European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement on their new partnership in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or the Agreement, which was applied provisionally beginning on January 1, 2021 and which entered into force on May 1, 2021. The Agreement focuses primarily on free trade by ensuring no tariffs or quotas on trade in goods, including healthcare products such as medicinal products. Thereafter, the European Union and the United Kingdom will form two separate markets governed by two distinct regulatory and legal regimes. As such, the Agreement seeks to minimize barriers to trade in goods while accepting that border checks will become inevitable as a consequence that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the single market. As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or the MHRA, became responsible for supervising medicines and medical devices in Great Britain, comprising England, Scotland and Wales under domestic law whereas Northern Ireland continues to be subject to EU rules under the Northern Ireland Protocol. The MHRA will rely on the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1916) (as amended), or the HMR, as the basis for regulating medicines. The HMR has incorporated into the domestic law the body of EU law instruments governing medicinal products that pre-existed prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization via the centralized procedure until December 31, 2023.
Furthermore, while the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the United Kingdom that “implements” and complements the European Union’s GDPR is now effective in the United Kingdom, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the United Kingdom will remain lawful under GDPR. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides for a transitional period during which the United Kingdom will be treated like an European Union member state in relation to processing and transfers of personal data for four months from January 1, 2021. This may be extended by two further months. After such period, the United Kingdom will be a “third country” under the GDPR unless the European Commission adopts an adequacy decision in respect of transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has already determined that it considers all of the European Union and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the European and EEA remain unaffected.
Pricing Decisions for Approved Products
In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available
52
therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, EU Member States have the option to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage health care expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. Political, economic, and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU Member States, and parallel trade, i.e., arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced EU Member States, can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any products, if approved in those countries.
General Data Protection Regulation
Many countries outside of the United States maintain rigorous laws governing the privacy and security of personal information. The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data, including personal health data, regarding individuals who are located in the EEA, and the processing of personal data that takes place in the EEA, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, and it imposes heightened requirements on companies that process health and other sensitive data, such as requiring in many situations that a company obtain the consent of the individuals to whom the sensitive personal data relate before processing such data. Examples of obligations imposed by the GDPR on companies processing personal data that fall within the scope of the GDPR include providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, appointing a data protection officer, providing notification of data breaches and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors.
The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR is a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance. In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the CJEU, invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, one of the mechanisms used to legitimize the transfer of personal data from the EEA to the United States. The CJEU decision also drew into question the long-term viability of an alternative means of data transfer, the standard contractual clauses, for transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United States. Following the withdrawal of the U.K. from the EU, the U.K. Data Protection Act 2018 applies to the processing of personal data that takes place in the U.K. and includes parallel obligations to those set forth by GDPR.
Additionally, in October 2022, President Biden signed an executive order to implement the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, which would serve as a replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield. The EC initiated the process to adopt an adequacy decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework in December 2022. It is unclear if and when the framework will be finalized and whether it will be challenged in court. The uncertainty around this issue may further impact our business operations in the EU.
Human Capital
As of February 6, 2023, we had 787 full-time employees, including a total of 344 employees with Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 573 of these employees are located in the United States and 214 of these employees are located in our offices outside of the United States. Additionally, as of February 6, 2023, 33.3% of our full-time employees self-identified as female, 0.4% self-identified as non-binary, and 0.6% chose not to disclose their gender, and 33% of our executive team self-identified as female. Further, 34% of our new hires since January 1, 2022 self-identify as female, 1% self-identify as non-binary, and 1% have chosen not to disclose their gender. As of February 6, 2023, 59% of our full-time employees in the United States self-identified as White, 24% self-identified as Asian, 4% self-identified as having two or
53
more races, 3% self-identified as Black or African American, 2% self-identified as Hispanic or Latino, and 8% chose not to disclose their race or ethnicity. Our employees are our greatest asset and we strive to create a work environment that is inclusive, challenging and rewarding.
We are committed to embedding a long-term, formal Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG, strategy within our business, a commitment we refer to as Corporate Sustainability. In 2022, we completed a "double materiality assessment," where we worked to determine the ESG-related topics most important to both our company and our stakeholders. The assessment was informed by both internal and external stakeholders and by key ESG standards and frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This assessment will serve as the foundation for our comprehensive, data-driven, Corporate Sustainability strategy.
Among the ESG-related topics identified as most important to our company and stakeholders was Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, or DEI, an area we have been dedicated to addressing for many years. Our DEI philosophy is focused on ensuring that our employees feel safe, heard, comfortable, and valued. We continue to focus many of our recruiting efforts on diversifying our candidate pipeline by participating in specific conferences and hosting our own events that promote racial and gender diversity in the science and technology industries, including, for example, a hackathon for female and non-binary engineers and events for female and non-binary Ph.D. candidates. Further, we utilize a standardized interviewing model to reduce unconscious bias and to create a consistent hiring process across our open positions.
Our DEI Council was founded in 2021 and is comprised of a select group of senior leaders, Employee Resource Group, or ERG, representatives and passionate employees who meet on a monthly basis to advise on our DEI strategy, priorities, and goals. Our DEI Council also provides a permanent forum for voices to be heard across all levels of the organization. We currently have six ERGs that provide support and sharing of resources while representing and communicating the interest of that group to the company. While our ERG membership directly engages approximately one third of our employees, these forums also provide an environment for community support, professional development, and educational opportunities for our entire employee population. Through our ERG leadership program, ERG leaders are provided with the opportunity to hone leadership skills such as negotiation and public speaking. Additionally, in an effort to advance our DEI aspirations, we have partnered with the Neuroleadership Institute on a learning program to better equip our employees with critical tools and language to talk about inclusion, bias, and leveraging a growth mindset in the workplace.
In an industry known for its fierce competition for talent, we have been able to maintain high retention and low turnover rates. For the year ended December 31, 2022, our employee retention rate was 92.9%.
Given our financial resources, our industry-leading position in the field of physics-based computational drug discovery and materials science research and our developing proprietary drug discovery programs, we believe that we will continue to be able to fill positions and grow our headcount in support of our software, drug discovery and materials science businesses.
We are committed to providing our employees with compensation that meets the expectations of the market and industry norms. We monitor our compensation programs closely using comprehensive industry surveys and data to guide us, and we provide what we consider to be a competitive mix of incentives, including competitive salaries and bonuses, a 401(k) retirement plan with an employer matching contribution, participation in our equity programs, and health and welfare benefits, including, for example, access to a variety of mental health, family care, and reproductive health benefits for our employees based in the United States. We routinely review our compensation practices and analyze the equity of our compensation decisions for all employees. None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement or represented by a trade or labor union. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.
We recognize the value of in-person collaboration and relationship building while also being mindful of the needs and priorities our employees have outside of the workplace. Our flexible hybrid work schedule currently gives employees the option of coming into the office two days per week and working remotely the other three. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, employees had the option of coming into the office three days a week and working remotely the other two. We believe that our flexible hybrid schedule allows us to engage with each other and our customers effectively and to continue to advance our business.
Our company culture encourages engagement, both among our employees and within the communities we live and work. In the advancement of these efforts, internally, we have a well-regarded mentor program, we have expanded our
54
resonance program to match colleagues to connect over virtual coffee chats globally, updated our management training programs to include mental health and wellness resources, and refreshed our annual review process to encourage more real-time feedback between employees and managers to set and achieve personal performance goals. Some examples of external engagement in our local communities include hosting a student internship program in partnership with a non-profit educational group that supports underserved local high school students who have demonstrated the knowledge, character, and skills to achieve their aspirations. To further our community engagement efforts, each of our employees is provided with a paid full day each year to volunteer in their local community, in addition to our matching gifts program.
Our Corporate Information
Our principal executive offices are located at 1540 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, New York 10036, and our telephone number is (212) 295-5800. Our website address is http://www.schrodinger.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report or in any other report or document we file with the SEC, and any reference to our website address is intended to be an inactive textual reference only.
We own or have rights to trademarks, service marks, and trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business, including our corporate name, logos and website names. Other trademarks, service marks, and trade names appearing in this Annual Report are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, some of the trademarks, service marks, and trade names referred to in this Annual Report are listed without the ® and ™ symbols.
Available Information
We make available free of charge through our website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the SEC. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the SEC by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons.
We may also disclose information to the public concerning our software, drug discovery programs, computational platform and other items through a variety of disclosure channels in order to achieve broad, non-exclusionary distribution of information to the public. Some of the information distributed through these disclosure channels may be considered material information. Investors and others are encouraged to review the information we make public in the locations below. This list may be updated from time to time.
•For information concerning our software, drug discovery programs, computational platform, please visit: https://www.schrodinger.com.
•For information provided to the investment community, including news releases, events and presentations, and filings with the SEC, please visit https://ir.schrodinger.com.
•For additional information, please follow us on LinkedIn and Instagram, or visit our blog, Extrapolations.com.
These websites and social media channels, and the contents thereof, are not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K nor deemed filed with the SEC.
Item 1A. Risk Factors.
You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report and our other public filings with the SEC. The risks described below are not the only risks facing our company. The occurrence of any of the following risks, or of additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently believe to be immaterial, could cause our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition to suffer materially.
55
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital
We have a history of significant operating losses, and we expect to incur losses over the next several years.
We have a history of significant operating losses. Our net losses for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021, and 2020 were $149.2 million, $101.2 million, and $26.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, we had an accumulated deficit of $379.1 million.
We anticipate that our operating expenses will increase substantially in the foreseeable future as we continue to invest in our proprietary drug discovery programs, sales and marketing infrastructure, and our computational platform. We are still in the early stages of development of our own drug discovery programs. In June 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, cleared our investigational new drug, or IND, submission for SGR-1505, our MALT1 inhibitor. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas and currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505. In addition, we continue to advance other wholly-owned programs through IND-enabling studies, and we expect to submit an IND application to the FDA for our CDC7 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-2921, in the first half of 2023 and for our WEE1 inhibitor, which we refer to as SGR-3515, in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies. In addition, we plan to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-2921 in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance. We have no drug products licensed for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from our own drug product sales to date. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years. Our operating expenses and net income or loss may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:
•continue to invest in and develop our computational platform and software solutions;
•continue our research and development efforts for our proprietary drug discovery programs;
•conduct preclinical studies and initiate and conduct clinical trials for any of our product candidates;
•maintain, expand, enforce, defend, and protect our intellectual property;
•hire additional software engineers, programmers, sales and marketing, and other personnel to support our software business;
•hire additional clinical, quality control, and other scientific personnel; and
•add operational, financial, and management information systems and personnel to support our operations as a public company.
If we are unable to increase sales of our software, increase revenue from our drug discovery collaborations, or if we and our current and future collaborators are unable to successfully develop and commercialize drug products, our revenues may be insufficient for us to achieve or maintain profitability.
To achieve and maintain profitability, we must succeed in significantly increasing our software sales and increasing revenue from our drug discovery collaborations, or we and our current or future collaborators must succeed in developing, and eventually commercializing, a drug product or drug products that generate significant revenue. We currently generate revenues from the sales of our software solutions and from achieving milestones under our partnered and collaborative drug discovery programs, and we expect to continue to derive most of our revenue from sales of our software and from achieving such milestones until such time as our or our collaborators’ drug development and commercialization efforts are successful, if ever. As such, increasing sales of our software to existing customers, successfully marketing our software to new customers, and achieving milestones under our drug discovery collaborations are critical to our success. Demand for our software solutions may be affected by a number of factors, including continued market acceptance by the biopharmaceutical industry, market adoption of our software solutions beyond the biopharmaceutical industry including for material science applications, the ability of our platform to identify more promising molecules and accelerate and lower the costs of discovery as compared to traditional methods, timing of development and release of new offerings by our competitors, technological change, and the rate of growth in our target markets. If we are unable to continue to meet the demands of our customers, our business operations, financial results, and growth prospects will be adversely affected.
Achieving success in drug development will require us or our current or future collaborators to be effective in a range of challenging activities, including completing preclinical testing and clinical trials of product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates and manufacturing, marketing, and selling any products for which we or
56
they may obtain regulatory approval. We are only in the early stages of most of these activities, and none of our current drug discovery collaborators have completed clinical development of any product candidate. We and they may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve and sustain profitability, or even if our collaborators do, we may not receive option fees, milestone payments, or royalties from them that are significant enough for us to achieve and sustain profitability. Because of the intense competition in the market for our software solutions and the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict when, or if, we will be able to achieve or sustain profitability.
Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, increase sales of our software, develop a pipeline of product candidates, enter into collaborations, or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.
In addition, although we have experienced revenue growth in recent periods, we may not be able to sustain revenue growth consistent with our recent history or at all. Our total revenues increased by 31% from $137.9 million in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 to $181.0 million in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, and increased by 28% from $108.1 million in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 to $137.9 million in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. You should not consider our revenue growth in recent periods as indicative of our future performance. As we grow our business, our revenue growth rates may slow in future periods.
Our quarterly and annual results may fluctuate significantly, which could adversely impact the value of our common stock.
Our results of operations, including our revenues, gross margin, profitability, and cash flows, have historically varied from period to period, and we expect that they will continue to do so. As a result, period-to-period comparisons of our operating results may not be meaningful, and our quarterly and annual results should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. Our quarterly and annual financial results may fluctuate as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. Factors that may cause fluctuations in our quarterly and annual financial results include, without limitation, those listed elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section and those listed below:
•customer renewal rates and the timing and terms of customer renewals, including the seasonality of customer renewals of our on-premise software arrangements, for which revenue historically has been recognized at a single point in time in the first and fourth quarter of each fiscal year;
•our ability to attract new customers for our software;
•the addition or loss of large customers, including through acquisitions or consolidations of such customers;
•the amount and timing of operating expenses related to the maintenance and expansion of our business, operations, and infrastructure;
•network outages or security breaches;
•general economic, industry, and market conditions, including within the life sciences industry;
•our ability to collect receivables from our customers;
•the amount of software purchased by our customers, including the mix of on-premise and hosted software sold during a period;
•variations in the timing of the sales of our software, which may be difficult to predict;
•changes in the pricing of our solutions and in our pricing policies or those of our competitors;
•the timing and success of the introduction of new software solutions by us or our competitors or any other change in the competitive dynamics of our industry, including consolidation among competitors, customers, or strategic collaborators;
57
•changes in the fair value of or receipt of distributions or proceeds on account of the equity interests we hold in our drug discovery collaborators, such as Morphic Holding, Inc., or Morphic, and Structure Therapeutics Inc., or Structure Therapeutics;
•the success of our drug discovery collaborators in developing and commercializing drug products for which we are entitled to receive milestone payments or royalties;
•the timing of the recognition of milestones achieved under our collaborative and partnered programs;
•variations in the number and size of milestones achieved under our collaborative and partnered programs;
•the timing of recognition of revenue from any upfront payments from partnering or out-licensing our wholly-owned drug discovery programs, such as under our collaboration agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, or BMS; and
•the timing of expenses related to our drug discovery programs, the development or acquisition of technologies or businesses and potential future charges for impairment of goodwill from acquired companies.
In addition, because we recognize revenues from our hosted software solutions ratably over the life of the contract, a significant upturn or downturn in sales of our hosted software solutions may not be reflected immediately in our operating results. As a result of these factors, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our operating results are not a good indication of our future performance and that our interim financial results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year or for any subsequent interim period.
We may require additional capital to fund our operations. If we are unable to raise additional capital on terms acceptable to us or at all or generate cash flows necessary to maintain or expand our operations, we may not be able to compete successfully, which would harm our business, operations, and financial condition.
We expect to devote substantial financial resources to our ongoing and planned activities, including the development of drug discovery programs and continued investment in our computational platform. We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we advance our proprietary drug discovery programs, initiate or progress preclinical and IND-enabling studies, submit IND applications, initiate and progress clinical trials and invest in the further development of our computational platform. In addition, if we decide to complete clinical development and seek regulatory approval on our own, we expect to incur significant additional expenses. Furthermore, we incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, as compared to when we were a private company.
Our current drug discovery collaborators, from whom we are entitled to receive milestone payments upon achievement of various development, regulatory, and commercial milestones as well as royalties on commercial sales, if any, under the collaboration agreements that we have entered into with them, face numerous risks in the development of drugs, including the conduct of preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approval, and achieving product sales. In addition, the amounts we are entitled to receive upon the achievement of such milestones tend to be smaller for near-term development milestones and increase if and as a collaborative product candidate advances through regulatory development to commercialization and will vary depending on the level of commercial success achieved, if any. We do not anticipate receiving significant milestone payments from many of our drug discovery collaborators for several years, if at all, and our drug discovery collaborators may never achieve milestones that result in significant cash payments to us. In addition, while we have equity stakes in a number of our collaborators, the value of these equity stakes can vary significantly based on a number of factors beyond our control, and there can be no assurance that we can rely on such equity as capital to fund our operations. For these reasons we may need, or choose, to obtain additional capital to fund our continuing operations.
As of December 31, 2022, we had cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and marketable securities of $456.3 million. On February 13, 2023, on account of our equity stake in Nimbus, we received a $111.3 million cash distribution from Nimbus in connection with Takeda's acquisition of Nimbus Lakshmi, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nimbus, and its TYK2 inhibitor NDI-034858. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities as of December 31, 2022, together with the $111.3 million cash distribution from Nimbus received in February 2023, will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through at least the next 24 months. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our operating plans may change as
58
a result of many factors currently unknown to us. As a result, we could deplete our capital resources sooner than we currently expect.
Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:
•the growth of our software revenue;
•the timing and extent of spending to support research and development efforts;
•the continued expansion of software sales and marketing activities;
•the timing and receipt of payments from our collaborations as well as spending to support, advance, and broaden our proprietary drug discovery programs; and
•the timing and receipt of any distributions or proceeds we may receive from our equity stakes in our drug discovery collaborators and partners.
In the event that we require additional financing, we may not be able to raise such financing on terms acceptable to us or at all. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If we are unable to raise additional capital on terms acceptable to us or at all or generate cash flows necessary to maintain or expand our operations and invest in our computational platform, we may not be able to compete successfully, which would harm our business, operations, and financial condition.
Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations, or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or drug programs.
To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights as common stockholders. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, selling or licensing our assets, making product acquisitions, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends.
If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs, or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us or agree to exploit a drug development target exclusively for one of our collaborators when we may prefer to pursue the drug development target for ourselves.
If our estimates or judgments relating to our critical accounting policies prove to be incorrect or financial reporting standards or interpretations change, our results of operations could be adversely affected.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or U.S. GAAP, requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. We base our estimates on historical experience, known trends and events, and various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. The results of these estimates form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Significant assumptions and estimates used in preparing our consolidated financial statements include, with respect to revenue, determining the allocation of the transaction price and measurement of progress, including (1) the constraint on variable consideration, (2) the allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations using their standalone selling price basis, and (3) the appropriate input or output based method to recognize collaboration revenue and the extent of progress to date.
Our results of operations may be adversely affected if our assumptions change or if actual circumstances differ from those in our assumptions, which could cause our results of operations to fall below the expectations of securities analysts and investors, resulting in a decline in the trading price of our common stock.
59
Additionally, we regularly monitor our compliance with applicable financial reporting standards and review new pronouncements and drafts thereof that are relevant to us. As a result of new standards, changes to existing standards and changes in their interpretation, we might be required to change our accounting policies, alter our operational policies, and implement new or enhance existing systems so that they reflect new or amended financial reporting standards, or we may be required to restate our published financial statements. Such changes to existing standards or changes in their interpretation may have an adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial position, and profit.
Risks Related to Our Software
If our existing customers do not renew their licenses, do not buy additional solutions from us, or renew at lower prices, our business and operating results will suffer.
We expect to continue to derive a significant portion of our software revenues from renewal of existing license agreements. As a result, maintaining the renewal rate of our existing customers and selling additional software solutions to them is critical to our future operating results. Factors that may affect the renewal rate for our customers and our ability to sell additional solutions to them include:
•the price, performance, and functionality of our software solutions;
•the availability, price, performance, and functionality of competing software solutions;
•the effectiveness of our professional services;
•our ability to develop or acquire complementary software solutions, applications, and services;
•the success of competitive products or technologies;
•the stability, performance, and security of our technological infrastructure;
•the business environment of our customers;
•the willingness of our customers to continue to adopt computational approaches to drug discovery, which can be impacted by changes in our customer’s management and/or scientific personnel; and
•the decisions of our customers to discontinue or reduce the amount of drug discovery they undertake internally.
We deliver our software through either (i) a product license that permits our customers to install the software solution directly on their own in-house hardware and use it for a specified term, or (ii) a subscription that allows our customers to access the cloud-based software solution on their own hardware without taking control of the licenses. Our customers have no obligation to renew their product licenses or subscriptions for our software solutions after the license term expires, which is typically after one year, and many of our contracts may be terminated or reduced in scope either immediately or upon notice. In addition, our customers may negotiate terms less advantageous to us upon renewal, which may reduce our revenues from these customers. Factors that are not within our control may contribute to a reduction in our software revenues. For instance, our customers may reduce the number of their employees who are engaged in research and who would have use of our software, which would result in a corresponding reduction in the number of user licenses needed for some of our solutions and thus a lower aggregate renewal fee. The loss, reduction in scope, or delay of a large contract, or the loss or delay of multiple contracts, could materially adversely affect our business.
Our future operating results also depend, in part, on our ability to sell new software solutions and licenses to our existing customers. For example, the willingness of existing customers to license our software will depend on our ability to scale and adapt our existing software solutions to meet the performance and other requirements of our customers, which we may not do successfully. If our customers fail to renew their agreements, renew their agreements upon less favorable terms or at lower fee levels, or fail to purchase new software solutions and licenses from us, our revenues may decline and our future revenues may be constrained.
Our software sales cycle can vary and be long and unpredictable.
The timing of sales of our software solutions is difficult to forecast because of the length and unpredictability of our sales cycle. We sell our solutions primarily to biopharmaceutical companies, and our sales cycles can be as long as nine to twelve months or longer. Further, the length of time that potential customers devote to their testing and evaluation,
60
contract negotiation, and budgeting processes varies significantly, depending on the size of the organization and the nature of their needs. In addition, we might devote substantial time and effort to a particular unsuccessful sales effort, and as a result, we could lose other sales opportunities or incur expenses that are not offset by an increase in revenue, which could harm our business.
A significant portion of our revenues are generated by sales to life sciences industry customers, and factors that adversely affect this industry could adversely affect our software sales.
A significant portion of our current software sales are to customers in the life sciences industry, in particular the biopharmaceutical industry. Demand for our software solutions could be affected by factors that adversely affect the life sciences industry. The life sciences industry is highly regulated and competitive and has experienced periods of considerable consolidation. Consolidation among our customers could cause us to lose customers, decrease the available market for our solutions, and adversely affect our business. In addition, changes in regulations that make investment in the life sciences industry less attractive or drug development more expensive could adversely impact the demand for our software solutions. For these reasons and others, selling software to life sciences companies can be competitive, expensive, and time consuming, often requiring significant upfront time and expense without any assurance that we will successfully complete a software sale. Accordingly, our operating results and our ability to efficiently provide our solutions to life sciences companies and to grow or maintain our customer base could be adversely affected as a result of factors that affect the life sciences industry generally.
We also intend to continue leveraging our solutions for broad application to industrial challenges in molecule design, including in the fields of aerospace, energy, semiconductors, and electronic displays. However, we believe the materials science industry is in the very early stages of recognizing the potential of computational methods for molecular discovery, and there can be no assurance that the industry will adopt computational methods such as our platform. Any factor adversely affecting our ability to market our software solutions to customers outside of the life sciences industry, including in these new fields, could increase our dependence on the life sciences industry and adversely affect the growth rate of our revenues, operating results, and business.
The markets in which we participate are highly competitive, and if we do not compete effectively, our business and operating results could be adversely affected.
The overall market for molecular discovery and design software is global, rapidly evolving, competitive, and subject to changing technology and shifting customer interests and priorities. Our software solutions face competition from competitors in the business of selling or providing simulation and modeling software to biopharmaceutical companies. These competitors include BIOVIA, a brand of Dassault Systèmes SE, or BIOVIA, Chemical Computing Group (US) Inc., Cresset Biomolecular Discovery Limited, Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Optibrium Limited, Cyrus Biotechnology, Inc., Molsoft LLC, Insilico Medicine, Inc., Iktos, XtalPi Inc., and Simulations Plus, Inc.
We also have competitors in materials science, such as BIOVIA and Materials Design, Inc., and in enterprise software for the life sciences, such as BIOVIA, Certara USA, Inc., ChemAxon, PerkinElmer, Inc., and Dotmatics, Inc. In some cases, these competitors are well-established providers of these solutions and have long-standing relationships with many of our current and potential customers, including large biopharmaceutical companies. In addition, there are academic consortia that develop physics-based simulation programs for life sciences and materials applications. In life sciences, the most prominent academic simulation packages include AMBER, CHARMm, GROMACS, GROMOS, OpenMM, and OpenFF. These packages are primarily maintained and developed by graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, often without the intent of commercialization.
We also face competition from solutions that biopharmaceutical companies develop internally and from smaller companies that offer products and services directed at more specific markets than we target, enabling these smaller competitors to focus a greater proportion of their efforts and resources on these markets, as well as a large number of companies that have been founded with the goal of applying machine learning technologies to drug discovery.
Many of our competitors are able to devote greater resources to the development, promotion, and sale of their software solutions and services. It is possible that our focus on proprietary drug discovery will result in loss of management focus and resources relating to our software business, thereby resulting in decreasing revenues from our software business. Furthermore, third parties with greater available resources and the ability to initiate or withstand substantial price competition could acquire our current or potential competitors. Our competitors may also establish cooperative relationships among themselves or with third parties that may further enhance their product offerings or resources. If our
61
competitors’ products, services, or technologies become more accepted than our solutions, if our competitors are successful in bringing their products or services to market earlier than ours, if our competitors are able to respond more quickly and effectively to new or changing opportunities, technologies, or customer requirements, or if their products or services are more technologically capable than ours, then our software revenues could be adversely affected.
In addition, we are facing increasing competition from companies utilizing artificial intelligence, or AI, and other computational approaches for drug discovery. Some of these competitors are involved in drug discovery themselves and/or with partners, and others develop software or other tools utilizing AI which can be used, directly or indirectly, in drug discovery. To the extent these other AI approaches to drug discovery prove to be successful, or more successful, than our approach, the demand for our platform could be adversely affected, which could affect our software demand as well as reduce the demand for us as a collaborator in drug discovery.
We may be required to decrease our prices or modify our pricing practices in order to attract new customers or retain existing customers due to increased competition. Pricing pressures and increased competition could result in reduced sales, reduced margins, losses, or a failure to maintain or improve our competitive market position, any of which could adversely affect our business.
We have invested and expect to continue to invest in research and development efforts that further enhance our computational platform. Such investments may affect our operating results, and, if the return on these investments is lower or develops more slowly than we expect, our revenue and operating results may suffer.
We have invested and expect to continue to invest in research and development efforts that further enhance our computational platform, often in response to our customers’ requirements. These investments may involve significant time, risks, and uncertainties, including the risk that the expenses associated with these investments may affect our margins and operating results and that such investments may not generate sufficient revenues to offset liabilities assumed and expenses associated with these new investments. The software industry changes rapidly as a result of technological and product developments, which may render our solutions less desirable. For example, in recent years, a number of companies have entered the drug discovery industry utilizing different AI approaches. While we believe we compete favorably and are meaningfully differentiated from such approaches with the combination of our physics-based computational platform and machine learning capabilities, the success of other such AI approaches to drug discovery could impact the demand for our solutions. We believe that we must continue to invest a significant amount of time and resources in our platform and software solutions to maintain and improve our competitive position. If we do not achieve the benefits anticipated from these investments, if the achievement of these benefits is delayed, if technological developments render our solutions less desirable, or if a slowdown in general computing power impacts the rate at which we expect our physics-based simulations to increase in power and domain applicability, our revenue and operating results may be adversely affected.
If we are unable to collect receivables from our customers, our operating results may be adversely affected.
While the majority of our current customers are well-established, large companies and universities, we also provide software solutions to smaller companies. Our financial success depends upon the creditworthiness and ultimate collection of amounts due from our customers, including our smaller customers with fewer financial resources. If we are not able to collect amounts due from our customers, we may be required to write-off significant accounts receivable and recognize bad debt expenses, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results.
Defects or disruptions in our solutions could result in diminishing demand for our solutions, a reduction in our revenues, and subject us to substantial liability.
Our software business and the level of customer acceptance of our software depend upon the continuous, effective, and reliable operation of our software and related tools and functions. Our software solutions are inherently complex and may contain defects or errors. Errors may result from our own technology or from the interface of our software solutions with legacy systems and data, which we did not develop. The risk of errors is particularly significant when a new software solution is first introduced or when new versions or enhancements of existing software solutions are released. We have from time to time found defects in our software, and new errors in our existing software may be detected in the future. Any errors, defects, disruptions, or other performance problems with our software could hurt our reputation and may damage our customers’ businesses. If that occurs, our customers may delay or withhold payment to us, cancel their agreements with us, elect not to renew, make service credit claims, warranty claims, or other claims against us, and we could lose future sales. The occurrence of any of these events could result in diminishing demand for our software, a
62
reduction of our revenues, an increase in collection cycles for accounts receivable, require us to increase our warranty provisions, or incur the expense of litigation or substantial liability.
We rely upon third-party providers of cloud-based infrastructure to host our software solutions. Any disruption in the operations of these third-party providers, limitations on capacity, or interference with our use could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
We outsource substantially all of the infrastructure relating to our hosted software solutions to third-party hosting services. Customers of our hosted software solutions need to be able to access our computational platform at any time, without interruption or degradation of performance, and we provide them with service-level commitments with respect to uptime. Our hosted software solutions depend on protecting the virtual cloud infrastructure hosted by third-party hosting services by maintaining its configuration, architecture, features, and interconnection specifications, as well as the information stored in these virtual data centers, which is transmitted by third-party internet service providers. Any limitation on the capacity of our third-party hosting services could impede our ability to onboard new customers or expand the usage of our existing customers, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, any incident affecting our third-party hosting services’ infrastructure that may be caused by cyber-attacks, natural disasters, fire, flood, severe storm, earthquake, power loss, telecommunications failures, terrorist or other attacks, and other similar events beyond our control could negatively affect our cloud-based solutions. A prolonged service disruption affecting our cloud-based solutions for any of the foregoing reasons would negatively impact our ability to serve our customers and could damage our reputation with current and potential customers, expose us to liability, cause us to lose customers, or otherwise harm our business. We may also incur significant costs for using alternative equipment or taking other actions in preparation for, or in reaction to, events that damage the third-party hosting services we use.
In the event that our service agreements with our third-party hosting services are terminated, or there is a lapse of service, elimination of services or features that we utilize, interruption of internet service provider connectivity, or damage to such facilities, we could experience interruptions in access to our platform as well as significant delays and additional expense in arranging or creating new facilities and services and/or re-architecting our hosted software solutions for deployment on a different cloud infrastructure service provider, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
If our security measures are breached or unauthorized access to customer data is otherwise obtained, our solutions may be perceived as not being secure, customers may reduce the use of or stop using our solutions, and we may incur significant liabilities.
Our solutions involve the collection, analysis, and storage of our customers’ proprietary information and sensitive proprietary data related to the discovery efforts of our customers. As a result, unauthorized access or security breaches, as a result of third-party action, employee error, malfeasance, or otherwise could result in the loss of information, litigation, indemnity obligations, damage to our reputation, and other liability. Because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access or sabotage systems change frequently and generally are not identified until they are launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate preventative measures. In addition, if our employees fail to adhere to practices we have established to maintain a firewall between the Schrödinger Therapeutics Group and our teams that work with software customers, or if the technical solutions we have adopted to maintain the firewall malfunction, our customers and collaborators may lose confidence in our ability to maintain the confidentiality of their intellectual property, we may have trouble attracting new customers and collaborators, we may be subject to breach of contract claims by our customers and collaborators, and we may suffer reputational and other harm as a result. Any or all of these issues could adversely affect our ability to attract new customers, cause existing customers to elect to not renew their licenses, result in reputational damage or subject us to third-party lawsuits or other action or liability, which could adversely affect our operating results. Our insurance may not be adequate to cover losses associated with such events, and in any case, such insurance may not cover all of the types of costs, expenses, and losses we could incur to respond to and remediate a security breach.
Any failure to offer high-quality technical support services could adversely affect our relationships with our customers and our operating results.
Our customers depend on our support organization to resolve technical issues relating to our solutions, as our software requires expert usage to fully exploit its capabilities. Certain of our customers also rely on us to troubleshoot problems with the performance of the software, introduce new features requested for specific customer projects, inform them about the best way to set up and analyze various types of simulations and illustrate our techniques for drug discovery
63
using examples from publicly available data sets. We may be unable to respond quickly enough to accommodate short-term increases in customer demand for these support services. Increased customer demand for our services, without corresponding revenues, could increase costs and adversely affect our operating results. In addition, our sales process is highly dependent on the reputation of our solutions and business and on positive recommendations from our existing customers. Any failure to offer high-quality technical support, or a market perception that we do not offer high-quality support, could adversely affect our reputation, our ability to sell our solutions to existing and prospective customers and our business and operating results.
Our solutions utilize third-party open-source software, and any failure to comply with the terms of one or more of these open-source software licenses could adversely affect our business or our ability to sell our software solutions, subject us to litigation, or create potential liability.
Our solutions include software licensed by third parties under any one or more open-source licenses, including the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, the Affero General Public License, the BSD License, the MIT License, the Apache License, and others, and we expect to continue to incorporate open-source software in our solutions in the future. Moreover, we cannot ensure that we have effectively monitored our use of open-source software or that we are in compliance with the terms of the applicable open-source licenses or our current policies and procedures. There have been claims against companies that use open-source software in their products and services asserting that the use of such open-source software infringes the claimants’ intellectual property rights. As a result, we and our customers could be subject to suits by third parties claiming that what we believe to be licensed open-source software infringes such third parties’ intellectual property rights, and we may be required to indemnify our customers against such claims. Additionally, if an author or other third party that distributes such open-source software were to allege that we had not complied with the conditions of one or more of these licenses, we or our customers could be required to incur significant legal expenses defending against such allegations and could be subject to significant damages, enjoined from the sale of our solutions that contain the open-source software and required to comply with onerous conditions or restrictions on these solutions, which could disrupt the distribution and sale of these solutions. Litigation could be costly for us to defend, have a negative effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations, or require us to devote additional research and development resources to change our solutions.
Use of open-source software may entail greater risks than use of third-party commercial software, as open-source licensors generally do not provide warranties or other contractual protections regarding infringement claims or the quality of the code, including with respect to security vulnerabilities. In addition, certain open-source licenses require that source code for software programs that interact with such open-source software be made available to the public at no cost and that any modifications or derivative works to such open-source software continue to be licensed under the same terms as the open-source software license. The terms of various open-source licenses have not been interpreted by courts in the relevant jurisdictions, and there is a risk that such licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or restrictions on our ability to market our solutions. By the terms of certain open-source licenses, we could be required to release the source code of our proprietary software, and to make our proprietary software available under open-source licenses, if we combine our proprietary software with open-source software in a certain manner. In the event that portions of our proprietary software are determined to be subject to an open-source license, we could be required to publicly release the affected portions of our source code, re-engineer all or a portion of our solutions, or otherwise be limited in the licensing of our solutions, each of which could reduce or eliminate the value of our solutions. Disclosing our proprietary source code could allow our competitors to create similar products with lower development effort and time and ultimately could result in a loss of sales. Any of these events could create liability for us and damage our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, business, results of operations, and financial condition and the market price of our shares.
Risks Related to Drug Discovery
We may never realize a return on our investment of resources and cash in our drug discovery collaborations.
We use our computational platform to provide drug discovery services to collaborators who are engaged in drug discovery and development. These collaborators include start-up companies, pre-commercial biotechnology companies, and large-scale pharmaceutical companies. When we engage in drug discovery with these collaborators, we typically provide access to our platform and platform experts who assist the drug discovery collaborator in identifying molecules that have activity against one or more specified protein targets. We historically have not received significant initial cash consideration for these services, except for the upfront payment of $55.0 million we received from BMS upon entry into our collaboration agreement with BMS. However, we have received equity consideration in certain of our collaborators
64
and/or the right to receive option fees, cash milestone payments upon the achievement of specified development, regulatory, and commercial sales milestones for the drug discovery targets, and potential royalties. From time to time, we have also made additional equity investments in our drug discovery collaborators.
We may never realize return on our investment of resources and cash in our drug discovery collaborations. Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. Our drug discovery collaborators may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates. In addition, our ability to realize return from our drug discovery collaborations is subject to the following risks:
•drug discovery collaborators have significant discretion in determining the amount and timing of efforts and resources that they will apply to our collaborations and may not perform their obligations as expected;
•drug discovery collaborators may not pursue development or commercialization of any product candidates for which we are entitled to option fees, milestone payments, or royalties or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on results of clinical trials or other studies, changes in the collaborator’s strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as an acquisition, that divert resources or create competing priorities;
•drug discovery collaborators may delay clinical trials for which we are entitled to milestone payments;
•we may not have access to, or may be restricted from disclosing, certain information regarding our collaborators’ product candidates being developed or commercialized and, consequently, may have limited ability to inform our stockholders about the status of, and likelihood of achieving, milestone payments or royalties under such collaborations;
•drug discovery collaborators could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with any product candidates and products for which we are entitled to milestone payments or royalties if the collaborator believes that the competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive;
•product candidates discovered in drug discovery collaborations with us may be viewed by our collaborators as competitive with their own product candidates or products, which may cause our collaborators to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of any such product candidates;
•existing drug discovery collaborators and potential future drug discovery collaborators may begin to perceive us to be a competitor more generally, particularly as we advance our proprietary drug discovery programs, and therefore may be unwilling to continue existing collaborations with us or to enter into new collaborations with us;
•a drug discovery collaborator may fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements regarding the development, manufacture, distribution, or marketing of a product candidate or product, which may impact our ability to receive milestone payments;
•disagreements with drug discovery collaborators, including disagreements over intellectual property or proprietary rights, contract interpretation, or the preferred course of development, might cause delays or terminations of the research, development, or commercialization of product candidates for which we are eligible to receive milestone payments, or might result in litigation or arbitration;
•drug discovery collaborators may not properly obtain, maintain, enforce, defend or protect our intellectual property or proprietary rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to potentially lead to disputes or legal proceedings that could jeopardize or invalidate our or their intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us and them to potential litigation;
•drug discovery collaborators may infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate the intellectual property or proprietary rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability;
65
•drug discovery collaborators could suffer from operational delays as a result of global health impacts, such as the COVID-19 pandemic; and
•drug discovery collaborations may be terminated prior to our receipt of any significant value from the collaboration.
Our drug discovery collaborations may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates that results in our receipt of option fees, milestone payments, or royalties in a timely manner, or at all. If any drug discovery collaborations that we enter into do not result in the successful development and commercialization of drug products that result in option fees, milestone payments, or royalties to us, we may not receive return on the resources we have invested in the drug discovery collaboration. Moreover, even if a drug discovery collaboration initially leads to the achievement of milestones that result in payments to us, it may not continue to do so.
We also rely on collaborators for the development and potential commercialization of product candidates we discover internally when we believe it will help maximize clinical and commercial opportunities for the product candidate. For example, under our collaboration agreement with BMS, after mutual agreement on the targets(s) of interest, the Schrödinger Therapeutics Group is responsible for the discovery of development candidates. Once a development candidate meeting specified criteria for a target has been identified, BMS will be solely responsible for the development, manufacturing and commercialization of such development candidate. Even if we successfully identify one or more development candidates for BMS to develop and commercialize under our collaboration agreement, BMS may not achieve the research, development, regulatory and sales milestones for those development candidates that result in additional payments to us.
We may not realize returns on our equity investments in our drug discovery collaborators.
We may not realize returns on our equity investments in our drug discovery collaborators. None of the drug discovery collaborators in which we hold equity generate revenue from commercial sales of drug products. They are therefore dependent on the availability of capital on favorable terms to continue their operations. In addition, if the drug discovery collaborators in which we hold equity raise additional capital, our ownership interest in and degree of control over these drug discovery collaborators will be diluted, unless we have sufficient resources and choose to invest in them further or successfully negotiate contractual anti-dilution protections for our equity investment. The financial success of our equity investment in any collaborator will likely be dependent on a liquidity event, such as a public offering, acquisition, or other favorable market event reflecting appreciation in the value of the equity we hold. The capital markets for public offerings and acquisitions are dynamic, and the likelihood of liquidity events for the companies in which we hold equity interests could significantly worsen. Further, valuations of privately held companies are inherently complex due to the lack of readily available market data. If we determine that any of our investments in such companies have experienced a decline in value, we may be required to record an impairment, which could negatively impact our financial results. The fair value of our equity interests in public companies, such as Morphic and Structure Therapeutics, may fluctuate significantly in future periods since we determine the fair value of such equity interests based on the market value of such companies’ common stock as of a given reporting date. All of the equity we hold in our drug discovery collaborators is subject to a risk of partial or total loss of our investment.
Our drug discovery collaborators have significant discretion in determining when to make announcements, if any, about the status of our collaborations, including about clinical developments and timelines for advancing collaborative programs, and the price of our common stock may decline as a result of announcements of unexpected results or developments.
Our drug discovery collaborators have significant discretion in determining when to make announcements about the status of our collaborations, including about preclinical and clinical developments and timelines for advancing the collaborative programs. While as a general matter we intend to periodically report on the status of our collaborations, our drug discovery collaborators, and in particular, our privately-held collaborators, may wish to report such information more or less frequently than we intend to or may not wish to report such information at all. The price of our common stock may decline as a result of the public announcement of unexpected results or developments in our collaborations, or as a result of our collaborators withholding such information.
66
Although we believe that our computational platform has the potential to identify more promising molecules than traditional methods and to accelerate drug discovery, our focus on using our platform technology to discover and design molecules with therapeutic potential may not result in the discovery and development of commercially viable products for us or our collaborators.
Our scientific approach focuses on using our platform technology to conduct “computational assays” that leverage our deep understanding of physics-based modeling and theoretical chemistry to design molecules and predict their key properties without conducting time-consuming and expensive physical experiments. Our computational platform underpins our software solutions, our drug discovery collaborations and our own proprietary drug discovery programs.
While the results of certain of our drug discovery collaborators suggest that our platform is capable of accelerating drug discovery and identifying high quality product candidates, these results do not assure future success for our drug discovery collaborators or for us with our proprietary drug discovery programs.
Even if we or our drug discovery collaborators are able to develop product candidates that demonstrate potential in preclinical studies, we or they may not succeed in demonstrating safety and efficacy of product candidates in human clinical trials. For example, in collaboration with us, Nimbus Therapeutics, LLC, or Nimbus, was able to identify a unique series of acetyl-CoA carboxylase, or ACC, allosteric protein-protein interaction inhibitors with favorable pharmaceutical properties that inhibit the activity of the ACC enzyme. Nimbus achieved proof of concept in a Phase 1b clinical trial of its ACC inhibitor, firsocostat, and later sold the program to Gilead Sciences, Inc., or Gilead Sciences, in a transaction valued at approximately $1.2 billion, comprised of an upfront payment and earn outs. Of this amount, $601.3 million has been paid to Nimbus to date, and we received a total of $46.0 million in cash distributions in 2016 and 2017. In December 2019, Gilead Sciences announced topline results from its Phase 2 clinical trial which included firsocostat, both as a monotherapy and in combination with other investigational therapies for advanced fibrosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, in which the primary endpoint was not met. Gilead Sciences is currently evaluating firsocostat in a Phase 2b clinical trial in combination with Novo Nordisk A/S’s semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, for compensated cirrhosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their product candidates.
We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, discover or develop product candidates and may fail to capitalize on programs, collaborations, or product candidates that may present a greater commercial opportunity or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.
Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial, and human resources. As an organization, we have selected our first development candidates, which are SGR-1505, our MALT1 inhibitor, SGR-2921, our CDC7 inhibitor, and SGR-3515, our WEE1 inhibitor. The FDA cleared our IND for SGR-1505 in June 2022. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas and currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505. We also plan to an submit IND application to the FDA for SGR-2921 in the first half of 2023 and an IND application to the FDA for SGR-3515 in 2024, subject to favorable data from IND-enabling studies. We have not yet advanced any other programs into IND-enabling studies, and we may fail to identify potential product candidates for clinical development. Similarly, a key element of our business plan is to expand the use of our computational platform through an increase in software sales and drug discovery collaborations. A failure to demonstrate the utility of our platform by successfully using it ourselves to discover internal product candidates could harm our business prospects.
Because we have limited resources, we focus our research programs on protein targets where we believe our computational assays are a good substitute for experimental assays, where we believe it is theoretically possible to discover a molecule with properties that are required for the molecule to become a drug and where we believe there is a meaningful commercial opportunity, among other factors. The focus of our initial proprietary drug discovery programs was in the area of oncology, and we have only recently begun expanding into other therapeutic areas, including neurology and immunology. We may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with certain programs, collaborations, or product candidates or for indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. However, the development of any product candidate we pursue may ultimately prove to be unsuccessful or less successful than another potential product candidate that we might have chosen to pursue on a more aggressive basis with our capital resources. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through strategic collaboration, partnership, licensing, or other arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Alternatively, we may allocate internal resources to a product candidate in a therapeutic area in which it would have been more advantageous to enter into a collaboration.
67
Our research programs may show initial promise in identifying potential product candidates internally or with collaborators, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:
•our research methodology or that of any collaborator may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates that are successful in clinical development;
•potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make the product candidates unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval;
•our current or future collaborators may change their development profiles for potential product candidates or abandon a therapeutic area; or
•new competitive developments may render our product candidates obsolete or noncompetitive.
If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.
We rely on contract research organizations to synthesize any molecules with therapeutic potential that we discover. If such organizations do not meet our supply requirements, or if such organizations do not otherwise perform satisfactorily, development of any product candidate we may develop may be delayed.
We rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties to synthesize any molecules with therapeutic potential that we discover. Reliance on third parties may expose us to different risks than if we were to synthesize molecules ourselves. Our reliance on these third parties will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or synthesize molecules in accordance with regulatory requirements, if there are disagreements between us and such parties or if such parties are unable to expand capacities, we may not be able to fulfill, or may be delayed in producing sufficient product candidates to meet, our supply requirements, and we may not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the necessary preclinical studies to enable us to progress viable product candidates for IND submissions or the necessary clinical trials and we will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully develop and commercialize such product candidates. These facilities may also be affected by natural disasters, such as floods or fire, or geopolitical developments or public health pandemics, such as COVID-19, or such facilities could face production issues, such as contamination or regulatory concerns following a regulatory inspection of such facility. In such instances, we may need to locate an appropriate replacement third-party facility and establish a contractual relationship, which may not be readily available or on acceptable terms, which would cause additional delay and increased expense, and may have a material adverse effect on our business.
We or any third party may also encounter shortages in the raw materials or active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, necessary to synthesize any molecule we may discover in the quantities needed for preclinical studies or clinical trials, as a result of capacity constraints or delays or disruptions in the market for the raw materials or API. Even if raw materials or API are available, we may be unable to obtain sufficient quantities at an acceptable cost or quality. The failure by us or the third parties to obtain the raw materials or API necessary to synthesize sufficient quantities of any molecule we may discover could delay, prevent, or impair our development efforts and may have a material adverse effect on our business.
If we are not able to establish or maintain collaborations to develop and commercialize any of the product candidates we discover internally, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans for those product candidates and our business could be adversely affected.
We expect to rely on future collaborators for the development and potential commercialization of product candidates we discover internally when we believe it will help maximize the clinical and commercial opportunities of the product candidate. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators for these activities, and a number of more established companies may also be pursuing such collaborations. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources, and greater clinical development and commercialization expertise. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for such collaborations will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration, and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider
68
alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large biopharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.
If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop any product candidates or bring them to market.
As a company, we have very limited experience in clinical development and have not yet demonstrated our ability to complete any clinical trials.
We only began conducting our own wholly-owned drug discovery efforts in 2018. We have selected our first development candidates, which are SGR-1505, our MALT1 inhibitor, SGR-2921, our CDC7 inhibitor, and SGR-3515, our WEE1 inhibitor, and as a company, we have very limited experience in clinical development. The FDA cleared our first IND in June 2022, which is for SGR-1505. We recently initiated a Phase 1 clinical trial of SGR-1505 in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas and currently have clinical trial sites open for screening and enrollment, but we have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505.
Our limited experience in designing and conducting clinical development activities may adversely impact the likelihood that we will be successful in advancing our programs. Further, any predictions you make about the future success or viability of our proprietary drug discovery programs may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of conducting clinical trials and developing our own product candidates.
Further, if we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted. For example, in December 2022, with the passage of Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act, or FDORA, Congress required sponsors to develop and submit a diversity action plan for each phase 3 clinical trial or any other “pivotal study” of a new drug or biological product. These plans are meant to encourage the enrollment of more diverse patient populations in late-stage clinical trials of FDA-regulated products. Specifically, actions plans must include the sponsor’s goals for enrollment, the underlying rationale for those goals, and an explanation of how the sponsor intends to meet them. In addition to these requirements, the legislation directs the FDA to issue new guidance on diversity action plans.
In addition, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.
As our wholly-owned drug discovery business grows, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays, and other known and unknown factors. Our wholly-owned drug discovery business will need to transition to a business capable of supporting clinical development activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.
69
Conducting successful clinical trials requires the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit.
Conducting successful clinical trials requires the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients, and suitable patients may be difficult to identify and recruit. Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in future clinical trials for any other product candidate we develop is critical to our success. Patient enrollment in clinical trials and completion of patient participation and follow-up depends on many factors, including the severity of disease; size of the patient population; the nature of the trial protocol; the attractiveness of, or the discomforts and risks associated with, the treatments received by enrolled subjects; the availability of clinical trial investigators with appropriate competencies and experience; support staff; the number of ongoing clinical trials in the same indication that compete for the same patients; proximity of patients to clinical sites; the number and availability of trial sites; the ability to comply with the eligibility and exclusion criteria for participation in the clinical trial; ability to obtain and maintain patient consents; patient compliance; the ability to monitor patients during and after treatment; and the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. For example, patients may be discouraged from enrolling in our clinical trials if the trial protocol requires them to undergo extensive post-treatment procedures or follow-up to assess the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates. Patients may also not participate in our clinical trials if they choose to participate in contemporaneous clinical trials of competitive products with competitors that have more clinical development experience than we do.
Our inability to locate and enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.
We rely on, and plan to continue to rely on, third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, which may prevent or delay our ability to seek or obtain marketing approval for or commercialize our product candidates or otherwise harm our business.
We rely on, and plan to continue to rely on, third-party clinical research organizations, in addition to other third parties such as research collaboratives and consortia, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct our ongoing and future clinical trials. These contract research organizations and other third parties play a significant role in the conduct and timing of these trials and subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third-party arrangements might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities might be delayed.
Our reliance on third parties for research and development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our responsibility to comply with any such standards. We and these third parties are required to comply with current good clinical practices, or cGCP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA for all of our products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities in Europe and other jurisdictions have similar requirements. Regulatory authorities enforce these cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, 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 a given regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with cGCP regulations. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a U.S. government-sponsored database, clinicaltrials.gov, within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.
Furthermore, third parties on whom we rely may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. In addition, these third parties are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our on-going clinical, nonclinical and preclinical programs. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our medicines.
70
If serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development or commercialization of our product candidates, we may need to abandon or limit our development and/or commercialization efforts for such product candidates.
If serious adverse events or undesirable side effects are observed in any of our clinical trials, we may have difficulty recruiting patients to our clinical trials, patients may drop out of our trials, or we may be required to abandon the trials or our development efforts of one or more product candidates altogether or limit development to certain uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. We, the FDA, comparable foreign regulatory authorities or an independent institutional review board may suspend clinical trials of a product candidate at any time for various reasons, including a belief that subjects or patients in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks or adverse side effects. Some potential therapeutics developed in the biotechnology industry that initially showed therapeutic promise in early-stage trials have later been found to cause side effects that prevented their further development. Even if the side effects do not preclude the product candidate from obtaining or maintaining marketing approval, undesirable side effects may inhibit market acceptance of the approved product due to its tolerability versus other therapies. In addition, adverse events which had initially been considered unrelated to the study treatment may later, even following approval and/or commercialization, be found to be caused by the study treatment. Any of these developments could materially harm our business, financial condition and prospects.
The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and the results of our clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials will be successful. We have not completed a clinical trial of any product candidate. The results of SGR-1505 in preclinical studies may not be indicative of future results in our ongoing or later stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities despite having progressed through preclinical studies and early-stage clinical trials.
In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety and efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, differences in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Patients treated with our product candidates may also be undergoing surgical, radiation and chemotherapy treatments and may be using other approved products or investigational new drugs, which can cause side effects or adverse events that are unrelated to our product candidate. As a result, assessments of efficacy can vary widely for a particular patient, and from patient to patient and site to site within a clinical trial. This subjectivity can increase the uncertainty of, and adversely impact, our clinical trial outcomes. We do not know whether any clinical trials we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety sufficient to obtain marketing approval to market our product candidates. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization.
Moreover, preclinical studies and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials nonetheless failed to obtain FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority approval. We cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret trial results as we do, and more trials than we anticipated could be required before we are able to submit applications seeking approval of our product candidates. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for any of our product candidates, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of our product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential. Furthermore, the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval, which may lead to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities delaying, limiting or denying approval of our product candidates.
71
Interim, initial, “topline”, and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish in the future 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, initial, preliminary or topline data from our clinical trials, which are 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 trial. 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 or as patients from our clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. We will also have to 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 interim, initial, topline or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Preliminary or topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary or topline data we previously published. As a result, interim, initial, topline and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available.
Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm our reputation and business prospects and may cause volatility in the price of our common stock.
If we and any current or future collaborators are unable to successfully complete clinical development, obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize any product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, our business may be materially harmed.
We are early in our development efforts. While our most advanced product candidate, SGR-1505, has been cleared by the FDA to be tested in humans, we have only recently initiated a clinical trial of SGR-1505. We have not yet dosed any patients with SGR-1505 or any other product candidate. Our ability to generate product revenues, which we do not expect will occur for many years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development and eventual commercialization of our product candidates. The success of our and any current or future collaborators’ development and commercialization programs will depend on several factors, including the following:
•successful completion of necessary preclinical studies to enable the initiation of clinical trials;
•successful enrollment of patients in, and the completion of, the clinical trials;
•acceptance by the FDA or other regulatory agencies of regulatory filings for any product candidates we and our current or future collaborators may develop;
•expanding and maintaining a workforce of experienced scientists and other technical specialists to continue to develop any product candidates;
•obtaining and maintaining intellectual property protection and regulatory exclusivity for any product candidates we and our current or future collaborators may develop;
•making arrangements with third-party manufacturers for, or establishing, clinical and commercial manufacturing capabilities;
•establishing sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities for drug products and successfully launching commercial sales, if and when approved;
•acceptance of any product candidates we and our current or future collaborators may develop, if and when approved, by patients, the medical community, and third-party payors;
•effectively competing with other therapies;
•obtaining and maintaining coverage, adequate pricing, and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors;
72
•patients’ willingness to pay out-of-pocket in the absence of coverage and/or adequate reimbursement from third-party payors;
•ongoing or future restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and its collateral consequences may result in internal and external operational delays and limitations; and
•maintaining a continued acceptable safety profile following receipt of any regulatory approvals.
Many of these factors are beyond our control, including clinical outcomes, the regulatory review process, potential threats to our intellectual property rights, and the manufacturing, marketing, and sales efforts of any current or future collaborator. Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. If we or our current or future collaborators are unable to develop, receive marketing approval for, and successfully commercialize any product candidates, or if we or they experience delays as a result of any of these factors or otherwise, we may need to spend significant additional time and resources, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.
We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do, thus rendering our products non-competitive, obsolete or reducing the size of our market.
We face competition with respect to our and our collaborators’ product candidates from many biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary and novel products and product candidates. Our competitors have developed, are developing or may develop products, product candidates that are competitive with or superior to our product candidates. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, internally or with our collaborators, will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.
In particular, there is intense competition in the field of oncology, which is a focus of our drug discovery efforts. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, emerging and start-up companies, universities and other research institutions. We also compete with these organizations to recruit management, scientists and clinical development personnel, which could negatively affect our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan. We also face competition in finding and establishing clinical trial sites, enrolling subjects for clinical trials, assessing combination studies and recruiting credible principal investigators and advisors from key clinical disciplines and academic centers.
For example, with respect to SGR-1505, our MALT1 inhibitor, which we are advancing for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas, we are aware of several MALT1 inhibitors in clinical development, including by Janssen Research and Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., AbbVie Inc. and Zentalis Pharmaceuticals. In addition, we compete with other therapeutics, both approved and in clinical development, for the treatment of B-cell lymphomas.
Large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, in particular, have extensive experience in building and accessing networks of expert investigators, designing and conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and manufacturing and commercializing biotechnology products. These companies also have significantly greater research and development and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining approval from the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities or in discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.
73
Risks Related to Our Operations
Doing business internationally creates operational and financial risks for our business.
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, sales to customers outside of the United States accounted for approximately 32% of our total revenues. Operating in international markets requires significant resources and management attention and subjects us to regulatory, economic, and political risks that are different from those in the United States. We have limited operating experience in some international markets, and we cannot assure you that our expansion efforts into other international markets will be successful. Our experience in the United States and other international markets in which we already have a presence may not be relevant to our ability to expand in other markets. Our international expansion efforts may not be successful in creating further demand for our solutions outside of the United States or in effectively selling our solutions in the international markets we enter. In addition, we face risks in doing business internationally that could adversely affect our business, including:
•the need to localize and adapt our solutions for specific countries, including translation into foreign languages;
•data privacy laws which require that customer data be stored and processed in a designated territory or handled in a manner that differs significantly from how we typically handle customer data;
•difficulties in staffing and managing foreign operations, including employee laws and regulations;
•different pricing environments, longer sales cycles, and longer accounts receivable payment cycles and collections issues;
•differences in healthcare systems, drug regulation and reimbursement, and drug discovery and development practices and technologies;
•new and different sources of competition;
•weaker protection for intellectual property and other legal rights than in the United States and practical difficulties in enforcing intellectual property and other rights outside of the United States;
•laws and business practices favoring local competitors;
•compliance challenges related to the complexity of multiple, conflicting, and changing governmental laws and regulations, including employment, tax, reimbursement and pricing, privacy and data protection, and anti-bribery laws and regulations;
•increased financial accounting and reporting burdens and complexities;
•restrictions on the transfer of funds;
•changes in diplomatic and trade relationships, including new tariffs, trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements, trade embargoes, and other trade barriers;
•changes in social, political, and economic conditions or in laws, regulations, and policies governing foreign trade, manufacturing, development, and investment both domestically as well as in the other countries and jurisdictions;
•adverse tax consequences, including the potential for required withholding taxes;
•global health pandemics, such as COVID-19; and
•unstable regional, economic and political conditions.
Our international agreements may provide for payment denominated in local currencies and our local operating costs are denominated in local currencies. Therefore, fluctuations in the value of the U.S. dollar and foreign currencies may impact our operating results when translated into U.S. dollars. We do not currently engage in currency hedging activities to limit the risk of exchange rate fluctuations.
74
Furthermore, with respect to our drug discovery programs, the current conflict involving Russia and Ukraine may impact the ability of our CROs in the region to produce materials we require to conduct certain of our preclinical studies. If the conflict were to be prolonged or worsened, and if we are unable to obtain alternative sources for such materials that we require, the ability for us to timely execute and complete certain of our preclinical studies may be adversely impacted.
Additionally, we could face heightened risks as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union directives and regulations, the consequences of Brexit and the future regulatory regime that applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom remains unclear.
A widespread outbreak of an illness or other health issue, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, could negatively affect various aspects of our business and make it more difficult to meet our obligations to our customers, and could result in reduced demand from our customers as well as delays in our drug discovery and development programs.
Our business and operations could be adversely affected by health epidemics, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, impacting the markets and industries in which we and our customers and collaborators operate.
In early March 2020, we implemented a work-from-home policy for all of our employees. Beginning in June 2020, we began limited re-openings of certain of our offices in the United States and abroad. All of our offices are currently open, though we may take future actions that alter our operations as may be required by federal, state, or local authorities, or which we determine are in our best interests. While most of our operations can be performed remotely, there is no guarantee that we will continue to be as effective while working remotely because our team is dispersed, many employees may have additional personal needs to attend to (such as looking after children as a result of school closures or family who become sick), and employees may become sick themselves and be unable to work. Decreased effectiveness of our team could adversely affect our results due to our inability to meet in person with potential or current customers and collaborators, or other decreases in productivity that could seriously harm our business.
On January 30, 2023, the Biden Administration announced that it will end the public health emergency declarations related to COVID-19 on May 11, 2023. On January 31, 2023, the FDA indicated that it would soon issue a Federal Register notice describing how the termination of the public health emergency will impact the agency’s COVID-19 related guidance, including the clinical trial guidance and updates thereto. At this point, it is unclear how, if at all, these developments will impact our efforts to develop and commercialize our product candidates.
The full extent of the future impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will depend on many factors outside of our control, including, without limitation, the extent, trajectory and duration of the pandemic, the development, availability and distribution of effective treatments and vaccines, the imposition of protective public safety measures, the emergence of new strains and variants of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of vaccines against such strains and variants, and the impact of the pandemic on the global economy. For instance, if certain of our customers experience downturns or uncertainty in their own business operations and revenue because of the economic effects resulting from the spread of COVID-19, they may decrease their spending, which may result in decreased software revenue.
In addition, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may experience delays in the progress of certain of our and our collaborators’ drug discovery and development programs, particularly those that are in preclinical studies and clinical trials or that are preparing to enter clinical trials. Relative to our and our collaborators’ drug discovery programs, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in, and may in the future result in, disruptions in current and future IND-enabling studies and clinical trials, manufacturing disruptions, trial site disruptions and impact the ability to obtain necessary institutional review board, institutional biosafety committee, or other necessary site approvals. These disruptions have caused and may in the future cause delays in certain of our and our collaborators’ drug discovery programs. For example, our contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and our contract research organizations, or CROs, have experienced reductions in the capacity to undertake research-scale production and have experienced delays in executing preclinical studies, including our IND-enabling studies for SGR-2921. We expect to submit the IND application to the FDA for SGR-2921 in the first half of 2023 and to initiate a Phase 1 clinical trial in the second half of 2023, subject to receipt of regulatory clearance. In addition, the resurgence of COVID-19 in certain cities in China, and related subsequent lockdowns, have also reduced the capacity of a number of CROs that we work with in those affected areas. These reductions and delays may persist in the future, and we, together with our CMOs and CROs, are closely monitoring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these operations, and we are actively working to add supplemental or substitute capacity to minimize the impact of these reduced
75
operations. Furthermore, if our collaborators experience similar delays with their drug discovery and development programs, that could cause additional delays in our achievement of milestones and related revenue.
Inadequate funding or disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical FDA, SEC and other government 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. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.
The global impact of COVID-19 continues to rapidly evolve, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar health epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, operations, or the global economy as a whole. While the spread of COVID-19 may eventually be contained or mitigated, there is no guarantee that a future outbreak of this or any other widespread epidemics will not occur, or that the global economy will recover, either of which could seriously harm our business.
If we fail to manage our technical operations infrastructure, our existing customers, and our internal drug discovery team, may experience service outages, and our new customers may experience delays in the deployment of our solutions.
We have experienced significant growth in the number of users and data that our operations infrastructure supports. We seek to maintain sufficient excess capacity in our operations infrastructure to meet the needs of all of our customers and to support our proprietary drug discovery programs. We also seek to maintain excess capacity to facilitate the rapid provision of new customer deployments and the expansion of existing customer deployments. In addition, we need to properly manage our technological operations infrastructure in order to support version control, changes in hardware and software parameters and the evolution of our solutions. However, the provision of new hosting infrastructure requires adequate lead-time. We have experienced, and may in the future experience, website disruptions, outages, and other performance problems. These types of problems may be caused by a variety of factors, including infrastructure changes, human or software errors, viruses, security attacks, fraud, spikes in usage, and denial of service issues. In some instances, we may not be able to identify the cause or causes of these performance problems within an acceptable period of time. If we do not accurately predict our infrastructure requirements, our existing customers may experience service outages that may subject us to financial penalties, financial liabilities, and customer losses. If our operations infrastructure fails to keep pace with increased sales and usage, customers and our internal drug discovery team may experience delays in the deployment of our solutions as we seek to obtain additional capacity, which could adversely affect our reputation and adversely affect our revenues.
Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
Changes in tax law may adversely affect our business or financial condition. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the 2017 Tax Act, as amended by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, significantly revises the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The 2017 Tax Act, among other things, contains significant changes to corporate taxation, including a reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21% and limitation of the deduction for net operating losses, or NOLs, to 80% of current-year taxable income for losses arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 (though any such NOLs may be carried forward indefinitely. In addition, beginning in 2022, the 2017 Tax Act eliminates the option to deduct research and development expenditures currently and requires corporations to capitalize and amortize them over five years.
In addition to the CARES Act, as part of Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, economic relief legislation was enacted in 2020 and 2021 containing tax provisions. The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, was also signed into law in August 2022. The IRA introduced new tax provisions, including a one percent excise tax imposed on certain stock repurchases by publicly traded companies. The one percent excise tax generally applies to any acquisition of stock by the publicly traded company (or certain of its affiliates) from a stockholder of the company in exchange for money or other property (other than stock of the company itself), subject to a de minimis exception. Thus, the excise tax could apply to certain transactions that are not traditional stock repurchases. Regulatory guidance under the 2017 Tax Act, the IRA, and such additional legislation is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen the
76
impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. Additional tax legislation may be enacted, and any such additional legislation could have an impact on our company. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the 2017 Tax Act, the IRA, and additional tax legislation.
Our ability to use our NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.
As of December 31, 2022, we had federal NOLs of approximately $270.9 million and state NOLs of approximately $170.0 million, which, if not utilized, generally begin to expire in 2023. As of December 31, 2022, we also had federal research and development tax credit carryforwards of approximately $19.5 million and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of approximately $1.3 million. Unused credits began to expire in 2021 and generally expire over time if they remain unused. These NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities.
In addition, under Section 382 of the Code, and corresponding provisions of state law, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income. We have performed an analysis through December 31, 2022 and determined that such an ownership change occurred on March 31, 2021. As a result of such ownership change or future ownership changes, our ability to use our NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards may be materially limited.
There is also a risk that due to regulatory changes, such as suspension of the use of NOLs, or other unforeseen reasons, our existing NOLs could expire or otherwise become unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. As described above in “Changes in tax laws or in their implementation or interpretation could adversely affect our business and financial condition,” the 2017 Tax Act as amended by the CARES Act, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and rules governing NOL carryforwards that may significantly impact our ability to utilize NOLs to offset taxable income in the future. In addition, state NOLs generated in one state cannot be used to offset income generated in another state. For these reasons, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes.
Our international operations subject us to potentially adverse tax consequences.
We report our taxable income in various jurisdictions worldwide based upon our business operations in those jurisdictions. These jurisdictions include Germany, United Kingdom, Japan, India and South Korea. The international nature and organization of our business activities are subject to complex transfer pricing regulations administered by taxing authorities in various jurisdictions. The relevant taxing authorities may disagree with our determinations as to the income and expenses attributable to specific jurisdictions. If such a disagreement were to occur, and our position were not sustained, we could be required to pay additional taxes, interest, and penalties, which could result in one-time tax charges, higher effective tax rates, reduced cash flows, and lower overall profitability of our operations.
Taxing authorities may successfully assert that we should have collected or in the future should collect sales and use, value added, or similar taxes, and we could be subject to tax liabilities with respect to past or future sales, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
We do not collect sales and use, value added, and similar taxes in all jurisdictions in which we have sales, based on our belief that such taxes are not applicable or that we are not required to collect such taxes with respect to the jurisdiction. Sales and use, value added, and similar tax laws and rates vary greatly by jurisdiction. Certain jurisdictions in which we do not collect such taxes may assert that such taxes are applicable, which could result in tax assessments, penalties, and interest, and we may be required to collect such taxes in the future. Such tax assessments, penalties, and interest or future requirements may adversely affect our results of operations.
Unanticipated changes in our effective tax rate could harm our future results.
We are subject to income taxes in the United States and various foreign jurisdictions, and our domestic and international tax liabilities are subject to the allocation of expenses in differing jurisdictions. Forecasting our estimated annual effective tax rate is complex and subject to uncertainty, and there may be material differences between our forecasted and actual tax rates. Our effective tax rate could be adversely affected by changes in the mix of earnings and losses in countries with differing statutory tax rates, certain non-deductible expenses as a result of acquisitions, the
77
valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, and changes in federal, state, or international tax laws and accounting principles. Increases in our effective tax rate would reduce our profitability or in some cases increase our losses.
In addition, we may be subject to income tax audits by many tax jurisdictions throughout the world. Although we believe our income tax liabilities are reasonably estimated and accounted for in accordance with applicable laws and principles, an adverse resolution of one or more uncertain tax positions in any period could have a material impact on the results of operations for that period.
We have acquired, and we may again in the future acquire, companies or technologies, which could divert our management’s attention, result in additional dilution to our stockholders, and otherwise disrupt our operations and adversely affect our operating results.
We have acquired, and we may again in the future seek to acquire or invest in, businesses, solutions, or technologies that we believe could complement or expand our solutions, enhance our technical capabilities, or otherwise offer growth opportunities. For example, in January 2022, we acquired XTAL, a company that provides structural biology services, including biophysical methods, protein production and purification, and X-ray crystallography, which we believe will augment our ability to produce high quality target structures for our drug discovery programs. The pursuit of potential acquisitions may divert the attention of management and cause us to incur various expenses in identifying, investigating, and pursuing suitable acquisitions, whether or not they are consummated.
In addition, other than our acquisition of XTAL, we have limited experience in acquiring other businesses. If we acquire additional businesses, we may not be able to integrate the acquired personnel, operations, and technologies successfully, effectively manage the combined business following the acquisition or preserve the operational synergies between our business units that we believe currently exist. We cannot assure you that following any acquisition we would achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction, due to a number of factors, including:
•inability to integrate or benefit from acquired technologies or services in a profitable manner;
•unanticipated costs or liabilities associated with the acquisition;
•acquisition-related costs;
•difficulty integrating the accounting systems, operations, and personnel of the acquired business;
•difficulties and additional expenses associated with supporting legacy products and hosting infrastructure of the acquired business;
•difficulty converting the customers of the acquired business onto our solutions and contract terms, including disparities in the revenues, licensing, support, or professional services model of the acquired company;
•diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns;
•adverse effects to our existing business relationships with business partners and customers as a result of the acquisition;
•the potential loss of key employees;
•use of resources that are needed in other parts of our business; and
•use of substantial portions of our available cash to consummate the acquisition.
In addition, a significant portion of the purchase price of companies we acquire may be allocated to acquired goodwill and other intangible assets, which must be assessed for impairment at least annually. In the future, if our acquisitions do not yield expected returns, we may be required to take charges to our operating results based on this impairment assessment process, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
Acquisitions could also result in dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of debt, which could adversely affect our operating results. In addition, if an acquired business fails to meet our expectations, our operating results, business, and financial position may suffer.
78
Our operations may be interrupted by the occurrence of a natural disaster or other catastrophic event at our primary facilities.
Our operations are primarily conducted at our facilities in New York, New York, Portland, Oregon, and Hyderabad, India, and our internal hosting facility located in Clifton, New Jersey. The occurrence of natural disasters or other catastrophic events could disrupt our operations. Any natural disaster or catastrophic event in our facilities or the areas in which they are located could have a significant negative impact on our operations.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing license agreements with Columbia University, under any of our other intellectual property licenses, or under any future intellectual property licenses, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our current or any future licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.
We are party to a number of license agreements pursuant to which we have been granted exclusive and non-exclusive worldwide licenses to certain patents, software code, and software programs to, among other things, reproduce, use, execute, copy, operate, sublicense, and distribute the licensed technology in connection with the marketing and sale of our software solutions and to develop improvements thereto. In particular, the technology that we license from Columbia University pursuant to our license agreements with them are used in and incorporated into a number of our software solutions which we market and license to our customers. For further information regarding our license agreements with Columbia University, see “Business—License Agreements with Columbia University”. Our license agreements with Columbia University and other licensors impose, and we expect that future licenses will impose, specified royalty and other obligations on us.
In spite of our best efforts, our current or any future licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements with them and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby delaying our ability to market and sell our existing software solutions and develop and commercialize new software solutions that utilize technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying intellectual property fails to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors could market, products and technologies similar to ours. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:
•the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation related issues;
•the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
•the sublicensing of patent and other rights under any collaborative development relationships;
•the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our current or future licensors and us and our collaborators; and
•the priority of invention of patented technology.
In addition, license agreements are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement. For example, our counterparties have in the past and may in the future dispute the amounts owed to them pursuant to payment obligations. If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may experience delays in the development and commercialization of new software solutions and in our ability to market and sell existing software solutions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
79
Our obligations under our existing or future drug discovery collaboration agreements may limit our intellectual property rights that are important to our business. Further, if we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing or future collaboration agreements, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our prior, current, or future collaborators, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.
We are party to collaboration agreements with biopharmaceutical companies, pursuant to which we provide drug discovery services but have no ownership rights, or only co-ownership rights, to certain intellectual property generated through the collaborations. We are also party to a collaboration agreement with BMS for the development and potential commercialization of product candidates we discover internally, which also provides for co-ownership rights to certain intellectual property generated through the collaboration in certain scenarios. We may enter into additional collaboration agreements in the future, pursuant to which we may have no ownership rights, or only co-ownership rights, to certain intellectual property generated through the future collaborations. If we are unable to obtain ownership or license of such intellectual property generated through our prior, current, or future collaborations and overlapping with, or related to, our own proprietary technology or product candidates, then our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.
Our existing collaboration agreements contain certain exclusivity obligations that require us to design compounds exclusively for our collaborators with respect to certain specific targets over a specified time period. Our future collaboration agreements may grant similar exclusivity rights to future collaborators with respect to target(s) that are the subject of such collaborations. Existing or future collaboration agreements may also impose diligence obligations on us. For example, existing or future collaboration agreements may impose restrictions on us from pursuing the drug development targets for ourselves or for our other current or future collaborators, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize, or to jointly develop and commercialize with other current or future collaborators, product candidates, and technology related to the drug development targets. Under our collaboration with BMS, for example, we are prohibited from developing and commercializing product candidates anywhere in the world that are directed at the targets specified under the agreement, until the earlier of such target ceasing to be included under the agreement or the expiration of the last to expire royalty term for the program related to the target. In spite of our best efforts, our prior, current, or future collaborators might conclude that we have materially breached our collaboration agreements. If these collaboration agreements are terminated, or if the underlying intellectual property, to the extent we have ownership or license of, fails to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products and technology identical to ours. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a collaboration agreement, including:
•the scope of ownership or license granted under the collaboration agreement and other interpretation related issues;
•the extent to which our technology and product candidates infringe on intellectual property of the collaborator of which we do not have ownership or license under the collaboration agreement;
•the assignment or sublicense of intellectual property rights and other rights under the collaboration agreement;
•our diligence obligations under the collaboration agreement and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; and
•the inventorship and ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by us and our current or future collaborators.
In addition, collaboration agreements are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property, or increase what we believe to be our obligations under the relevant agreements, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have owned, co-owned, or in-licensed under the collaboration agreements prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current collaboration arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected technology or product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
80
If we are unable to obtain, maintain, enforce, and protect patent protection for our technology and product candidates or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our technology and product candidates may be adversely affected.
Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we may own solely and jointly with others or may license from others, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to any proprietary technology and product candidates we develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our technology and any product candidates we may develop that are important to our business and by in-licensing intellectual property related to our technology and product candidates. If we are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to any proprietary technology or product candidate, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.
The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming, and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, defend, or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain, enforce, and defend the patents, covering technology that we co-own with third parties or license from third parties. Therefore, these co-owned and in-licensed patents and applications may not be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, defended, and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.
The patent position of software and biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the scope of patent protection outside of the United States is uncertain and laws of non-U.S. countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States or vice versa. With respect to both owned and in-licensed patent rights, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we, our collaborators, and our licensor are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights or prior art potentially relating to our computational platform, technology, and any product candidates we may develop. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing of the priority application, or in some cases not published at all. Therefore, neither we nor our collaborators, or our licensor can know with certainty whether either we, our collaborators, or our licensor were the first to make the inventions claimed in the patents and patent applications we own or in-license now or in the future, or that either we, our collaborators, or our licensor were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability, and commercial value of our owned, co-owned, and in-licensed patent rights are highly uncertain. Moreover, our owned, co-owned, and in-licensed pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology and product candidates, in whole or in part, or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our owned, co-owned, or in-licensed current or future patents and our ability to obtain, protect, maintain, defend, and enforce our patent rights, narrow the scope of our patent protection and, more generally, could affect the value of, or narrow the scope of, our patent rights. For example, recent Supreme Court decisions have served to curtail the scope of subject matter eligible for patent protection in the United States, and many software patents have since been invalidated on the basis that they are directed to abstract ideas.
In order to pursue protection based on our pending provisional patent applications, we will need to file Patent Cooperation Treaty applications, non-U.S. applications, and/or U.S. non-provisional patent applications prior to applicable deadlines. Even then, as highlighted above, patents may never issue from our patent applications, or the scope of any patent may not be sufficient to provide a competitive advantage.
Moreover, we, our collaborators, or our licensor may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights or allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our owned, co-owned, or in-licensed current or future patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade
81
companies from collaborating with us to license, develop, or commercialize current or future technology or product candidates.
Additionally, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if our owned, co-owned, and in-licensed current and future patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our owned and in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our management and employees, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. In particular, given the amount of time required for the development, testing, and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned, co-owned, or in-licensed current or future patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. As a result, our owned, co-owned, and in-licensed current or future patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing technology and products similar or identical to any of our technology and product candidates.
Changes to patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.
Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws in the United States, including patent reform legislation such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned and in-licensed patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our owned and in-licensed issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These changes include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents, and enable third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent at USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first-to-file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. As such, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of software, biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our patent rights and our ability to protect, defend and enforce our patent rights in the future.
A number of recent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court have involved questions of when claims reciting abstract ideas, laws of nature, natural phenomena and/or natural products are eligible for a patent, regardless of whether the claimed subject matter is otherwise novel and inventive. These cases include Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013) or Myriad; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 13-298 (2014); and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., or Prometheus, 566 U.S. 10-1150 (2012). In response to these cases, federal courts have held numerous patents invalid as claiming subject matter ineligible for patent protection. Moreover, the USPTO has issued guidance to the examining corps on how to apply these cases during examination. The full impact of these decisions is not yet known.
82
In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain future patents, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on these and other decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change or be interpreted in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce any patents that may issue to us in the future. In addition, these events may adversely affect our ability to defend any patents that may issue in procedures in the USPTO or in courts.
We, our prior, existing, or future collaborators, and our existing or future licensors, may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate our, our prior, current and future collaborators’, or our current and future licensors’ issued patents or other intellectual property. As a result, we, our prior, current, or future collaborators, or our current or future licensor may need to file infringement, misappropriation, or other intellectual property related claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke such parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe, misappropriate, or otherwise violate their intellectual property. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, such parties could assert that the patents we, our collaborators, or our licensors have asserted are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defenses alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may institute such claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable.
An adverse result in any such proceeding could put one or more of our owned, co-owned, or in-licensed current or future patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and could put any of our owned, co-owned, or in-licensed current or future patent applications at risk of not yielding an issued patent. A court may also refuse to stop the third party from using the technology at issue in a proceeding on the grounds that our owned, co-owned, or in-licensed current or future patents do not cover such technology. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information or trade secrets could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. Any of the foregoing could allow such third parties to develop and commercialize competing technologies and products in a non-infringing manner and have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties, or brought by us or by our collaborators or licensor, or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Our defense of litigation or interference or derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to conduct clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us bring any product candidates to market.
Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.
Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators and licensor to develop, manufacture, market and sell any product candidates we may develop and for our collaborators, licensor, customers and partners to use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable patent and other intellectual property litigation in the software, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology industries. We may become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology and product candidates,
83
including interference proceedings, post grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in non-U.S. jurisdictions such as oppositions before the European Patent Office. Numerous U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our technologies or product candidates that we may identify may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.
The legal threshold for initiating litigation or contested proceedings is low, so that even lawsuits or proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated and require significant resources to defend. Litigation and contested proceedings can also be expensive and time-consuming, and our adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we can. The risks of being involved in such litigation and proceedings may increase if and as any product candidates near commercialization and as we gain the greater visibility associated with being a public company. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of merit. We may not be aware of all such intellectual property rights potentially relating to our technology and product candidates and their uses, or we may incorrectly conclude that third-party intellectual property is invalid or that our activities and product candidates do not infringe such intellectual property. Thus, we do not know with certainty that our technology and product candidates, or our development and commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any third party’s intellectual property.
Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations or methods, such as methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, related to the discovery, use or manufacture of the product candidates that we may identify or related to our technologies. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that the product candidates that we may identify may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Moreover, as noted above, there may be existing patents that we are not aware of or that we have incorrectly concluded are invalid or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover, for example, the manufacturing process of the product candidates that we may identify, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.
Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize the product candidates that we may identify. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products, be forced to indemnify our customers, licensor, or collaborators or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.
We may choose to take a license or, if we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could also be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing our technology and product candidates. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us and could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technology or product. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing any product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. In addition, we may be forced to redesign any product candidates, seek new regulatory approvals and indemnify third parties pursuant to contractual agreements. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
84
We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees, consultants, or contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties, or we have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.
Certain of our employees, consultants, and contractors were previously employed at universities or other software or biopharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.
In addition, while it is our policy to require that our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our intellectual property assignment agreements with them may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.
If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive business position and prospects. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products, which license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or such license may be non-exclusive. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and employees.
If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position may be harmed.
In addition to seeking patents for any product candidates and technology, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology, and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors, collaborators, and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, but we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may inadvertently or intentionally breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of a trade secret and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside of the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position may be materially and adversely harmed.
Risks Related to Regulatory and Other Legal Compliance Matters
Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the regulatory approval process is expensive, time consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. As a result, we cannot predict when or if, and in which territories, we will obtain marketing approval to commercialize a product candidate.
The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, marketing, promotion and distribution of products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We are not permitted to market our product candidates in the United States or in other countries until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA or marketing approval from applicable regulatory authorities outside the United States. Our product
85
candidates are in various stages of development and are subject to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. We have not submitted an application for or received marketing approval for any of our product candidates in the United States or in any other jurisdiction. We have no experience as a company in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs to assist us in this process.
The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. It may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information, including manufacturing information, to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.
In addition, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and 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 ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.
In order to market and sell our products in the European Union and other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The marketing approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. We may file for marketing approvals but not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.
We may seek certain designations for our product candidates, including Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track and Priority Review designations in the United States, and PRIME Designation in the European Union, but we might not receive such designations, and even if we do, such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.
We may seek certain designations for one or more of our product candidates that could expedite review and approval by the FDA. A Breakthrough Therapy product is defined as a product that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For products that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens.
The FDA may also designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective.
We may also seek a priority review designation for one or more of our product candidates. If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers major advances in treatment or provides a treatment where no adequate therapy exists, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months.
86
These designations are within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for these designations, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. Further, even if we receive a designation, the receipt of such designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development or regulatory review or approval process compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualifies for these designations, the FDA may later decide that the product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.
In the EU, we may seek PRIME designation for our product candidates in the future. PRIME is a voluntary program aimed at enhancing the EMA’s role to reinforce scientific and regulatory support in order to optimize development and enable accelerated assessment of new medicines that are of major public health interest with the potential to address unmet medical needs. The program focuses on medicines that target conditions for which there exists no satisfactory method of treatment in the EU or even if such a method exists, it may offer a major therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. PRIME is limited to medicines under development and not authorized in the EU and the applicant intends to apply for an initial marketing authorization application through the centralized procedure. To be accepted for PRIME, a product candidate must meet the eligibility criteria in respect of its major public health interest and therapeutic innovation based on information that is capable of substantiating the claims. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a CHMP rapporteur to provide continued support and help to build knowledge ahead of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review, meaning reduction in the review time for an opinion on approvability to be issued earlier in the application process. PRIME enables an applicant to request parallel EMA scientific advice and health technology assessment advice to facilitate timely market access. Even if we receive PRIME designation for any of our product candidates, the designation may not result in a materially faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional EMA procedures. Further, obtaining PRIME designation does not assure or increase the likelihood of EMA’s grant of a marketing authorization.
Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain reimbursement for any of our product candidates that do receive marketing approval.
In the United States and foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we may receive for any approved products. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope, our business could be materially harmed.
In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the ACA. In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2031 under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. Pursuant to subsequent legislation, these Medicare sequester reductions were suspended and reduced in 2021 and 2022 but, as of July 1, 2022, the full 2% cut has resumed. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used. Indeed, under current legislation, the actual reductions in Medicare payments may vary up to 4%.
Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, in 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. Further, in December 2018, a U.S. District Court judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court heard this case and in June 2021, dismissed this action after finding that the
87
plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ACA. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.
The Trump Administration also took executive actions to delay implementation of the ACA, including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden revoked those orders and issued a new executive order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.
We expect that these healthcare reforms, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and/or the level of reimbursement physicians receive for administering any approved product we might bring to market. Reductions in reimbursement levels may negatively impact the prices we receive or the frequency with which our products are prescribed or administered. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. Accordingly, such reforms, if enacted, could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain marketing approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop or commercialize product candidates.
The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States and foreign jurisdictions are subject to considerable legislative and executive actions and could impact the prices we obtain for our products, if and when licensed, as well as impact our ability to find collaborators and/or partners for our drug discovery programs on commercially acceptable terms.
The prices of prescription pharmaceuticals have been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. There have been several recent Congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to pharmaceutical pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reduce the costs of pharmaceuticals under Medicare and Medicaid. In 2020 President Trump issued several executive orders intended to lower the costs of prescription products and certain provisions in these orders have been incorporated into regulations. These regulations include an interim final rule implementing a most favored nation model for prices that would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered pharmaceuticals to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. That rule, however, has been subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction and, on December 29, 2021, CMS issued a final rule to rescind it. With issuance of this rule, CMS stated that it will explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B pharmaceuticals and improve beneficiaries’ access to evidence-based care.
In addition, in October 2020, HHS and the FDA published a final rule allowing states and other entities to develop a Section 804 Importation Program, or SIP, to import certain prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. The final rule is currently the subject of ongoing litigation, but at least six states (Vermont, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) have passed laws allowing for the importation of drugs from Canada with the intent of developing SIPs for review and approval by the FDA. Further, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation that would eliminate the current safe harbor for Medicare drug rebates and create new safe harbors for beneficiary point-of-sale discounts and pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, service fees. It originally was set to go into effect on January 1, 2022, but with passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has been delayed by Congress until January 1, 2032.
In September 2021, acting pursuant to an executive order signed by President Biden, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, released its plan to reduce pharmaceutical prices. The key features of that plan are to: (a) make pharmaceutical prices more affordable and equitable for all consumers and throughout the health care system by supporting pharmaceutical price negotiations with manufacturers; (b) improve and promote competition throughout the prescription pharmaceutical industry by supporting market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase transparency; and (c) foster scientific innovation to promote better healthcare and improve health by supporting public and private research and making sure that market incentives promote discovery of valuable and accessible new treatments.
88
More recently, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or IRA, was signed into law by President Biden. The new legislation has implications for Medicare Part D, which is a program available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A or enrolled in Medicare Part B to give them the option of paying a monthly premium for outpatient prescription drug coverage. Among other things, the IRA requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), with prices that can be negotiated subject to a cap; imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023); and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). The IRA permits the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years.
Specifically, with respect to price negotiations, Congress authorized Medicare to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars and are reimbursed under Medicare Part B and Part D. CMS may negotiate prices for ten high-cost drugs paid for by Medicare Part D starting in 2026, followed by 15 Part D drugs in 2027, 15 Part B or Part D drugs in 2028, and 20 Part B or Part D drugs in 2029 and beyond. This provision applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years, but it does not apply to drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition. Nonetheless, since CMS may establish a maximum price for these products in price negotiations, we would be fully at risk of government action if our products or those of our partners are the subject of Medicare price negotiations. Moreover, given the risk that could be the case, these provisions of the IRA may also further heighten the risk that we would not be able to achieve the expected return on our drug products or full value of our patents protecting our products if prices are set after such products have been on the market for nine years.
Furthermore, these provisions of the IRA may cause some companies to shift their research portfolio and priorities more towards large molecules (i.e. biologics such as antibodies) rather than small molecules. Although we do have applications of our technology to biologics, we do not yet have the same validation or value for large molecule discovery as we do for small molecule discovery. Accordingly, if the IRA causes the pharmaceutical industry to pivot investment and portfolio strategy away from small molecule drug discovery and towards biologics, it could have a material adverse effect on the expected value of our drug discovery programs and also on the perceived value of using our software to develop product candidates. In addition, if investment levels and development interest in small molecule therapeutics decreased, it may become more difficult for us to enter into collaborations on commercially acceptable terms, or at all, for our proprietary programs. If we are unable to find suitable collaborators and/or partners for our programs, we may be forced to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own for more programs than we would otherwise expect to, or plan for, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.
Further, the legislation subjects drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax for failing to comply with the legislation by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” under the law or for taking price increases that exceed inflation. The legislation also requires manufacturers to pay rebates for drugs in Medicare Part D whose price increases exceed inflation. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $4,000 a year in 2024 and, thereafter beginning in 2025, at 2,000 a year. In addition, the IRA potentially raises legal risks with respect to individuals participating in a Medicare Part D prescription drug plan who may experience a gap in coverage if they required coverage above their initial annual coverage limit before they reached the higher threshold, or “catastrophic period” of the plan. Individuals requiring services exceeding the initial annual coverage limit and below the catastrophic period, must pay 100% of the cost of their prescriptions until they reach the catastrophic period. Among other things, the IRA contains many provisions aimed at reducing this financial burden on individuals by reducing the co-insurance and co-payment costs, expanding eligibility for lower income subsidy plans, and price caps on annual out-of-pocket expenses, each of which could have potential pricing and reporting implications.
Accordingly, while it is currently unclear how the IRA will be effectuated, we cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for approved products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare organizations and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts
89
that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.
In the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and the European Union, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. In many countries, including those of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our collaborators may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies. If reimbursement is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be materially harmed.
Compliance with global privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer, and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data and employee data, is subject to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR would increase our obligations with respect to any clinical trials conducted in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that such rules should apply to transfers of personal data from any clinical trial sites located in the EEA to the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to four percent of global revenues or 20 million Euros, whichever is greater, and confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that European Union member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric, or health data.
Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with the GDPR’s requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors, or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the European Union. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal information, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation, and significant fines and penalties against us, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
Similar privacy and data security requirements are either in place or underway in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection laws that may be applicable to our activities, and a range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, is creating similar risks and obligations as those created by GDPR. Because of this, we may need to engage in additional activities (e.g., data mapping) to identify the personal information we are collecting and the purposes for which such information is collected. In addition, we will need to ensure that our policies
90
recognize the rights granted to consumers (as that phrase is broadly defined in the CCPA and can include business contact information), including granting consumers the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information. Many other states are considering similar legislation. . In November 2020, California voters passed a ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023 and significantly expanded the CCPA to incorporate additional GDPR-like provisions including requiring that the use, retention, and sharing of personal information of California residents be reasonably necessary and proportionate to the purposes of collection or processing, granting additional protections for sensitive personal information, and requiring greater disclosures related to notice to residents regarding retention of information. At the same time, a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with current and any future federal and state laws regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties. We also face a threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.
We, and the collaborators who use our computational platform, may be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, transparency, health information privacy and security, and other healthcare laws and regulations. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations, may result in substantial penalties.
We, and the collaborators who use our computational platform, may be subject to broadly applicable healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell, and distribute our software solutions and any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Such healthcare laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, the federal health care Anti-Kickback Statute; federal civil and criminal false claims laws, such as the federal False Claims Act; the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA; the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act; and analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws and transparency laws.
Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. Violations of applicable healthcare laws and regulations may result in significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements, and/or oversight if a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement is executed to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of operations. In addition, violations may also result in reputational harm, diminished profits, and future earnings.
We are subject to anti-corruption laws, as well as export control laws, customs laws, sanctions laws, and other laws governing our operations. If we fail to comply with these laws, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties, other remedial measures, and legal expenses, be precluded from developing, manufacturing, and selling certain products outside the United States or be required to develop and implement costly compliance programs, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the U.K. Bribery Act 2010, or Bribery Act, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business and may do business in the future. The Bribery Act, FCPA, and these other laws generally prohibit us, our officers, and our employees and intermediaries from bribing, being bribed, or making other prohibited payments to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage. Compliance with the FCPA, in particular, is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the biopharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.
We may in the future operate in jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential Bribery Act or FCPA violations, and we may participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose actions could potentially subject us to liability under the Bribery Act, FCPA, or local anti-corruption laws. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted. If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we
91
will need to dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate.
We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, and authorities in the European Union, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions on countries and persons, customs requirements, and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as the Trade Control laws. In addition, various laws, regulations, and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.
There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA, or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws. If we are not in compliance with the Bribery Act, the FCPA, and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions. Any investigation of any potential violations of the Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws by the United Kingdom, U.S., or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading laws, which could cause significant liability for us and harm our reputation.
We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, and vendors. Misconduct by these partners could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations or similar regulations of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, provide accurate information to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, comply with manufacturing standards, comply with federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations and similar laws and regulations established and enforced by comparable foreign regulatory authorities, report financial information or data accurately, or disclose unauthorized activities to us. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. This could include violations of HIPAA, other U.S. federal and state law, and requirements of non-U.S. jurisdictions, including the European Union Data Protection Directive. We are also exposed to risks in connection with any insider trading violations by employees or others affiliated with us. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws, standards, regulations, guidance, or codes of conduct. Furthermore, our employees may, from time to time, bring lawsuits against us for employment issues, including injury, discrimination, wage and hour disputes, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, or other employment issues. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and results of operations, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.
Our internal information technology systems, or those of our third-party vendors, contractors, or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, loss or leakage of data, and other disruptions, which could result in a material disruption of our services, compromise sensitive information related to our business, or prevent us from accessing critical information, potentially exposing us to liability or otherwise adversely affecting our business.
We are increasingly dependent upon information technology systems, infrastructure, and data to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store, and transmit confidential information (including but not limited to intellectual property, proprietary business information, and personal information). It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information. We also have outsourced elements of our operations to third parties, and as a result we manage a number of third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants who have access to our confidential information.
92
Despite the implementation of security measures, given the size and complexity of our internal information technology systems and those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, and the increasing amounts of confidential information that they maintain, our information technology systems are potentially vulnerable to breakdown or other damage or interruption from service interruptions, system malfunction, natural disasters, terrorism, war, and telecommunication and electrical failures, as well as security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, third-party vendors, contractors, consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties, or from cyber-attacks by malicious third parties (including the deployment of harmful malware, ransomware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering, and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information), which may compromise our system infrastructure, or that of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants or lead to data leakage. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments, and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity, and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. We may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, and we may not be able to implement preventive measures effective against all such security threats. For example, third parties have in the past and may in the future illegally pirate our software and make that software publicly available on peer-to-peer file sharing networks or otherwise. The techniques used by cyber criminals change frequently, may not be recognized until launched, and can originate from a wide variety of sources, including outside groups such as external service providers, organized crime affiliates, terrorist organizations, or hostile foreign governments or agencies. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and reputational damage and the further development and commercialization of our software could be delayed. The costs related to significant security breaches or disruptions could be material and exceed the limits of the cybersecurity insurance we maintain against such risks. If the information technology systems of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants become subject to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such an event, and to develop and implement protections to prevent future events of this nature from occurring.
While we have not experienced any significant system failure, accident, or security breach to date, and believe that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology reduce the likelihood of such incidents in the future, we cannot assure you that our data protection efforts and our investment in information technology will prevent significant breakdowns, data leakages, breaches in our systems, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations, or financial condition. For example, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, it could result in a material disruption of our programs and the development of our services and technologies could be delayed. Furthermore, significant disruptions of our internal information technology systems or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or security breaches could result in the loss, misappropriation, and/or unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information (including trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information, and personal information), which could result in financial, legal, business, and reputational harm to us. For example, any such event that leads to unauthorized access, use, or disclosure of personal information, including personal information regarding our customers or employees, could harm our reputation directly, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, and otherwise subject us to liability under laws and regulations that protect the privacy and security of personal information, which could result in significant legal and financial exposure and reputational damages that could potentially have an adverse effect on our business. Further, sophisticated cyber attackers (including foreign adversaries engaged in industrial espionage) are skilled at adapting to existing security technology and developing new methods of gaining access to organizations’ sensitive business data, which could result in the loss of sensitive information, including trade secrets. Additionally, actual, potential, or anticipated attacks may cause us to incur increasing costs, including costs to deploy additional personnel and protection technologies, train employees, and engage third-party experts and consultants.
Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth
Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain, and motivate qualified personnel.
We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, financial, operational, scientific, software engineering, and other business expertise of our executive officers, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific, clinical, and software engineering teams. Although we have entered into employment agreements
93
with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.
The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our development and sales goals in our software business and the achievement of our research, development, and commercialization objectives in our drug discovery business. In either case, the loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of, and commercialize products in the life sciences industry.
Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, accounting, legal, and sales and marketing personnel, as well as software engineers and computational chemists, will also be critical to our success. In the technology industry, there is substantial and continuous competition for engineers with high levels of expertise in designing, developing, and managing software and related services, as well as competition for sales executives, data scientists, and operations personnel. Competition to hire these individuals is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain, or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous biopharmaceutical and technology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy and advancing our computational platform. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited and our business would be adversely affected.
We are pursuing multiple business strategies and expect to expand our development and regulatory capabilities, and as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our multiple business units and our growth, which could disrupt our operations.
Currently, we are pursuing multiple business strategies simultaneously, including activities in research and development, software sales, and collaborative and proprietary drug discovery. We believe pursuing these multiple business strategies offers financial and operational synergies, but these diversified operations place increased demands on our limited resources. Furthermore, we have recently experienced, and we expect to continue to experience, significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development, clinical and regulatory affairs. To manage our multiple business units and our ongoing and anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities, and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and our management team’s limited attention and limited experience in managing a company with such ongoing and anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage our multiple business units and the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations has led to and may continue to lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. In addition, in order to meet our obligations as a public company and to support our anticipated long-term growth, we will need to increase our general and administrative capabilities. Our management, personnel, and systems may not be adequate to support this future growth. Any inability to manage our multiple business units and growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations and the synergies we believe currently exist between our business units. In addition, adverse developments in one of these business units may disrupt these synergies.
Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock
An active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained.
Our shares of common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on February 6, 2020. Prior to February 6, 2020, there was no public market for our common stock, and we cannot assure you that an active trading market for our shares will be sustained. As a result, it may be difficult for our stockholders to sell their shares without depressing the market price of our common stock, or at all.
94
Our executive officers, directors, and principal stockholders, if they choose to act together, have the ability to influence all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.
As of February 21, 2023, our executive officers and directors and our stockholders who beneficially owned more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, in the aggregate, beneficially owned shares representing approximately 34.3% of our common stock and all of our limited common stock, or, if the holder of our limited common stock exercised its right to convert each share of its limited common stock for one share of our common stock, approximately 42.8% of our common stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would influence the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.
This concentration of ownership control may:
•delay, defer, or prevent a change in control;
•entrench our management and board of directors; or
•delay or prevent a merger, consolidation, takeover, or other business combination involving us that other stockholders may desire.
This concentration of ownership may also adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
The price of our common stock is volatile and fluctuates substantially, which could result in substantial losses for our stockholders.
Our stock price has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. Since our initial public offering in February 2020 and through February 21, 2023, the intraday price of our common stock has fluctuated from a low of $15.85 to a high of $117.00. As a result of volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price paid for the shares. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:
•our investment in, and the success of, our software solutions;
•the success of our research and development efforts for our proprietary drug discovery programs;
•initiation and progress of preclinical studies and clinical trials for any product candidates that we may develop;
•results of or developments in preclinical studies and clinical trials of any product candidates we may develop or those of our competitors or potential collaborators;
•the success of our drug discovery collaborators and any milestone or other payments we receive from such collaborators;
•the success of competitive products or technologies;
•regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries;
•the recruitment or departure of key personnel;
•variations in our financial results or the financial results of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;
•guidance or announcements by us with respect to our anticipated financial or operational performance;
•sales of common stock by us, our executive officers, directors or principal stockholders, or others, or the anticipation of such sales;
•market conditions in the biopharmaceutical sector;
•general economic, industry, and market conditions;
95
•the societal and economic impact of public health epidemics, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic; and
•the other factors described in this “Risk Factors” section.
In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against that company. Any lawsuit to which we are a party, with or without merit, may result in an unfavorable judgment. We also may decide to settle lawsuits on unfavorable terms. Any such negative outcome could result in payments of substantial damages or fines, damage to our reputation, or adverse changes to our offerings or business practices. Such litigation may also cause us to incur other substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources.
Our actual operating results may differ significantly from our guidance.
We have released, and may in the future release, guidance in our annual or quarterly earnings conference calls, annual or quarterly earnings releases, or otherwise, regarding our future performance that represents our management’s estimates as of the date of such guidance. Our guidance, which includes forward-looking statements, is based on projections prepared by our management. Neither our registered public accountants nor any other independent expert or outside party compiles or examines the projections. Accordingly, no such person expresses any opinion or any other form of assurance with respect to the projections.
Projections are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates that, while presented with numerical specificity, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, and competitive uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control and are based upon specific assumptions with respect to future business decisions, some of which will change. The principal reason that we have released, and would continue to release, guidance is to provide a basis for our management to discuss our business outlook with analysts and investors. We do not accept any responsibility for any projections or reports published by any such third parties.
Guidance is necessarily speculative in nature, and it can be expected that some or all of the assumptions underlying any guidance furnished by us will not materialize or will vary significantly from actual results. Accordingly, our guidance is only an estimate of what management believes is realizable as of the date of release. Actual results may vary from our guidance and the variations may be material.
We and our collaborators may not achieve projected discovery and development milestones and other anticipated key events in the time frames that we or they announce, which could have an adverse impact on our business and could cause our stock price to decline.
From time to time, we expect that we will make public statements regarding the expected timing of certain milestones and key events, such as the commencement and completion of preclinical and IND-enabling studies and clinical trials in our proprietary drug discovery programs as well as developments and milestones under our collaborations. For example, Morphic and Structure Therapeutics have also made public statements regarding their expectations for the development of programs under collaboration with us and they and other collaborators may in the future make additional statements about their goals and expectations for collaborations with us. The actual timing of these events can vary dramatically due to a number of factors such as delays or failures in our or our current and future collaborators’ drug discovery and development programs, including as a result of COVID-19, the amount of time, effort, and resources committed by us and our current and future collaborators, and the numerous uncertainties inherent in the development of drugs. As a result, there can be no assurance that our or our current and future collaborators’ programs will advance or be completed in the time frames we or they announce or expect. If we or any collaborators fail to achieve one or more of these milestones or other key events as planned, our business could be materially adversely affected and the price of our common stock could decline.
If securities analysts do not publish or cease publishing research or reports or publish misleading, inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of our stock, the price and trading volume of our stock could decline.
The market price and trading volume for our common stock relies, in part, on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have control over these analysts. There can be no assurance that existing analysts will continue to cover us or that new analysts will begin to cover us. There is also no
96
assurance that any covering analyst will provide favorable coverage. Although we have obtained analyst coverage, if one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, or provides more favorable relative recommendations about our competitors, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our stock, which in turn could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.
We have broad discretion in the use of our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities and may not use them effectively.
Our management has broad discretion in the deployment and use of our cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities and could use such funds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common stock or in ways that our stockholders may not agree with. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline.
Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders.
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings to fund the development and expansion of our business. Any determination to pay dividends in the future will be at the discretion of our board of directors. As a result, capital appreciation of our common stock, if any, will be the sole source of gain for our stockholders for the foreseeable future.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is doing well.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock, impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities, and make it more difficult for our stockholders to sell their common stock at a time and price that they deem appropriate. As of February 21, 2023, we had outstanding 62,321,454 shares of common stock and 9,164,193 shares