Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

Commission File No. 000-30319

INNOVIVA, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 238-9600

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT: NONE

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (Check One):

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant based upon the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2022 was $923,930,805. This calculation does not reflect a determination that persons are affiliates for any other purpose.

On February 14, 2023, there were 68,126,089 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding.

Table of Contents

INNOVIVA, INC.

2022 Form 10‑K Annual Report

Table of Contents

2

Table of Contents

Special Note Regarding Forward‑Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10‑K contains forward‑looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Such forward‑looking statements involve substantial risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K, other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, intentions, expectations, goals and objectives may be forward‑looking statements. The words “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “designed,” “estimates,” “expects,” “goal,” “intends,” “may,” “objective,” “plans,” “projects,” “pursuing,” “will,” “would” and similar expressions (including the negatives thereof) are intended to identify forward‑looking statements, although not all forward‑looking statements contain these identifying words. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions, expectations or objectives disclosed in our forward‑looking statements and the assumptions underlying our forward‑looking statements may prove incorrect. Therefore, you should not place undue reliance on our forward‑looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions, expectations and objectives disclosed in the forward‑looking statements that we make. All written and verbal forward‑looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section.

Important factors that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from our forward‑looking statements include, but are not limited to, risks related to: lower than expected future royalty revenue from respiratory products partnered with GSK, the commercialization of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®, ANORO® ELLIPTA®, GIAPREZA® and XERAVA® in the jurisdictions in which these products have been approved; the strategies, plans and objectives of the Company (including the Company's growth strategy and corporate development initiatives); the timing, manner, and amount of potential capital returns to shareholders; the status and timing of clinical studies, data analysis and communication of results; the potential benefits and mechanisms of action of product candidates; expectations for product candidates through development and commercialization; the timing of regulatory approval of product candidates; and projections of revenue, expenses and other financial items; the impact of the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”); the timing, manner and amount of capital deployment, including potential capital returns to stockholders; and risks related to the Company’s growth strategy and risks discussed in “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Part II and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. Our forward‑looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K are based on current expectations as of the date hereof and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward‑looking statements on account of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

We encourage you to read Management’s Discussion and Analysis of our Financial Condition and Results of Operations and our consolidated financial statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. We also encourage you to read Item 1A of Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K, entitled “Risk Factors,” which contains a more complete discussion of the risks and uncertainties associated with our business. In addition to the risks described above and in Item 1A of this report, other unknown or unpredictable factors also could affect our results. Therefore, the information in this report should be read together with other reports and documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) from time to time, including on Form 10‑Q and Form 8‑K, which may supplement, modify, supersede or update those risk factors. As a result of these factors, we cannot assure you that the forward‑looking statements in this report will prove to be accurate. Furthermore, if our forward‑looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. In light of the significant uncertainties in these forward‑looking statements, you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all.

3

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

Innoviva, Inc. (“Innoviva”, the “Company”, the “Registrant” or “we” and other similar pronouns) is a diversified holding company with a portfolio of royalties and other healthcare assets. Our royalty portfolio contains respiratory assets partnered with Glaxo Group Limited (“GSK”), including RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol, “FF/VI”) and ANORO® ELLIPTA® (umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol, “UMEC/VI”). Under the Long-Acting Beta2 Agonist (“LABA”) Collaboration Agreement, Innoviva is entitled to receive royalties from GSK on sales of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® as follows: 15% on the first $3.0 billion of annual global net sales and 5% for all annual global net sales above $3.0 billion; and royalties from the sales of ANORO® ELLIPTA®, which tier upward at a range from 6.5% to 10%. Innoviva was also entitled to 15% of royalty payments made by GSK under its agreements originally entered into with us, and since assigned to Theravance Respiratory Company, LLC (“TRC”), including TRELEGY® ELLIPTA® and any other product or combination of products that may be discovered or developed in the future under the LABA Collaboration Agreement and the Strategic Alliance Agreement with GSK (referred to herein as the “GSK Agreements”), which were assigned to TRC other than RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA®. We sold our 15% ownership interest in TRC on July 20, 2022, and are no longer entitled to receive royalties on sales of TRELEGY® ELLIPTA® products.

We expanded our portfolio of royalties and innovative healthcare assets through the acquisition of Entasis Therapeutics Holdings Inc. (“Entasis”) on July 11, 2022 and the acquisition of La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company (“La Jolla”) on August 22, 2022. Our commercial and marketed products include GIAPREZA® (angiotensin II), approved in the United States (“U.S.”) to increase blood pressure in adults with septic or other distributive shock, and XERAVA® (eravacycline) approved in the U.S. for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults. Our development pipeline includes medicines for the treatment of bacterial infections, such as our lead asset sulbactam-durlobactam (“SUL-DUR”).

Our headquarters are located at 1350 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 400, Burlingame, CA 94010. The Company was incorporated in Delaware in November 1996 under the name Advanced Medicine, Inc., and began operations in May 1997. It later changed its name to Theravance, Inc. in April 2002. In June 2014, we spun-off our research and development operations. In January 2016, we rebranded and changed our name to Innoviva, Inc.

Our Strategy

Our corporate strategy is currently focused on increasing stockholder value by, among other things, maximizing the potential value of our respiratory assets partnered with GSK, optimizing our operations and augmenting capital allocation. We continue to diversify our royalty management business through actively pursuing opportunistic acquisitions of promising companies and assets in the healthcare industry and enhancing the returns on our capital. In particular, our recent acquisitions of Entasis and La Jolla created a robust hospital and infectious disease platform.

Our Royalty Product Portfolio

Our Relationship with GSK

LABA Collaboration

In November 2002, we entered into our LABA Collaboration Agreement with GSK to develop and commercialize once‑daily products for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”) and asthma. The collaboration has developed three combination products, two of which we still retain rights in. Those two are as follows:

4

Table of Contents

As a result of the launch and approval of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® in the U.S., Japan and Europe, in accordance with the LABA Collaboration Agreement, we paid milestone fees to GSK totaling $220.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2014. The milestone fees paid to GSK were recognized as capitalized fees paid, which are being amortized over their estimated useful lives commencing upon the commercial launch of the products.

Competition

We anticipate that RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® (FF/VI) and ANORO® ELLIPTA® (UMEC/VI) will compete with a number of approved bronchodilator drugs alone or in combination, including each other and drug candidates under development that are designed to treat asthma and COPD. These include but are not limited to:

5

Table of Contents

In addition, several firms have been developing new formulations of Advair/Seretide (salmeterol /fluticasone propionate) and Symbicort (formoterol fumerate/budesonide) which may be marketed as generics or branded generics relative to the existing products from GSK and AstraZeneca, respectively. All of these efforts represent potential competition for any of our partnered products. Efforts have intensified following the publication of FDA draft guidance for the approval of fully substitutable versions of Advair and Symbicort in late 2013 and mid-2015, respectively. Current examples of these products include the marketed products Duoresp/Biresp from Teva (generic Symbicort), AirFluSal Forspiro by Sandoz, Rolenium by Elpen and Sirdupla by Mylan (all generic versions of Seretide) which are all available in a wide number of countries in the E.U. Numerous companies have brought to market generic forms of the ICS/LABA drug Advair® since certain patents covering the Advair® delivery device expired in 2016. In March 2017, Mylan N.V. received a complete response letter from the FDA relating to its Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for fluticasone propionate 100, 250, 500 mcg and salmeterol 50 mcg inhalation powder. In May 2017, Hikma announced that it received a complete response letter from the FDA relating to its ANDA for fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder, and in February 2018, Novartis announced that its generic division Sandoz had received a complete response letter from the FDA in response to its ANDA for a third fluticasone propionate and salmeterol product. In January 2019, Mylan announced that the FDA approved Wixela™ Inhu™ (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder, USP), the first generic of Advair Diskus® and Sandoz terminated development of generic Advair. Teva announced that the FDA approved two of its products for adolescent and adult patients with asthma, one of which is AirDuo™ RespiClick® (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder), a non-AB substitutable generic version of Advair®. In May 2020, Cipla filed for FDA approval of a generic version of Advair®. In April 2021, Hikma launched a generic version of Advair Diskus® in the U.S. In January 2020, Astra Zeneca launched an authorized generic version of Symbicort. In August 2021, Lupin launched Luforbec®, a branded generic alternative to Foster, in select European markets.

In general, these manufacturers are required to conduct a number of clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetic and device studies to demonstrate equivalence to Advair, per the FDA’s September 2013 Draft Guidance Document. These studies are designed to demonstrate that the generic product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, exposure and clinical efficacy as the branded product. These generic equivalents, which must meet the same exacting quality standards as branded products, may be significantly less costly to bring to market, and companies that produce generic equivalents are generally able to offer their products at lower prices. Thus, after the introduction of a generic competitor, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product and products that may compete with such branded product is typically lost to the generic product. In addition, in April 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance document covering Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol Trifenatate (FF/VI), the active ingredients used in RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®.

6

Table of Contents

Our Integrated Hospital / Infectious Disease Business

Commercial and Marketed Products

The following table summarizes our commercial and marketed products:

GIAPREZA® (angiotensin II)

GIAPREZA® (angiotensin II) injection is approved by the U.S. FDA as a vasoconstrictor indicated to increase blood pressure in adults with septic or other distributive shock. GIAPREZA is approved by the European Commission (“EC”) and by the Great Britain Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) for the treatment of refractory hypotension in adults with septic or other distributive shock who remain hypotensive despite adequate volume restitution and application of catecholamines and other available vasopressor therapies. GIAPREZA mimics the body’s endogenous angiotensin II peptide, which is central to the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (“RAAS”), which in turn regulates blood pressure. GIAPREZA is marketed in the U.S. by La Jolla and is marketed in Europe and Great Britain by PAION Deutschland GmbH (“PAION”) on behalf of La Jolla.

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock (“ATHOS-3”)

GIAPREZA was approved by the U.S. FDA, EC and MHRA based on the results of ATHOS-3, which were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2017. ATHOS-3 was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 321 adults with septic or other distributive shock who remained hypotensive despite fluid and vasopressor therapy received either GIAPREZA or placebo, both in addition to background vasopressor therapy. The primary endpoint was mean arterial pressure

7

Table of Contents

(“MAP”) response, defined as a MAP of 75 mm Hg or higher or an increase in MAP from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors at Hour 3 (Khanna et al, New England Journal of Medicine 2017; 377:419–430).

ATHOS-3 Study Design(1)

MAP=mean arterial pressure

GIAPREZA significantly improved blood pressure response. Specifically, the primary endpoint was achieved by 70% of GIAPREZA-treated patients compared to 23% of placebo-treated patients (p <0.0001).

Primary Endpoint: Mean Arterial Pressure Response(1),(2)

8

Table of Contents

GIAPREZA provides the ability to rapidly achieve and adjust therapeutic response. GIAPREZA rapidly increased MAP with a median time to MAP response of approximately 5 minutes. The plasma half-life of GIAPREZA is less than 1 minute.

In addition, a positive survival trend was observed. Mortality through Day 28 was 46% on GIAPREZA and 54% on placebo (hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval 0.57–1.07).

Positive Survival Trend Observed (N=321)(1),(2)

The most common adverse reactions that were reported in greater than 10% of GIAPREZA-treated patients were thromboembolic events.

9

Table of Contents

Adverse Reactions Occurring in ≥4% of Patients Treated with GIAPREZA and ≥1.5% More Often than in Placebo-treated Patients(1)

Percentage of Patients Experiencing ≥1 Adverse Event, ≥1 Serious Adverse Event and Discontinuing Treatment Due to an Adverse Event(1)

XERAVA® (eravacycline)

XERAVA® (eravacycline) for injection is approved by the U.S. FDA and Singapore Health Sciences Authority (“HSA”) as a tetracycline class antibacterial indicated for the treatment of cIAI due to susceptible microorganisms in patients 18 years of age and older. XERAVA is approved by the EC, MHRA, and the Hong Kong Department of Health (“DoH”) for the treatment of cIAI in adults. XERAVA is marketed in the U.S. by our wholly owned subsidiary, Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Tetraphase”), and is marketed in Europe and Great Britain by PAION on behalf of Tetraphase and is marketed in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, South Korea, Singapore, the Malaysian Federation, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Republic of Indonesia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of the Philippines by Everest Medicines Limited (“Everest”). Everest submitted an NDA in China, which was accepted by the China National Medical Products Administration (“NMPA”) in March 2021.

cIAIs are the second most common source of severe sepsis in the ICU (Brun-Buisson et al, JAMA 1995; 274(12):968–974). cIAIs are defined as consequences of perforations of the gastrointestinal tract that result in contamination of the peritoneal space (Solomkin et al, Clinical Infectious Diseases 2018; 69(6):921–929).

Investigating Gram-negative Infections Treated with Eravacycline (“IGNITE”)

XERAVA was approved by the U.S. FDA, HSA, EC, MHRA, and DoH based on the results of IGNITE1 and IGNITE4, which were published in JAMA Surgery in March 2017 and Clinical Infectious Diseases in December 2018, respectively.

10

Table of Contents

IGNITE1 was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in 538 patients with clinical evidence of cIAIs requiring urgent surgical or percutaneous intervention who received either XERAVA or ertapenem. The primary endpoint was clinical cure, defined as complete resolution or significant improvement of signs or symptoms of the index infection, at the test of cure (“TOC”) visit. The TOC visit was conducted 25 to 31 calendar days after the first dose of the study drug was administered.

IGNITE4 was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, active controlled study in 499 patients with clinical evidence of cIAIs requiring urgent surgical or percutaneous intervention who received either XERAVA or meropenem. The primary endpoint was clinical cure, defined as complete resolution or significant improvement of signs or symptoms of the index infection, at the TOC visit. The TOC visit was conducted 25 to 31 calendar days after the first dose of the study drug was administered.

IGNITE1 and IGNITE4 Study Design

XERAVA demonstrated statistical noninferiority in clinical cure rate in the micro-ITT population, which included all randomized subjects who had baseline bacterial pathogens that caused cIAIs and against at least one of which the investigational drug has in vitro (in a test tube) antibacterial activity (N=846).

11

Table of Contents

Primary Endpoint: Clinical Cure Rate(1)

Clinical cure rates across patients with gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic pathogens, including those with resistant strains, are shown in the following tables.

Clinical Cure Rates at TOC by Selected Baseline Pathogens in the Micro-ITT Population(1)

N=Number of subjects in the micro-ITT Population; N1=Number of subjects with a specific pathogen; n=Number of subjects with a clinical cure at the TOC visit

12

Table of Contents

XERAVA Demonstrated High Clinical Cure Rates Against Resistant Pathogens(1)

CEPH-R=cephalosporin-resistant; ESBL=extended-spectrum β-lactamases; MDR=multidrug resistance;

N=Number of subjects in the micro-ITT Population; N1=Number of subjects with a specific pathogen; n=Number of subjects with a clinical cure at the TOC visit

The most common adverse reactions that were reported in XERAVA-treated patients in IGNITE1 and IGNITE4 were infusion site reactions.

Selected Adverse Reactions Reported in ≥1% of Patients Receiving XERAVA(1)

Sales and Marketing Organization

We employ an experienced sales and marketing team dedicated to the commercialization of GIAPREZA and XERAVA. As of December 31, 2022, this team consisted of 35 professionals, including 27 critical care specialists.

Customers

During the year ended December 31, 2022, 503 hospitals in the U.S. purchased GIAPREZA, and 874 hospitals and other healthcare organizations in the U.S. purchased XERAVA. Hospitals and other healthcare organizations generally purchase our products through a network of specialty and wholesale distributors. These specialty and wholesale distributors are considered our

13

Table of Contents

customers for accounting purposes. We do not believe that the loss of one of these distributors would significantly impact the ability to distribute our products, as we expect that sales volume would be absorbed by the remaining distributors. Due to the relatively short lead-time required to fill orders for GIAPREZA and XERAVA, backlog is not material to our business.

Competition

Catecholamines (primarily norepinephrine), which are available as generics and inexpensive, are typically used first line to treat distributive shock, while vasopressin, including Vasostrict® (Endo International plc) and vasopressin generic drugs, is typically used second line. In the randomized, Phase 3 study ATHOS-3, GIAPREZA demonstrated clinical benefit in patients who were not adequately responding to available vasopressors, including catecholamines and vasopressin. GIAPREZA’s principal competition as a treatment in patients not adequately responding to available vasopressors is the use of these same vasopressors at increased doses. If we are unable to successfully change treatment practices, the commercial prospects for GIAPREZA will be limited, and our business may suffer.

XERAVA competes with a number of antibiotics that are currently marketed for the treatment of cIAI and other multidrug resistant infections, including: AVYCAZ (ceftazidime and avibactam, marketed by AbbVie Inc.); MERREM IV® (meropenem, marketed by AstraZeneca PLC); PRIMAXIN® (imipenem and cilastatin, marketed by Merck & Co., Inc.); RECARBRIO™ (imipenem, cilastatin, and relebactam, marketed by Merck & Co., Inc.); TYGACIL® (tigecycline, marketed by Pfizer Inc.); VABOMERE™ (meropenem and vaborbactam, marketed by Melinta Therapeutics, Inc.); ZERBAXA® (ceftolozane and tazobactam, marketed by Merck & Co., Inc.); ZOSYN® (piperacillin and tazobactam, marketed by Pfizer Inc.); and current and future generic versions of marketed antibiotics. If we are unable to successfully change treatment practices, the commercial prospects for XERAVA will be limited, and our business may suffer.

Regulatory Exclusivity

GIAPREZA and XERAVA are New Chemical Entities (“NCEs”) approved by the U.S. FDA. In the U.S., NCEs approved by the FDA are eligible for market exclusivity under the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), which can prevent the approval of generic versions of the NCE for 5 to 7.5 years from the date of the initial approval of the NCE. Specifically, the FDCA provides a 5-year period of marketing exclusivity within the U.S. to the applicant that gains approval of an NDA for an NCE. A drug is an NCE if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all of the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted 4 years after the NDA approval of the NCE if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. Should the NDA holder commence litigation against the ANDA filer within 45 days of receipt of the certification notice, an automatic stay of the approval of any generic competition goes into effect until the earlier of: (i) 30 months from the receipt of the certification; or (ii) a court ruling of patent invalidity or non-infringement for the relevant patents. In the absence of a court ruling, the 30-month stay will be extended by such amount of time (if any) that is required for 7.5 years to have elapsed from the date of NDA approval of the NCE.

On February 15, 2022, La Jolla received a paragraph IV notice of certification (the “Notice Letter”) from Gland Pharma Limited (“Gland”) advising that Gland had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use or sell a generic version of GIAPREZA in the U.S. prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos.: 9,220,745; 9,572,856; 9,867,863; 10,028,995; 10,335,451; 10,493,124; 10,500,247; 10,548,943; 11,096,983; and 11,219,662 (the “GIAPREZA Patents”), which are listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”). The Notice Letter alleges that the GIAPREZA Patents are invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic product described in Gland’s ANDA.

On March 29, 2022, La Jolla filed a complaint for patent infringement of the GIAPREZA Patents against Gland and certain related entities in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in response to Gland’s ANDA filing. In accordance with the Hatch-Waxman Act, because GIAPREZA is a new chemical entity and La Jolla filed a complaint for patent infringement within 45 days of receipt of the Notice Letter, the FDA cannot approve Gland’s ANDA any earlier than 7.5 years from the approval of the GIAPREZA NDA unless the District Court finds that all of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. We intend to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights relating to GIAPREZA.

Under the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (“GAIN”) provisions of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (“FDASIA”), the FDA may designate a product as a qualified infectious disease product (“QIDP”). In order to receive this designation, a drug must qualify as an antibacterial or antifungal drug for human use intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections. We obtained a QIDP designation for the IV formulation of XERAVA for cIAI in July 2013. Upon approving an application for a QIDP, the FDA will extend by an additional 5 years any non-patent marketing exclusivity period awarded, such as a 5-year exclusivity period awarded for

14

Table of Contents

an NCE. This extension is in addition to any pediatric exclusivity extension awarded. XERAVA has been awarded this 5-year exclusivity under FDASIA.

Our Product Candidates

The following table summarizes the status of our primary product candidates:

SUL-DUR

Overview

Our lead product candidate, SUL-DUR, is a novel IV antibiotic. The product is a combination of sulbactam, a β-lactam antibiotic, and durlobactam, our novel β-lactamase inhibitor (“BLI”) with broad spectrum β-lactamase coverage including Classes A, C and D, that we are developing for the treatment of a variety of serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter. We have completed three separate Phase 1 clinical trials, including one evaluating the penetration of SUL-DUR into the lung and one in renally impaired patients. Subsequently, we completed a Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with cUTIs. We initiated ATTACK, our single Phase 3 registration trial in 2019, that evaluated SUL-DUR in patients with confirmed carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter pneumonia and/or bloodstream infections. We believe SUL-DUR has the ability to improve outcomes of patients with multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections, reducing their overall mortality. We announced positive top-line Phase 3 data in October 2021 and based on our positive top-line Phase 3 data and the totality of our preclinical and clinical data, we filed a new drug application (“NDA”) with the FDA in September 2022. The NDA was accepted for filing by the U.S. FDA. We believe SUL-DUR has the ability to improve outcomes of patients with multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections, reducing their overall mortality.

Acinetobacter

Acinetobacter is a Gram-negative, opportunistic human pathogen that predominantly infects critically ill patients often resulting in severe pneumonia and bloodstream infections but can also infect other body sites as well. Once thought to be mostly benign, Acinetobacter is now considered a global threat in the healthcare setting due in part to its ability to acquire multidrug resistance at rates not previously seen in other bacteria. In addition, Acinetobacter has the ability to remain viable for up to 100 days in dry conditions and easily spreads via air or water droplets, which explains why the pathogen can often be found in many locations in the intensive care unit, or ICU, including bedrails, bedside tables, monitors of mechanical ventilators, intravenous pumps, door handles, stethoscopes and many other locations. Of significant concern, one study reported greater than 98% of Acinetobacter isolates in an ICU from non-clinical sources such as bedrails and door handles, were determined to be multidrug resistant.

Pneumonia and bloodstream infections caused by drug-resistant Acinetobacter can have mortality rates approaching 50%. Antibiotic-resistance rates of Acinetobacter to current standard-of-care treatments are some of the highest reported, between 30% and 50% in the United States and greater than 90% in parts of Europe and Asia. Acinetobacter resistance to β-lactams is primarily driven by the expression of Class D β-lactamases, often in combination with Class A and/or Class C β-lactamases. There are currently no effective antibiotics indicated for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections. Durlobactam is the first clinical-stage BLI with sufficient broad-spectrum activity against class A, C, and D β-lactamases to potentially restore the efficacy of β-lactam antibiotics against multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter.

Sulbactam, the β-lactam antibiotic used in SUL-DUR has superior microbiological potency against Acinetobacter compared to other β-lactam antibiotics based on in vitro and in vivo analyses. Historically, physicians used sulbactam to successfully treat Acinetobacter infections before development of broad β-lactamase mediated resistance rendered sulbactam on its own largely

15

Table of Contents

ineffective. We believe our data demonstrates that combining durlobactam with sulbactam can effectively restore the activity of sulbactam against multidrug-resistant strains of Acinetobacter.

Market Opportunity

We estimate that there are up to 200,000 hospital-treated Acinetobacter infections annually in the United States and Europe, of which up to 100,000 are carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter infections, which we regard as our initial target markets for SUL-DUR. We also believe there could be a significant market opportunity in Asia-Pacific, Central and South America, Russia and the Middle East given resistance rates exceeding 80% in some countries. If approved, we believe SUL-DUR has the potential to address the issues of resistance facing existing regimens, which is currently limiting the utility of the carbapenems, and tolerability, which is a concern with regimens containing colistin. There are currently no antibiotics indicated for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter infections.

Clinical Development Plan

Completed Clinical Trials

Phase 3 registration trial: We completed ATTACK, a Phase 3 registration trial of SUL-DUR for the treatment of patients with carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter infections, with positive top-line data announced in October 2021. ATTACK enrolled 207 patients at 95 clinical sites in 16 countries. This was a two-part trial with Part A being the randomized, comparative portion (SUL-DUR vs colistin) in patients with documented Acinetobacter hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP), ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VAPB), ventilated pneumonia (VP), or bacteremia, and Part B being an open-labeled portion including Acinetobacter infections resistant to, or having previously failed colistin or polymyxin B treatment. Baseline Acinetobacter isolates tested were greater than 95% carbapenem resistant.

SUL-DUR met the primary efficacy endpoint of 28-day all-cause mortality compared to colistin in the CRABC m-MITT population of Part A. SUL-DUR mortality was 19.0% (12/63) compared to 32.3% (20/62) in the colistin arm (treatment difference of -13.2%; 95% CI: -30.0, 3.5). Similar trends were demonstrated in 28-day and 14-day all-cause mortality favoring SUL-DUR across all study populations evaluated to date. A statistically significant difference in clinical cure at Test of Cure (TOC) was observed with 61.9% in SUL-DUR arm compared to 40.3% in the colistin arm (95% CI 2.9-40.3). In Part B, the 28-day all-cause mortality was 17.9% (5/28) and consistent with that observed in Part A.

Safety analyses from a total of 177 patients treated with SUL-DUR suggested that SUL-DUR was generally well-tolerated with a favorable safety profile compared to colistin. SUL-DUR met the primary safety objective with a statistically significant lower incidence of nephrotoxicity as measured by the RIFLE classification for acute kidney injury. SUL-DUR nephrotoxicity was 13.2% (12/91) versus 37.6% (32/85) in the colistin arm (p = 0. 0002). Overall adverse events (AEs) in the safety population were comparable between treatment groups with 87.9% (80/91) in the SUL-DUR arm vs. 94.2% (81/86) in the colistin arm in Part A, 89.3% (25/28) in Part B. Drug related AEs were 12.1% (10.7% in Part B) with SUL-DUR compared to 30.2% with colistin. The most common non-infectious AEs (≥10%) in the SUL-DUR arm were diarrhea (16.5%), allergic and hypersensitivity reactions (16.5%), anemia (13.2%) and hypokalemia (12.1%) in Part A. These AEs were also >10% in the colistin arm as was acute kidney injury.

On November 30, 2022, we announced that the U.S. FDA accepted for Priority Review the new drug application (NDA) for SUL-DUR. The FDA is currently planning to hold an advisory committee meeting to discuss this application. The target PDUFA date (or action date) is May 29, 2023.

Phase 2 clinical trial in cUTI patients: We completed a Phase 2 clinical trial in cUTI patients to provide additional safety and pharmacokinetic, or PK, data as well as efficacy data against carbapenem-resistant pathogens. Eighty patients were randomized to receive either a dose of SUL-DUR or placebo every six hours for seven days. Patients in both arms also received background therapy, which is current standard-of-care, with 500 mg of imipenem, or IMI, administered through IV every six hours. There were no serious adverse events reported and the adverse event profile of SUL-DUR plus IMI was similar to that of the IMI comparator arm. PK data observed in the Phase 2 trial was consistent with the PK data observed in the Phase 1 clinical trial in healthy volunteers.

We have completed three Phase 1 clinical trials, highlighted below, in addition to a Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with cUTIs. In all of these clinical trials, SUL-DUR was observed to be generally well tolerated.

Four-part Phase 1 first-in-human trial: Our four-part Phase 1 first-in-human clinical trial was conducted in Australia in 124 healthy volunteers. SUL-DUR was generally well tolerated, with no dose-related systemic adverse events or drug-related serious adverse events reported. SUL-DUR also exhibited linear dose-dependent increases in exposure and PK parameters across the dose range studied.

16

Table of Contents

Phase 1 lung trial: Our Phase 1 lung trial assessed the concentration of SUL-DUR in lung fluid, an important metric to understand, because ATTACK includes patients with pneumonia and lack of appropriate lung tissue penetration has been found to contribute to reduced efficacy. We believe that the levels of SUL-DUR in the lung fluid achieved in this trial support its continued development as a potential treatment for pneumonia caused by Acinetobacter.

Phase 1 renal trial: Our Phase 1 renal trial analyzed serum levels in renally impaired patients and provided data to enable the development of a dose adjustment protocol for the type of patient targeted in our ongoing Phase 3 registration trial.

We submitted an IND for SUL-DUR to the U.S. FDA in June 2017, and the FDA notified us in July 2017 that we could proceed with this program. The FDA granted Fast Track and QIDP designation for SUL-DUR in September 2017 for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-acquired bacterial pneumonia and bloodstream infections due to Acinetobacter.

Global Acinetobacter Surveillance Data

Durlobactam has broad activity against a wide range of β-lactamases, including Classes A, C and D, unlike currently marketed BLIs that primarily cover only Class A and Class C β-lactamases. Durlobactam is the first BLI in clinical development with such a broad spectrum of in vitro activity.

SUL-DUR has also exhibited potent microbiological activity against Acinetobacter strains in vitro. Over a series of studies summarized in the figure below, we have compared the effectiveness of SUL-DUR, sulbactam alone and comparators in inhibiting 7,221 strains of Acinetobacter that were collected from patients around the world between 2011 and 2020. Amikacin and colistin were tested against 6,418 of the 7,221 strains. The plot in the figure below presents the cumulative percentage of these strains inhibited by increasing concentrations of each of the tested compounds. Sulbactam alone, as well as most of the other marketed antibiotics, had a very high MIC90 value of 64 mg/L, meaning that concentrations of 64 mg/L or greater were required to inhibit growth of 90% of the strains. The corresponding breakpoints, which are established by the Clinical & Lab Standards Institute, or CLSI, as the specified concentrations for each antibiotic that define whether a strain is considered resistant, are significantly lower than their MIC90 values. If the MIC90 of a drug is lower than its CLSI breakpoint, then that drug would be expected to be effective against more than 90% of the strains. If a drug’s MIC90 is higher than its breakpoint, the drug would not be expected to have broad efficacy against those strains. This cumulative analysis suggests that recent global strains of Acinetobacter are resistant to all the comparator antibiotics other than colistin, consistent with their significantly diminished clinical utility against Acinetobacter infections. In contrast, SUL-DUR had very potent activity, with a much lower MIC90 of 2 mg/L. This is lower than the CLSI breakpoint for sulbactam, which is 4 mg/L (in Unasyn®, a combination of sulbactam and ampicillin), suggesting that our chosen target exposure levels of SUL-DUR may be effective against more than 90% of global, multidrug resistant Acinetobacter strains. A subset of 926 isolates out of the 7,221 strains tested were from Chinese hospitals collected in 2016-2018. 831 of the 926 (84.6%) Chinese isolates were carbapenem-resistant. In contrast, SUL-DUR showed potent activity against this subset, with an MIC90 of 2 mg/L and 97.9% of isolates susceptible to ≤ 4 mg/L of SUL-DUR.

17

Table of Contents

Competition

We are initially developing SUL-DUR for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections. Due to rising resistance rates, standard-of-care treatment for multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections often includes a combination of several last-line treatment options, including carbapenems, tetracyclines, polymyxins, and other generically available agents. Despite using best available therapy, mortality rates of patients with multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections are reported as high as 50%. As of the date of this report, we are not aware of any marketed antibiotic that is indicated for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections; however, we are aware of other potentially competitive products that have shown in vitro activity against some strains of Acinetobacter. Melinta Therapeutics Inc. currently markets minocycline. Although recently approved for treating cUTIs, Fetroja®, from Shionogi & Co., Ltd., includes in its label a specific warning of an observed increase in all-cause mortality in patients with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial infections that were treated with the drug. BioVersys AG reported in May 2022 that their lead program BV100, being developed specifically for multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections, completed three Phase 1 clinical trials.

Commercial Approach

In the United States, our commercial strategy is driven by our understanding of where Acinetobacter infections are known to exist. Given that Acinetobacter infections more commonly occur in immunocompromised patients, treatment settings for these patients are frequently large intensive care units (ICUs), specialized centers like transplant, cancer, and burn, outpatient long-term acute centers (LTACs) and home infusion.

SUL-DUR has been developed specifically for multi-drug resistant Acinetobacter infections and we believe the unmet need and value proposition of SUL-DUR will support its use for treating infections caused by this serious Gram-negative pathogen. This value proposition includes:

Current Acinetobacter treatment protocols allow for clear positioning of SUL-DUR. Patients with suspected Acinetobacter infections are frequently treated with a broad-spectrum antibiotic, commonly a carbapenem, as first-line therapy. If susceptibility testing identifies that the causative bacterial pathogen is carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, the patient is then frequently switched to a colistin-based antibiotic regimen in an attempt to successfully treat the infection. Published literature, however, reports greater than 50% mortality rates using colistin-based regimens.

We believe that the data from the ATTACK Phase 3 registration trial demonstrate improved efficacy and safety profiles, that could result in SUL-DUR, if approved, being preferred to a colistin-based regimen for the treatment of multidrug-resistant, including carbapenem-resistant, Acinetobacter infections.

Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter infections also present a significant unmet medical need in China and across the broader Asia/Pacific territory. Our collaboration and license agreement with Zai Lab, which included their participation in the ATTACK Phase 3 registration clinical trial, provides a potentially accelerated path for regulatory approval and commercialization in China and Asia-Pacific territories. Zai Lab supported the enrollment of approximately 25% of the evaluable patients in ATTACK from China, which we believe will support a regulatory submission in China. Under our agreement with Zai Lab, we receive upfront, milestone and royalty payments in addition to payment of certain Phase 3 registration clinical trial costs. We maintain 100% of the rights and associated economics in North America and Europe. Outside of the United States, we intend to work with multi-national pharmaceutical companies to leverage their commercialization capabilities in territories not covered by our agreement with Zai Lab. In January 2023, Zai Lab announced that the Center for Drug Evaluation of China’s National Medical Products Administration has granted priority review status to the NDA for SUL-DUR for the treatment of infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii, including multidrug-resistant and carbapenem-resistant (CRAB) strains.

18

Table of Contents

Zoliflodacin

Overview

Our second late-stage product candidate is zoliflodacin, a potential single oral dose cure for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea caused by the bacterial pathogen N. gonorrhoeae. Gonorrhea is an area of significant medical need and zoliflodacin is the only novel single dose treatment in development that provides a potential monotherapy oral alternative to intramuscular injections of ceftriaxone for the treatment of gonorrhea, including infections caused by drug-resistant strains. Zoliflodacin targets the validated mechanism of action of the fluoroquinolone class of antibiotics but does so in a novel manner to avoid existing fluoroquinolone resistance. We have completed several Phase 1 clinical trials and a Phase 2 clinical trial of zoliflodacin in patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea. In collaboration with GARDP, in 2019 we initiated a single Phase 3 registration trial of zoliflodacin in patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea. GARDP will fund all the Phase 3 clinical trial and pharmaceutical development costs and in return will receive commercial rights for zoliflodacin in WHO-defined low-income and select middle-income countries. We have retained commercial rights in all other countries, including the major markets in North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.

Gonorrhea

Uncomplicated gonorrhea is an N. gonorrhoeae infection of the urethra, cervix, pharynx or rectum, and is more common than complicated gonorrhea, which includes spread of the infection to other tissues and potentially the bloodstream. Gonorrhea can be associated with serious complications, including pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility, as well as an increased risk of human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. Despite the continued use of effective antibiotics, it remains one of the most common sexually transmitted bacterial infections in the world with an estimated 82.4 million people worldwide infected each year. The occasional absence of symptoms, more frequent in women, is thought to be one reason for sustained levels of infection. Antibiotics remain the mainstay for treating uncomplicated gonorrhea caused by N. gonorrhoeae.

N. gonorrhoeae is the bacterial pathogen responsible for gonorrhea and has a strong propensity for uptake of chromosomal DNA from other genera of Neisseria which allows the bacteria to accumulate many mutations in chromosomal genes leading to frequent resistance of antibiotics. For example, penicillin was introduced for N. gonorrhoeae infections in 1943, and initial resistance was reported in 1945. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics were first used to treat gonorrhea in 1949 and have been one of the most successful classes of antibiotics against N. gonorrhoeae, but even so resistance was identified in 1969. One member of this class, ciprofloxacin, was introduced in 1980 and resistance was identified in 1990. More recently cephalosporin antibiotics, notably cefixime, had been widely used for the treatment of gonorrhea due to their oral administration along with a favorable efficacy and safety profile, although resistance by N. gonorrhoeae has been reported since 2007. As widespread use of these antibiotics drove the emergence of drug-resistant N. gonorrhoeae strains, treatment guidelines have subsequently been amended. Ceftriaxone is currently the only CDC-recommended option for the treatment of gonorrhea and, until recently, was administered with azithromycin, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, to provide coverage against other sexually transmitted diseases that tend to occur concurrently with gonorrhea. However, rising resistance of N. gonorrhoeae to azithromycin recently prompted the CDC to now recommend 500mg ceftriaxone monotherapy. Ceftriaxone is administered by intramuscular injection, which can be painful and may require patient monitoring by a healthcare administrator. Although ceftriaxone remains effective in most of the U.S., in Hawaii and Massachusetts as well as in several countries, including China, Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, France and Spain, N. gonorrhoeae strains with resistance to azithromycin and ceftriaxone have been reported, prompting concerns that multidrug-resistant gonorrhea may become a major community health issue.

Market Opportunity

N. gonorrhoeae is an immediate global public health threat with 82.4 million cases worldwide in 2020 (WHO estimate). Cases of gonorrhea in the United States have reached an estimated 1.6 million per year. The WHO worldwide estimate of approximately 82.4 million new cases includes infected adolescents and adults aged 15–49 years. The CDC estimates that the cases of gonorrhea in the United States have been increasing at least 10% per year since 2009. In April 2021, the CDC announced that sexually transmitted diseases in the U.S. reached all-time high for 6th consecutive year, with approximately 2.6 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea & syphilis reported in 2019.

19

Table of Contents

The results of a 2017-2018 survey of countries reporting decreased susceptibility, DS, or resistance, R, of N. gonorrhoeae to current antibiotics are reflected in the table below.

Historically, to reduce the risk of spreading drug-resistant N. gonorrhoeae, the CDC has changed treatment guidelines when resistance rates to recommended first-line treatments reach 5%. Since 2015, there has only been one recommended treatment on CDC guidelines for gonorrhea: 250mg intramuscular injection of ceftriaxone plus 1g of oral azithromycin. In 2020 the CDC once again updated its treatment guideline, now recommending a 500mg intramuscular injection of ceftriaxone for treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. This follows a 2019 update in the United Kingdom where recommended empirical treatment of gonorrhea is now 1 g intramuscular ceftriaxone monotherapy.

Clinical Development Plan

Ongoing Registration Trial

Phase 3 registration trial: In 2019, we announced the initiation of a global, multi-center Phase 3 registration trial in collaboration with GARDP who is conducting and funding all Phase 3 clinical trial and pharmaceutical development costs. Up to 18 clinical trial sites are planned across the U.S., Thailand, South Africa, the Netherlands and Belgium. Our Phase 3 registration trial is a multi-center, open-label, noninferiority trial in approximately 1,000 enrolled patients with uncomplicated gonorrhea who will be randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive either a single 3.0g oral dose of zoliflodacin or a regimen of 500mg intramuscular ceftriaxone plus 1g oral azithromycin. The primary endpoint will be the proportion of patients with microbiological cure at urethral or cervical sites, approximately six days after treatment. The Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, in May 2021 recommended to continue the study without modification. Despite the ongoing challenges with the COVID-19 pandemic, we have observed an increase in the enrollment rate recently and based on current enrollment rates we anticipate completion of trial enrollment in 2023. Based on our discussions with the U.S. FDA, we believe that the efficacy data from this single Phase 3 registration trial, if positive, along with the data from our other clinical trials of zoliflodacin, will be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA to the U.S. FDA.

Completed Clinical Trials

Phase 2 clinical proof-of-concept trial: We have completed a multi-center, randomized, open-label Phase 2 clinical trial comparing a single oral dose of 2.0g or 3.0g of zoliflodacin to 500mg intramuscular ceftriaxone for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea. In this trial, 179 randomized patients received treatment and zoliflodacin was generally well tolerated, with efficacy outcomes comparable to ceftriaxone. Microbiological eradication and clinical cure in urogenital infections with a single dose of zoliflodacin, the primary endpoint of the trial, was comparable to ceftriaxone, with 100% cure rate in both the 3.0g zoliflodacin and ceftriaxone groups in the per-protocol population. The results of this clinical trial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2018.

Phase 1 clinical trial: We evaluated zoliflodacin in two Phase 1 clinical trials studying 72 healthy volunteers in total. In one trial, we evaluated PKs and tolerability in 48 subjects and food effects in 18 subjects, and in the second trial, we evaluated absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion in six subjects. Zoliflodacin was generally well tolerated in these trials at doses we would expect to be clinically active for treating uncomplicated gonorrhea. Administration of a high-fat meal was associated with an increase in zoliflodacin plasma concentration, suggesting that zoliflodacin could be administered with or without food.

Preclinical Data

We have generated biochemical, microbiological and in vivo data on zoliflodacin. The data suggest that zoliflodacin retains potent activity against contemporary clinical isolates in the U.S., Europe, China, Thailand and South Africa that are resistant to other antibiotic classes including fluroquinolones, which was expected given its novel mechanism of action. In addition, the data show

20

Table of Contents

significant resistance against two of the four standard antibiotics indicated for gonorrhea, ciprofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone, and azithromycin, a macrolide.

Competition

We are initially developing zoliflodacin as a single oral dose treatment for uncomplicated gonorrhea. Gonorrhea is commonly treated with 500mg intramuscular ceftriaxone, a generically available agent. Additional generic cephalosporins and fluoroquinolones are also prescribed, but not recommended as primary treatment options given current resistance rates. Gepotidacin, currently under development for a variety of infections by GlaxoSmithKline plc, is the only potentially competitive product candidate in late-stage clinical development that we are aware of that is being developed for the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital gonorrhea. A Phase 3 clinical trial (EAGLE-1) was initiated by GlaxoSmithKline in October 2019. A prior Phase 2 clinical trial revealed the emergence of resistance to gepotidacin in 2 urogenital microbiological failures following administration of a single oral dose. In an attempt to overcome this resistance, gepotidacin will be given in two oral doses in the EAGLE-1 clinical trial; a 4-tablet 3000 milligram (mg) oral dose at the study site followed by another 4-tablet 3000mg oral dose as an outpatient.

Commercial Approach

Antibiotics to treat uncomplicated gonorrhea will typically be available through primary care physicians, outpatient clinics and emergency rooms, and numerous community sites. In addition, placement on CDC guidelines has historically driven awareness and uptake in the U.S. We have partnered with GARDP who will lead the commercialization of zoliflodacin in certain WHO-defined low-income and specified middle-income countries.

Zoliflodacin is a potential single dose cure (sachet in water) that can facilitate “expedited partner therapy” at home, which may lower the chance for a repeat infection from a partner. Expedited partner therapy, or EPT, is the clinical practice of treating the sex partners of patients diagnosed with chlamydia or gonorrhea by providing prescriptions or medications to the patient to take to his/her partner without the health care provider first examining the partner. Within the United States, EPT is permissible in 45 states, potentially allowable in 4 states and is only prohibited in one state.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing of RELVAR®/BREO®ELLIPTA® (FF/VI) and ANORO® ELLIPTA® (UMEC/VI) is performed by GSK.

We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce GIAPREZA and XERAVA and expect to continue to do so in the foreseeable future to meet our development and commercial needs. In all of our manufacturing agreements, we require that contract manufacturers produce active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”) and drug products in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMPs”) and all other applicable laws and regulations. We maintain confidentiality agreements with potential and existing manufacturers in order to protect our proprietary rights related to GIAPREZA and XERAVA. The long-term commercial success of GIAPREZA and XERAVA will depend in part on the ability of our contract manufacturers to supply cGMP-compliant API and drug product without interruption.

With respect to our product candidates, we currently rely on third-party contract manufacturers for our required raw materials, drug substance, and finished drug product for our preclinical research and clinical trials. Although we have contracts with these third parties to meet our current clinical supply needs, we do not have any current contractual relationships with these third parties for the manufacture of commercial supply of our product candidates after they are approved. As our product candidates approach potential approval by any regulatory agency, we intend to enter into agreements with third-party contract manufacturers for the commercial production of those products. We currently employ internal resources to manage our manufacturing vendor relationships and processes.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, import and export of our products and reimbursement. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulation require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Government Regulation

In the United States, the process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. The failure to comply with the

21

Table of Contents

applicable requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits or civil or criminal penalties.

Approval Processes

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulation require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the FDCA and other applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject us to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us. These sanctions could include:

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Once a pharmaceutical candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical or nonclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the preclinical studies, the IND will also include one or more protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy determination. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, places the IND on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can begin. A clinical hold may occur at any time during the life of an IND and may affect one or more specific studies or all studies conducted u1nder the IND.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with cGCP. They must be conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and

22

Table of Contents

exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol and any amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently in other situations, including the occurrence of serious adverse events. An IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol and any amendments before a clinical trial commences or continues at that institution, approve the information regarding the clinical trial and the informed consent form that must be provided to each trial subject or his or her legal representative, monitor the study until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

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

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time for a variety of reasons, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points, including prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may also be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end-of-Phase 2 meeting to discuss their Phase 2 clinical results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial or trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

The Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric studies for certain drugs and biologics. Specifically, PREA requires original NDAs, biologic license applications, or BLAs, and supplements thereto for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration to contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal safety studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the final drugs. 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.

The results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of user fees, but a waiver of such fees may be obtained under specified circumstances. The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. It may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to completeness review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. NDAs receive either standard or priority review. A drug that, if approved, would represent a significant improvement in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a serious disease or condition may receive priority review. Requests for priority review generally must be submitted at the

23

Table of Contents

time of NDA submission. 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 FDA accepts the NDA 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 drugs that are not NMEs, the ten-month and six-month review periods run from the date that FDA receives the application. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider a major amendment to the application following the original submission.

The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing complies with cGMP requirements to assure and preserve the product’s safety, identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA may refer the NDA to an advisory committee for review and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendation.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured and tested. These pre-approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with NDA submission, including drug component manufacturing (such as active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with cGCP. In addition, the FDA may require, as a condition of approval, risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS (which may include requirements for, restricted distribution and use), enhanced labeling, special packaging or labeling, expedited reporting of certain adverse events, pre-approval of promotional materials, restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising or commitments to conduct additional research post-approval.

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA and accompanying information, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the FDA ultimately decides that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval, the FDA will issue a complete response letter to indicate that the agency will not approve the NDA in its present form. The complete response letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

Expedited Review and Approval

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track and priority review, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for developing and/or reviewing drugs. Even if a drug qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Generally, drugs that may be eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. For example, Fast Track is a process designed to facilitate the clinical development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious diseases with the potential, based on nonclinical or clinical data, to fill an unmet medical need. Priority review is designed to give drugs that offer a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness of treatment for a serious condition an expedited review within eight months from the completed submission (six months from filing) as compared to a standard review time of twelve months from the completed submission (10 months from filing) for a standard new molecular entity NDA. Although Fast Track and priority review do not affect the standards for approval, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor of a Fast Track designated drug and expedite review of the application for a drug designated for priority review.

The Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now Act, or GAIN Act, is intended to provide incentives for the development of new QIDPs. A new drug that is designated as a QIDP after a request by the sponsor that is made before an NDA is submitted will be eligible, if approved, for an additional five years of exclusivity beyond any period of exclusivity to which it would have previously been eligible. In addition, a QIDP will receive priority review and qualify for a Fast Track designation. QIDPs are defined as antibacterial or antifungal drugs intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by an antibacterial or antifungal resistant pathogen or qualifying pathogens identified by the FDA. XERAVA and SUL-DUR have been designated by the FDA as a QIDP. Zoliflodacin has also been designated as a QIDP by the FDA for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea.

Patent Term Restoration and Data Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of the use of our drugs, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. As noted above, the Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years for a single patent for an approved product as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14

24

Table of Contents

years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. We have applied for restoration of patent term for one U.S. Patent covering XERAVA and, in the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for other currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA.

Data exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company using the drug entitled to data exclusivity as the reference listed drug, or RLD. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of data exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the use or conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent for other uses or conditions of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct its own preclinical and clinical studies in support of its application or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

In addition, as described above, under the GAIN Act a new drug that is designated as a QIDP is eligible for an additional five years of exclusivity to be added to certain other exclusivity periods that the application may qualify for upon approval, specifically five-year exclusivity, three-year exclusivity, and orphan exclusivity.

Pediatric Exclusivity

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act provides for an additional six months of exclusivity, which is added on to patent and exclusivity periods in effect at the time the pediatric exclusivity award is granted, if a sponsor conducts clinical trials in children in response to a written request from the FDA, or a Written Request. The FDA may request studies on approved indications in separate Written Requests. The issuance of a Written Request does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies. To date, we have not received any Written Requests.

Post-approval Requirements

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems, including safety issues, with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. In addition, the FDA may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the effect of approved products that have been commercialized, and the FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs. The FDA and other authorities also strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products. Under the FDCA the sponsor of an approved drug in the United States may not promote that drug for unapproved, or off-label, uses, although a physician may prescribe a drug for an off-label use in accordance with the practice of medicine. If we are found to have promoted off-label uses, we may be subject to significant liability, including sanctions, civil and criminal fines and penalties, and injunctions prohibiting us from engaging in specified promotional conduct.

Moreover, any drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things:

25

Table of Contents

Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and some state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws.

Failure to comply with the FDCA and other applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject us to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on us. These sanctions could include:

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition, FDA regulations and guidance are often revised or reinterpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain approval by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the EU, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Under EU regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications under the centralized, decentralized or mutual recognition procedures, or under the purely national route of approval. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases, and designated orphan medicines, and is optional for other medicines that are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, where it will be evaluated by the relevant scientific committee, in most cases the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, and a favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU member states and, by extension (after national implementing measures), in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. In general, an initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure allows marketing authorization applications to be submitted simultaneously in two or more EU member states, whereas the mutual recognition procedure must be used if the product has already been authorized in at least one other EU member state. Both the decentralized and mutual recognition procedures provide for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one-member state, known as the “reference” member state.

Under the decentralized approval procedure, an applicant submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each

26

Table of Contents

concerned member state must approve the assessment report and related materials, unless they identify a serious risk to public health. Under the mutual recognition procedure, the concerned member states have the same 90-day period to recognize the marketing authorization in the reference member state. In either case, concerns about serious risks to public health escalate through the relevant EMA scientific committees, and the disputed points may eventually result in a consensus opinion from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use that is referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states. The purely national procedure results in a marketing authorization in a single EU member state.

Following the result of a referendum in 2016, the United Kingdom left the EU on January 31, 2020, and as of January 1, 2021, the United Kingdom and EU operate separate regulatory regimes. The UK and EU announced on December 24, 2020, that they had agreed a Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, to govern their future relationship. The TCA remains provisional until formally ratified by the EU. The TCA sets out the new arrangements for trade of goods, including medicines and medical devices, which aims to ensure goods continue to flow between the EU and the UK and also has implications for product regulation and mutual recognition.

As a result of the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU, if a company wishes to sell its products in the United Kingdom, it will need to seek and maintain appropriate national marketing authorizations. The TCA does not provide for wholesale mutual recognition of the regulatory regimes and so products exported from the UK to the EU must comply with the EU’s regulatory requirements. In the pharmaceutical context, this has had a number of implications. From January 31, 2020, the UK no longer participated in EU institutions and their decision-making, including approval decisions under the centralized procedure. Moreover, the movement of finished pharmaceutical products into the EU from the UK is treated as an import from a third country. Since the TCA does not provide for mutual recognition of batch testing and release, products must be quality control tested and released in the EU. However, the UK will unilaterally waive batch testing requirements for UK imports from the EU for products placed on the market before January 2023. It remains to be seen how these developments will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the United Kingdom.

Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of products will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, 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, such products. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors 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 payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all the approved products for a particular indication. For example, in the U.S. and most major foreign markets, drugs like GIAPREZA and XERAVA that are administered in the hospital must be purchased by the hospital and generally are not reimbursed by third-party payors. Hospitals instead are reimbursed for patient cases based on patients’ diagnosed conditions under the U.S. Medicare diagnosis-related group (“DRG”) system or other like systems for non-Medicare patients in the U.S. and in most major foreign markets. Adoption of new drugs that are administered in the hospital generally occurs more slowly than adoption of new drugs that are taken on an outpatient basis, which generally are paid for by third-party payors.

To secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

Health Care Laws Governing Interactions with Healthcare Providers

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws restrict our business activities, including certain marketing practices. These laws include, without limitation, anti-kickback laws, false claims laws, data privacy and security laws, as well as transparency laws regarding payments or other items of value provided to healthcare providers.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item, good, facility or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration”

27

Table of Contents

has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, among others, on the other. Although there are several statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that are alleged to be intended to induce prescriptions, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated. Additionally, the intent standard under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim for payment for items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

Federal false claims laws, including the civil False Claims Act, and civil monetary penalties laws prohibit any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a claim paid. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, have also been alleged to violate false claims laws.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal and civil statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. As with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the ACA amended the intent standard for certain healthcare fraud under HIPAA such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulations promulgated by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, impose certain requirements on covered entities (i.e., certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses) relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

What is more, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the children’s health insurance program (with certain exceptions) to annually report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value provided to covered recipients, including physicians, as defined by such law, and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals’ covered recipients and information related to certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the aforementioned federal laws, some of which are broader in scope and apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government. In addition, some state laws require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to clinicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures and drug pricing. Further, some state and local laws require the licensure of pharmaceutical sales representatives. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

28

Table of Contents

Finally, in Europe, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) (“GDPR”) contains provisions specifically directed at the processing of health information. The GDPR provides for potentially significant sanctions and contains extraterritoriality measures intended to bring non-EU companies under the regulation. In addition to the GDPR, individual countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world have enacted similar data privacy legislation. This legislation imposes increased compliance obligations and regulatory risk, including the potential for significant fines for noncompliance.

Healthcare and Other Reform

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of significant legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. Federal and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reform delivery of, or payment for, healthcare, which include initiatives to reduce the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which expanded health care coverage through Medicaid expansion and the implementation of the individual mandate for health insurance coverage and which included changes to the coverage and reimbursement of drug products under government healthcare programs. Under the Trump administration, there were ongoing efforts to modify or repeal all or certain provisions of the ACA. For example, tax reform legislation was enacted at the end of 2017 that eliminated the tax penalty established under the ACA for individuals who do not maintain mandated health insurance coverage beginning in 2019. The ACA has also been subject to judicial challenge. In December 2018, a federal district court, in a challenge brought by a number of state attorneys general, found the ACA unconstitutional in its entirety because, once Congress repealed the individual mandate provision, there was no longer a basis to rely on Congressional taxing authority to support enactment of the law. In December 2019, the federal appellate court upheld the district court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the district court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The case has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where a ruling remains pending.

There were other reform initiatives under the former Trump Administration, including initiatives focused on drug pricing. For example, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 contained various provisions that affect coverage and reimbursement of drugs, including an increase in the discount that manufacturers of Medicare Part D brand name drugs must provide to Medicare Part D beneficiaries during the coverage gap from 50% to 70% starting in 2019. As another example, in 2018, President Trump and the Secretary of the HHS, released a “blueprint” to lower prescription drug prices and out-of-pocket costs. Certain proposals in the blueprint, and related drug pricing measures proposed since the blueprint, could cause significant operational and reimbursement changes for the pharmaceutical industry. HHS has solicited feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, has implemented others under its existing authority. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule through the CMS Innovation Center whereby Medicare Part B reimbursement for “certain high-cost prescriptions drugs” would be no more than most-favored-nation price (i.e., the lowest price) after adjustments, for a pharmaceutical product that the drug manufacturer sells in a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that has a comparable per-capita gross domestic product. On December 28, 2020, the United States District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. While some of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, members of Congress and the new Biden administration have indicated that lowering prescription drug prices is a priority, but it is not yet clear what steps the Biden Administration will take or whether such steps will be successful.

There have also been recent state legislative efforts to address drug costs, which generally have focused on increasing transparency around drug costs or limiting drug prices and address 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 2019, the DISARM Act of 2019 was introduced in Congress as new legislation to provide financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies to develop new antibiotics. This new legislation was guided by input from the IDSA and will help to ensure that patients can access new antibiotics when they are clinically appropriate, require hospitals to establish antibiotic stewardship programs, and spur improved reporting of antibiotic use and resistance to more rapidly identify challenges and inform best practices. More recently, this legislation was reintroduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2021 which aims to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to encourage the development and use of DISARM antimicrobial drugs, and for other purposes.

General legislative cost control measures may also affect reimbursement for our product candidates. The Budget Control Act, as amended, resulted in the imposition of 2% reductions in Medicare, but not Medicaid, payments to providers in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. There was a temporary suspension of the 2% reduction during the pandemic; that temporary suspension is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2021. Any significant spending reductions affecting Medicare, Medicaid or other publicly funded or subsidized health programs that may be implemented and/or any significant taxes or fees that may be imposed on us could have an adverse impact on our results of operations.

29

Table of Contents

Legislation was introduced to the U.S. Senate in September 2020 which aims to reinvigorate innovation for the development of new antibiotics through a subscription contract program managed by HHS. The PASTEUR Act was introduced to provide a mechanism for funding designated ‘critical need antimicrobial’ drugs post FDA approval. In return, patients covered by federal insurance programs will receive these drugs at no cost. These Contracts under the PASTEUR Act could range from $750 million to $3 billion in value. It is unclear when or if the PASTEUR Act or similar incentive programs will become law. In October 2021, the PACCARB authored a letter to the Honorable Xavier Becerra, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services recommending the passage of both DISARM and PASTEUR and the antimicrobial stewardship provisions contained within each act.

Adoption of new legislation at the federal or state level could affect demand for, or pricing of, our current or future products if approved for sale. We cannot, however, predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any changes to the ACA or other federal and state reform efforts. There is no assurance that federal or state health care reform will not adversely affect our future business and financial results.

Other Laws and Regulations

We are subject to a variety of financial disclosure and securities trading regulations as a public company in the U.S., including laws relating to the oversight activities of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and the regulations of the Nasdaq Capital Market, on which our shares of common stock are traded. We are also subject to various laws and regulations relating to safe working conditions, laboratory practices and the experimental use of animals.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection for our product candidates, our core technologies, and other know-how. To accomplish this we rely on the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors. To help protect our proprietary know-how that is not patentable, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. We require our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information and requiring disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business. We file patent applications directed to our key product candidates to establish intellectual property positions. These patent applications are intended to protect new chemical entities relating to these product candidates as well as their manufacturing processes, intermediates and uses in the treatment of diseases.

The intellectual property portfolios for our commercial products, advanced product candidates, and various compounds are summarized below.

GIAPREZA

As of February 15, 2023 , the licensed intellectual property portfolio relating to GIAPREZA® included 12 issued U.S. patents, 2 pending U.S. patent applications, 8 issued foreign patents and 15 pending foreign patent applications. The issued U.S. patents, and patents that may issue from the pending U.S. patent applications, will expire between 2029 and 2034, absent any disclaimers, extensions, or adjustments of patent term. The foreign patents, and patents that may issue from the pending foreign patent applications, will expire in 2034, absent any disclaimers, extensions, or adjustments of patent term.

As of February 15, 2023, the intellectual property portfolio relating to GIAPREZA included 3 issued U.S. patents, 8 pending U.S. patent applications, 7 issued foreign patents and 10 pending foreign patent applications. The issued U.S. patents, and patents that may issue from the pending U.S. patent applications, will expire between 2034 and 2044, absent any disclaimers, extensions, or adjustments of patent term. The foreign patents, and patents that may issue from the pending foreign patent applications, will expire between 2034 and 2044, absent any disclaimers, extensions, or adjustments of patent term.

XERAVA

As of February 15, 2023, we owned 2 issued U.S. patents, 1 pending U.S. patent application, 17 issued foreign patents and 4 pending foreign patent applications relating to XERAVA. The issued U.S. patents, and the patent that may issue from the pending U.S. patent application, will have an expiration date of August 7, 2029, absent any disclaimers, extensions, or adjustments of patent term. The term of 1 of the U.S. patents has received 508 days of patent term adjustment. The foreign patents, and patents that may issue from the pending foreign applications, will likewise have an expiration date of August 7, 2029, absent any disclaimers, extensions, or adjustments of patent term.

As of February 15, 2023, we also filed applications for Supplementary Protection Certificates based on European Patent No. 2323972 covering the composition of matter and use of XERAVA. Some applications have been granted and others are pending.

30

Table of Contents

In addition, as of February 15, 2023, we also owned 2 issued U.S. patent, 1 pending U.S. patent application and 11 pending foreign patent applications that relate to crystalline forms of eravacycline, any U.S. patent that may issue from the pending patent application will expire in 2037 absent any disclaimers, extensions, or adjustments of patent term. Likewise, any foreign patents that may issue from the pending foreign patent applications will expire in 2037. We also owned 5 issued U.S. patents, 1 pending U.S. patent application, 32 issued foreign patents and 17 pending foreign patent applications relating to other tetracycline-related intellectual property.

Durlobactam

Our intellectual property portfolio for our durlobactam program contains patent applications directed to compositions of matter for durlobactam and other chemical analogs, as well as methods of making, referred to as synthetic methods, and methods of use and modes of treatment using durlobactam in combination with one or more antibiotic compounds. As of February 15, 2023, we owned four issued U.S. patents, one pending provisional application, one pending PCT application, 107 issued foreign patents as well as six pending foreign patent applications, of which two are allowed. The issued foreign patents are in several jurisdictions including Australia, the European Union, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Macau, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Issued U.S. and foreign patents and patents issuing from pending U.S. and foreign applications will have expiration dates of April 2033 and April 2043.

Zoliflodacin

Our intellectual property portfolio for zoliflodacin contains patent applications directed to compositions of matter for zoliflodacin and other chemical analogs, as well as synthetic methods and methods of use and modes of treatment. As of February 15, 2023, we owned seven issued U.S. patents, 74 issued foreign patents as well as two pending foreign patent applications. The issued foreign patents are in several jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Eurasia, the European Union, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Issued U.S. and foreign patents and patents issuing from pending U.S. and foreign applications have expiration dates of October 2029, January 2034 and May 2035.

Trademarks, Trade Secrets and Know-How

Our trademark portfolio currently consists of various registered trademark and service mark rights in several jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico, Norway, the Russian Federation, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey and the United Kingdom, and pending applications in other jurisdictions. In connection with the ongoing development and advancement of our products and services in the United States and various international jurisdictions, we routinely seek to create protection for our marks and enhance their value by pursuing trademarks and service marks where available and when appropriate. In addition to patents and trademark protection, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our employees. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees, and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Our Strategic Partnership with Sarissa Capital

Strategic Advisory Agreement

On December 11, 2020, we entered into a Strategic Advisory Agreement (the “Services Agreement”) with Sarissa Capital Management LP (“Sarissa Capital”), pursuant to which Sarissa Capital provides a variety of strategic services to us in order to assist

31

Table of Contents

us in the development and execution of our acquisition strategy intended to diversify our assets and the potential sources of revenue. Sarissa Capital is considered to be a related party due to its investment in Innoviva and its representation on our board of directors.

Partnership Agreement

On December 11, 2020, Innoviva Strategic Partners LLC, our wholly owned subsidiary (“Strategic Partners”), entered into a subscription agreement and an Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement (the “Partnership Agreement”) pursuant to which Strategic Partners became a limited partner of ISP Fund LP (the “Partnership”). The general partner of the Partnership is an affiliate of Sarissa Capital and, pursuant to an investment management agreement, Sarissa Capital acts as the investment adviser to the Partnership. Strategic Partners made a $300 million initial contribution to the Partnership. The Partnership was formed for the purposes of investing in equity securities in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

In May 2021, Strategic Partners received a distribution of $110.0 million from the Partnership to provide funding to us for a strategic repurchase of shares held by GSK. Pursuant to the letter agreement entered into between Strategic Partners, the Partnership, and Sarissa Capital Fund GP LP on May 20, 2021, Strategic Partners agreed to make additional capital contributions to the Partnership in an aggregate amount equal to the amount of the May 2021 distribution prior to March 31, 2022. A $110.0 million contribution was made during the first quarter of 2022.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2022, we had 101 employees, all of whom were full-time employees. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our relations with our employees to be good. We also hire consultants and contract with third parties, as needed, to provide additional resources to support our business activities.

Our key human capital management objectives are to identify, recruit, integrate, retain and motivate our new and existing employees. We believe that our compensation and benefit programs are appropriately designed to attract and retain qualified talent. Employees receive an annual base salary and are eligible to earn performance-based cash bonuses. To create and maintain a successful work environment, we offer a comprehensive package of additional benefits that support the physical and mental health and wellness of all of our employees and their families and flexible working arrangements. Additionally, we grant equity awards in order to allow employees to share in the performance of the Company. The Chief Executive Officer regularly updates our board of directors and our committees on the operation and status of these human capital trends and activities.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

We have created an environment that fosters individual development while maintaining consistency in our corporate values and code of conduct. We offer seminars from external resources on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, best practices and promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people in our workplace.

Health, Safety and Wellness

We strive to provide pay, benefits and other employee services that are competitive to market in the life sciences industry and create incentives to attract and retain employees. Our compensation package includes market-competitive pay, stock options and restrictive stock units, bonuses, employee spot awards, health care and retirement benefits, paid time off and family leave. We utilize third party consultants to review and update our compensation practices annually. We are also committed to the continued development of our people, providing opportunities for employees to further their career development through internal training and education programs and third party online training programs.

Information about our Executive Officers

The following table sets forth the name, age, and position of each of our executive officers as of February 28, 2023:

Pavel Raifeld, CFA, was appointed Chief Executive Officer in May 2020. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Raifeld, served on the investment team at Sarissa Capital Management LP. Earlier, he was a senior member of the healthcare investment banking team at Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC. Previously, Mr. Raifeld worked as a consultant, primarily specializing in advising biopharmaceutical companies, at McKinsey & Company, Inc. and The Boston Consulting Group Ltd. Mr. Raifeld earned an AB degree from Harvard University and an MBA degree from Columbia University.

32

Table of Contents

Marianne Zhen, CPA, was appointed Chief Accounting Officer in July 2018. Prior to joining Innoviva in October 2014, Ms. Zhen served as the Corporate Controller at Steelwedge Software Inc. from 2012 to 2014, Intelmate from 2011 to 2012 and Model N, Inc. from 2007 to 2011. Previously, Ms. Zhen served as a member of the board of directors of CalCPA Peninsula Silicon Valley Chapter. Ms. Zhen earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with a concentration in Accounting from San Francisco State University. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and a member of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA).

Code of Business Conduct

The Company has adopted the Innoviva, Inc. Code of Business Conduct that applies to all directors, officers and employees. The Code of Business Conduct, as amended through March 9, 2021, is available on the corporate governance section of our website at www.inva.com. If the Company makes any substantive amendments to the Code of Business Conduct or grants a waiver from any provision of such code to any executive officer or director, the Company will promptly disclose the nature of the amendment or waiver, as required by applicable law.

Available Information

Our web page address is www.inva.com. Our investor relations website is located at http://investor.inva.com. We make available free of charge on our investor relations website under “SEC Filings” our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K, our directors’ and officers’ Section 16 Reports and any amendments to those reports after filing or furnishing such materials to the SEC. The information found on our website is not part of this or any other report that we file with or furnish to the SEC. Innoviva and the Innoviva logo are registered trademarks of Innoviva, Inc. Trademarks, tradenames or service marks of other companies appearing in this report are the property of their respective owners.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Summary of Risk Factors

The Company is subject to a number of risks that if realized could affect its business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and access to liquidity materially. The Company’s business is subject to uncertainties and risks including:

33

Table of Contents

Risks Related to our Business

Currently, we derive most of our revenues from GSK and our near-term success depends in large part on GSK’s ability to successfully develop and commercialize the products in the respiratory programs partnered with GSK.

Pursuant to the GSK Agreements, GSK is responsible for the development and commercialization of products in the partnered respiratory programs. Royalty revenues from RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® are expected to represent the majority of our foreseeable future revenues from GSK. The amount and timing of revenue from such royalties are unknown and highly uncertain. Our near-term success depends in large part upon the performance by GSK of its commercial obligations under the GSK Agreements and the commercial success of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA®. We have no control over GSK’s marketing and sales efforts, and GSK might not be successful, which would harm our business and cause the price of our securities to fall.

Our quarterly royalty revenues may fluctuate due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. The amount of royalties and milestone payments, if any, we receive will depend on many factors, including the following:

34

Table of Contents

When the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities approve generic products, including but not limited to generic forms of Advair, that compete with RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®, and ANORO® ELLIPTA® or a generic form of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®, the royalties payable to us pursuant to the GSK Agreements will be less than anticipated, which in turn would harm our business and the price of our securities could fall.

Once an NDA or marketing authorization application outside the United States is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “listed drug” that can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA in the United States. Agency regulations and other applicable regulations and policies provide incentives to manufacturers to create modified, non-infringing versions of a drug to facilitate the approval of an ANDA or other application for generic substitutes in the United States and in nearly every pharmaceutical market around the world. Numerous companies have brought to market generic forms of the ICS/LABA drug Advair® since certain patents covering the Advair® delivery device expired in 2016. In general, these manufactures are required to conduct a number of clinical efficacy, pharmacokinetic and device studies to demonstrate equivalence to Advair, per FDA’s September 2013 draft guidance document. These studies are designed to demonstrate that the generic product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, exposure and clinical efficacy as the branded product. These generic equivalents, which must meet the same exacting quality standards as branded products, may be significantly less costly to bring to market, and companies that produce generic equivalents are generally able to offer their products at lower prices. Thus, after the introduction of a generic competitor, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product and products that may compete with such branded product is typically lost to the generic product.

In January 2019, Mylan announced that the FDA approved Wixela™ Inhu™ (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder, USP), the first generic of ADVAIR DISKUS®. In that same month, Teva announced that the FDA approved two of their products for adolescent and adult patients with asthma, one of which is AirDuo™ RespiClick® (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder), a non-AB substitutable generic version of Advair®. In January 2020, Astra Zeneca launched an authorized generic version of Symbicort. In December 2020, Hikma/Vectura announced that it received FDA approval and launched its generic version of GSK’s Advair Diskus®.

In April 2016, the FDA issued draft guidance documents covering Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol Trifenatate (FF/VI), the active ingredients used in RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®. Introduction of generic products that compete against ICS/LABA products, like RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®, would materially adversely impact our future royalty revenue, profitability and cash flows. We cannot yet ascertain what impact these generic products and any future approved generic products will have on any sales of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® or ANORO® ELLIPTA®, if approved.

Reduced prices and reimbursement rates due to the actions of governments, payors, or competition or other healthcare cost containment initiatives such as restrictions on use, may negatively impact royalties generated under the GSK Agreements.

The continuing efforts of governments, pharmaceutical benefit management organizations (“PBMs”), insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of health care costs to contain or reduce costs of health care has adversely affected the price, market access, and total revenues of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®, and ANORO® ELLIPTA® and may continue to adversely

35

Table of Contents

affect them in the future. In addition, we have experienced and expect to continue to experience increased competitive activity, which has resulted in lower overall prices for our products.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (together, “PPACA”) and other legislative or regulatory requirements or potential legislative or regulatory actions regarding healthcare and insurance matters, along with the trend toward managed healthcare in the U.S., could adversely influence the purchase of healthcare products and reduce demand and prices for our partnered products. This could harm GSK’s ability to market our partnered products and significantly reduce future revenues. For example, when GSK launched RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® for the treatment of COPD in the U.S. in October 2013, GSK experienced significant challenges gaining coverage at some of the largest PBMs, healthcare payors, and providers and lower overall prices than expected. Recent actions by U.S. PBMs in particular have increased discount levels for respiratory products resulting in lower net sales pricing realized for products in our collaboration. In addition, in certain foreign markets, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to government control and reimbursement may in some cases be unavailable. We believe that pricing pressures will continue and may increase. This may make it difficult for GSK to sell our partnered products at a price acceptable to us or GSK or to generate revenues in line with our analysts’ or investors’ expectations, which may cause the price of our securities to fall.

More recently, presidential administrations and the U.S. Congress have taken actions in an effort to modify or replace PPACA and to implement or pass other reforms to the healthcare system, including proposed legislation related to the pricing of pharmaceuticals. There is uncertainty with respect to any potential changes that may be proposed and what the impact, if any, will be on our business, including the impact on coverage and reimbursement for healthcare items and services covered by plans that were authorized by PPACA. However, we cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or the impact of potential legislation on us.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be considered and potentially adopted, 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 products once approved or additional pricing pressures and may adversely affect our operating results.

A portion of our current revenues are from royalties derived from sales of our respiratory products partnered with GSK, RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA®. If the treatment paradigm for the indications our partnered products are approved for change or if GSK is unable to, or does not devote sufficient resources to, maintain or continue increasing sales of these products, our results of operations will be adversely affected.

We currently depend, in part, on royalties from sales of our products partnered with GSK to support our existing operations. The treatment paradigm for COPD and asthma constantly evolves. For instance, in November 2018, the GOLD guidelines were revised to favorably position bronchodilator monotherapy and LABA/LAMA treatment ahead of ICS/LABA for the treatment of COPD unless the patient has frequent exacerbations, or an eosinophil count greater than 300 per cubic microliter. The use of ICS in COPD is also recommended for patients requiring triple therapy (LABA, LAMA, ICS). If the treatment paradigms were to change further, causing our partnered products to fall out of favor, or if GSK were unable, or did not devote sufficient resources, to maintain or continue increasing RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® sales, our results of operations would likely suffer, and the price of our securities could fall.

If the commercialization of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® in the countries in which they have received regulatory approval encounters any delays or adverse developments, or perceived delays or adverse developments, or if sales or payor coverage does not meet investors’, analysts’, or our expectations, our business will be harmed, and the price of our securities could fall.

Under our agreements with our collaborative partner GSK, GSK has full responsibility for commercialization of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA®. GSK has launched RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® in a number of countries, including the United States, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Germany, among others. The commercialization of the products in countries where they are already launched and the commercialization launch in new countries are still subject to fluctuating overall pricing levels and uncertain timeframes to obtain payor coverage. Any delays or adverse developments or perceived additional delays or adverse developments with respect to the commercialization of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® including if sales or payor coverage does not meet investors’, analysts’, or our expectations, would significantly harm our business and the price of our securities could fall.

36

Table of Contents

We are dependent on GSK for the successful commercialization and development of products under the GSK Agreements. If GSK does not devote sufficient resources to the commercialization or development of these products, is unsuccessful in its efforts, or chooses to reprioritize its commercial programs, our business would be materially harmed.

GSK is responsible for all clinical and other product development, regulatory, manufacturing and commercialization activities for products developed under the GSK Agreements, including RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA®. Our royalty revenues under the GSK Agreements may not meet our, analysts’, or investors’ expectations, due to a number of important factors. GSK has a substantial respiratory product portfolio in addition to the partnered products that are covered by the GSK Agreements. GSK may make respiratory product portfolio decisions or statements about its portfolio which may be, or may be perceived to be, harmful to the respiratory products partnered with us. For instance, GSK has wide discretion in determining the efforts and resources that it will apply to the development and commercialization of our partnered products. In addition, GSK may determine to focus its commercialization efforts on its own products. For example, in January 2015, GSK launched Incruse® (UMEC) in the U.S., which is a LAMA for the treatment of COPD. GSK may determine to focus its marketing efforts on Incruse, which could have the effect of decreasing the potential market share of ANORO® ELLIPTA® and lowering the royalties we may receive for such product. Alternatively, GSK may decide to market to eventually compete directly against sales of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®. In the event GSK does not devote sufficient resources to the commercialization of our partnered products or chooses to reprioritize its commercial programs, our business, operations and stock price would be negatively affected.

Any adverse change in FDA policy or guidance regarding the use of LABAs to treat asthma could significantly harm our royalty revenues and the price of our securities could fall.

On February 18, 2010, the FDA announced that LABAs should not be used alone in the treatment of asthma and it will require manufacturers to include this warning in the product labels of these drugs, along with taking other steps to reduce the overall use of these medicines. The FDA now requires that the product labels for LABA medicines reflect, among other things, that the use of LABAs is contraindicated without the use of an asthma controller medication such as an inhaled corticosteroid, that LABAs should only be used long term in patients whose asthma cannot be adequately controlled on asthma controller medications, and that LABAs should be used for the shortest duration of time required to achieve control of asthma symptoms and discontinued, if possible, once asthma control is achieved. In addition, in March 2010, the FDA held an Advisory Committee to discuss the design of medical research studies (known as “clinical trial design”) to evaluate serious asthma outcomes (such as hospitalizations, a procedure using a breathing tube known as intubation, or death) with the use of LABAs in the treatment of asthma in adults, adolescents, and children. Further, in April 2011, the FDA announced that to further evaluate the safety of LABAs, it required the manufacturers of currently marketed LABAs to conduct additional randomized, double blind, controlled clinical trials comparing the addition of LABAs to inhaled corticosteroids versus inhaled corticosteroids alone. These post‑marketing studies have been completed and the FDA stated that treating asthma with LABAs in combination with ICS did not result in significantly more serious asthma-related side effects than treatment with ICS alone. The FDA subsequently removed the black box warning from the ICS/LABA package inserts. Although this concern appears to be resolved, it is unknown at this time what, if any, future concerns could impact the use of ICS/LABA and its potential impact on the prospects for FF/VI. Any adverse change in FDA policy or guidance regarding the use of LABAs to treat asthma could significantly harm our business and the price of our securities could fall.

Any adverse developments to the regulatory status of either RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® or ANORO® ELLIPTA® in the countries in which they have received regulatory approval, including labeling restrictions, safety findings, or any other limitation to usage, would harm our business and may cause the price of our securities to fall.

Although RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® are approved and marketed in a number of countries, it is possible that adverse changes to the regulatory status of these products could occur in the event new safety issues are identified, treatment guidelines are changed, or new studies fail to demonstrate product benefits. A number of notable pharmaceutical products have experienced adverse developments during commercialization that have resulted in the product being withdrawn, approved uses being limited, or new warnings being included. In the event that any adverse regulatory changes were to occur to any of our products, our business would be harmed, and the price of our securities could fall.

37

Table of Contents

Any adverse developments or results or perceived adverse developments or results with respect to the ongoing studies for FF/VI in asthma or COPD, for UMEC/VI in COPD, or any future studies would significantly harm our business and the price of our securities could fall, and if regulatory authorities in those countries in which approval has not yet been granted determine that the ongoing studies for FF/VI in asthma or COPD or the ongoing studies for UMEC/VI for COPD do not demonstrate adequate safety and efficacy, the continued development of FF/VI or UMEC/VI or both could be significantly delayed, they might not be approved by these regulatory authorities, and even if approved they may be subject to restrictive labeling, any of which might harm our business, and the price of our securities could fall.

Although we have announced the completion of, and reported certain top‑line data from, the Phase 3 registrational program for FF/VI in COPD and asthma, additional studies of FF/VI are underway or may commence in the future. Any adverse developments or perceived adverse developments with respect to any prior, current or future studies in these programs could significantly harm our business and the price of our securities could fall.

Although the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and Health Canada and other jurisdictions have approved ANORO® ELLIPTA®, it has not yet been approved in all jurisdictions.

Any adverse developments or results or perceived adverse developments or results with respect to other pending or future regulatory submissions for the FF/VI program or the UMEC/VI program might significantly harm our business and the price of our securities could fall. Examples of such adverse developments include, but are not limited to:

RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® face substantial competition for their intended uses in the targeted markets from products discovered, developed, launched and commercialized both by GSK and by other pharmaceutical companies, which could cause the royalties payable to us pursuant to the LABA Collaboration Agreement to be less than expected, which in turn would harm our business and cause the price of our securities to fall.

GSK has responsibility for obtaining regulatory approval, launching and commercializing RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®, and ANORO® ELLIPTA® for their intended uses in the targeted markets around the world. While these products have received regulatory approval and have been launched and commercialized in the U.S. and certain other targeted markets, the products face substantial competition from existing products previously developed and commercialized both by GSK and by other competing pharmaceutical companies and can expect to face additional competition from new products that are discovered, developed and commercialized by the same pharmaceutical companies and other competitors going forward. For example, sales of generic Advair®, GSK’s approved medicine for both COPD and asthma, continue to have a negative impact on sales of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®.

Many of the pharmaceutical companies competing in respiratory markets are international in scope with substantial financial, technical and personnel resources that permit them to discover, develop, obtain regulatory approval and commercialize new products in a highly efficient and low-cost manner at competitive prices to consumers. In addition, many of these competitors have substantial commercial infrastructure that facilitates commercializing their products in a highly efficient and low-cost manner at competitive prices to consumers. The market for products developed for treatment of COPD and asthma continues to experience significant innovation and reduced cost in bringing products to market over time. There can be no assurance that RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® will not be replaced by new products that are deemed more effective at lower cost to consumers. The ability of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA®, and ANORO® ELLIPTA® to succeed and achieve the anticipated level of sales depends on the

38

Table of Contents

commercial and development performance of GSK to achieve and maintain a competitive advantage over other products with the same intended use in the targeted markets.

If sales of RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA® are less than anticipated because of existing or future competition in the markets in which they are commercialized, including competition from existing and new products that are perceived as lower cost or more effective, our royalty payments could be less than anticipated, which in turn would harm our business and cause the price of our securities to fall.

We may not be able to utilize all of our net operating loss carryforwards.

We have net operating loss carryforwards and other significant U.S. tax attributes that we believe could offset otherwise taxable income in the U.S. As a part of the overall Spin-Off transaction, the transfer of certain assets by us to Theravance Biopharma and our distribution of Theravance Biopharma ordinary shares resulted in taxable transfers pursuant to applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and Treasury Regulations. The taxable gain recognized by us attributable to the transfer of certain assets to Theravance Biopharma generally equaled the excess of the fair market value of each asset transferred over our adjusted tax basis in such asset. Although we did not recognize any gain with respect to the cash we transferred to Theravance Biopharma, we may recognize substantial gain based on the fair market value of the other assets (other than cash) transferred to Theravance Biopharma. The determination of the fair market value of these assets is subjective and could be subject to adjustments or future challenge by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), which could result in an increase in the amount of gain realized by us as a result of the transfer. Our U.S. federal income tax resulting from any gain recognized upon the transfer of our assets to Theravance Biopharma (including any increased U.S. federal income tax that may result from a subsequent determination of higher fair market values for the transferred assets), may be reduced by our net operating loss carryforward. The net operating loss carryforwards available in any year to offset our net taxable income will be reduced following a more than 50% change in ownership during any period of 36 consecutive months (an “ownership change”) as determined under the Code. Transactions involving our common stock, even those outside our control, such as purchases or sales by investors, within the testing period could result in an ownership change. We have conducted an analysis to determine whether an ownership change had occurred since inception through December 31, 2022 and concluded that it is more likely than not that the Company did not experience an ownership change during the testing period. Subsequent changes in our ownership or sale of our stock could have the effect of limiting the use of our net operating losses in the future. There may be certain annual limitations for utilization based on the above-described ownership change provisions. In addition, we may not be able to have sufficient future taxable income prior to their expiration because net operating losses have carryforward periods. Future changes in federal and state tax laws pertaining to net operating loss carryforwards may also cause limitations or restrictions from us claiming such net operating losses. If the net operating loss carryforwards become unavailable to us or are fully utilized, our future taxable income will not be shielded from federal and state income taxation absent certain U.S. federal and state tax credits, and the funds otherwise available for general corporate purposes would be reduced.

If any product candidates in any respiratory program partnered with GSK were not approved by regulatory authorities or are determined to be unsafe or ineffective in humans, our business would be adversely affected and the price of our securities could fall.

The FDA must approve any new medicine before it can be marketed and sold in the U.S. Our partner GSK must provide the FDA and similar foreign regulatory authorities with data from preclinical and clinical studies that demonstrate that the product candidates are safe and effective for a defined indication before they can be approved for commercial distribution. GSK will not obtain this approval for a partnered product candidate unless and until the FDA approves an NDA. The processes by which regulatory approvals are obtained from the FDA to market and sell a new product are complex, require a number of years and involve the expenditure of substantial resources. In order to market medicines in foreign countries, separate regulatory approvals must be obtained in each country. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing, and the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. Conversely, failure to obtain approval in one or more country may make approval in other countries more difficult.

Clinical studies involving product candidates partnered with GSK may reveal that those candidates are ineffective, inferior to existing approved medicines, unacceptably toxic, or that they have other unacceptable side effects. In addition, the results of preclinical studies do not necessarily predict clinical success, and larger and later‑stage clinical studies may not produce the same results as earlier‑stage clinical studies.

Frequently, product candidates that have shown promising results in early preclinical or clinical studies have subsequently suffered significant setbacks or failed in later clinical or non‑clinical studies. In addition, clinical and non‑clinical studies of potential products often reveal that it is not possible or practical to continue development efforts for these product candidates. If these studies

39

Table of Contents

are substantially delayed or fail to prove the safety and effectiveness of product candidates in development partnered with GSK, GSK may not receive regulatory approval for such product candidates and our business and financial condition could be materially harmed and the price of our securities might fall.

Several well‑publicized Complete Response letters issued by the FDA and safety‑related product withdrawals, suspensions, post‑approval labeling revisions to include boxed warnings and changes in approved indications over the last several years, as well as growing public and governmental scrutiny of safety issues, have created a conservative regulatory environment. The implementation of new laws and regulations and revisions to FDA clinical trial design guidance have increased uncertainty regarding the approvability of a new drug. Further, there are additional requirements for approval of new drugs, including advisory committee meetings for new chemical entities, and formal risk evaluation and mitigation strategy at the FDA’s discretion. These laws, regulations, additional requirements and changes in interpretation could cause non‑approval or further delays in the FDA’s review and approval of any product candidates in any respiratory program partnered with GSK.

Even if product candidates in any respiratory program partnered with GSK receive regulatory approval, as is the case with RELVAR®/BREO® ELLIPTA® and ANORO® ELLIPTA®, commercialization of such products may be adversely affected by regulatory actions and oversight.

Even if GSK receives regulatory approval for product candidates in any respiratory program partnered with GSK, this approval may include limitations on the indicated uses for which GSK can market the medicines or the patient population that may utilize the medicines, which may limit the market for the medicines or put GSK at a competitive disadvantage relative to alternative therapies. These restrictions make it more difficult to market the approved products.

For example, at the joint meeting of the Pulmonary‑Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee and Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee of the FDA regarding the sNDA for BREO® ELLIPTA® as a treatment for asthma, the advisory committee recommended that a large LABA safety trial with BREO® ELLIPTA® should be required in adults and in children ages 12‑17, similar to the ongoing LABA safety trials being conducted as an FDA Post‑Marketing Requirement by each of the manufacturers of LABA containing asthma treatments. The FDA did not concur with the recommendation. A pediatric program including patients 5‑17 years of age is currently ongoing.

In addition, the manufacturing, labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the approved product remain subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. If we or GSK become aware of previously unknown problems with an approved product in the U.S. or overseas or at contract manufacturers’ facilities, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions on the product, the contract manufacturers or on GSK, including requiring it to reformulate the product, conduct additional clinical studies, change the labeling of the product, withdraw the product from the market or require the contract manufacturer to implement changes to its facilities. GSK is also subject to regulation by regional, national, state and local agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other regulatory bodies, as well as governmental authorities in those foreign countries in which any of the product candidates in any respiratory program partnered with GSK are approved for commercialization. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern to varying degrees the research, development, manufacturing and commercial activities relating to prescription pharmaceutical products, including non‑clinical and clinical testing, approval, production, labeling, sale, distribution, import, export, post‑market surveillance, advertising, dissemination of information and promotion. Any failure to maintain regulatory approval would limit GSK’s ability to commercialize the product candidates in any respiratory program partnered with GSK, which could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition, and which may cause the price of our securities to fall.

Acquisitions or strategic investments we have made or may make could turn out to be unsuccessful.

As part of our strategy, we frequently monitor and analyze acquisition or investment opportunities that we believe will create value for our shareholders.

Existing or future acquisitions and investments could involve numerous risks that may prevent us from fully realizing the benefits that we anticipated as a result of the transaction. These risks include the failure to derive any commercial value from the acquired technology, products and intellectual property including as a result of the failure to obtain regulatory approval or to monetize products once approved, as well as risks from lengthy product development and high upfront development costs without guarantee of successful results. Patents and other intellectual property rights covering acquired technology and/or intellectual property may not be obtained, and if obtained, may not be sufficient to fully protect the technology or intellectual property. We may be subject to liabilities, including unanticipated litigation costs, that are not covered by indemnification protection we may obtain. As we pursue or consummate a strategic acquisition or investment, we may value the acquired or funded company incorrectly, fail to successfully manage our operations as our asset diversity increases, expend unforeseen costs during the acquisition or integration process, or

40

Table of Contents

encounter other unanticipated risks or challenges. Once an investment is made, we may fail to value it accurately, properly account for it in our consolidated financial statements, or successfully divest it or otherwise realize the value which we originally invested or have subsequently reflected in our consolidated financial statements. Any failure by us to effectively limit such risks as we implement our acquisitions or strategic investments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations and may negatively impact our net income and cause the price of our securities to fall.

We have a significant amount of debt including our convertible subordinated notes and convertible senior notes that are senior in capital structure and cash flow, respectively, to our common stockholders. Satisfying the obligations relating to our debt could adversely affect our liquidity or the amount or timing of potential distributions to our stockholders.

As of December 31, 2022, we had $549.7 million in total debt outstanding, comprised primarily of $96.2 million in principal that remains outstanding under our convertible subordinated notes due 2023 (the “2023 Notes”), $192.5 million in principal outstanding under our convertible senior notes due 2025 (the “2025 Notes”) and $261.0 million in principal outstanding under our convertible notes due 2028 (the “2028 Notes”) (the 2023 Notes, 2025 Notes and 2028 Notes, hereinafter, the “Notes”). The Notes are unsecured debt and, with the exception of the 2028 Notes, are not redeemable by us prior to the maturity date. Holders of the Notes may require us to purchase all or any portion of their Notes at 100% of their principal amount, plus any unpaid interest, upon a fundamental change. A fundamental change is generally defined to include a merger involving us, an acquisition of a majority of our outstanding common stock, and, under the 2023 Notes, the change of a majority of our board of directors without the approval of the board of directors. In addition, to the extent we pursue and complete a monetization transaction or a transaction that modifies our corporate structure, the structure of such transaction may qualify as a fundamental change under the Notes, which could trigger the put rights of the holders of the Notes, in which case we would be required to use a portion of the net proceeds from such transaction to repurchase any Notes put to us.

Satisfying the obligations of this debt could adversely affect the amount or timing of any distributions to our stockholders. We may choose to satisfy, repurchase, or refinance this debt through public or private equity or debt financings if we deem such financings available on favorable terms. If any or all of the Notes are not converted into shares of our common stock before the maturity date, we will have to pay the holders the full aggregate principal amount of the Notes then outstanding. Any of the above payments could have a material adverse effect on our cash position. If we fail to satisfy these obligations, it may result in a default under the indenture, which could result in a default under certain of our other debt instruments, if any. Any such default would harm our business and the price of our securities could fall.

If we lose key management personnel, or if we fail to retain our key employees, our ability to manage our business may be impaired.

Our performance is substantially dependent on the continued service and performance of our management team, who have extensive experience and specialized expertise in our business. None of our employees have employment commitments for any fixed period of time and all may leave our employment at will. If we fail to retain our qualified personnel or to replace them when they leave, our ability to manage our business may be impaired, which may cause the price of our securities to fall.

Prolonged economic uncertainties or downturns, as well as unstable market, credit and financial conditions, may exacerbate certain risks affecting our business and have serious adverse consequences on our business.

The global economic downturn and market instability has made the business climate more volatile and more costly. These economic conditions, and uncertainty as to the general direction of the macroeconomic environment, are beyond our control and may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly, and more dilutive. While we believe we have adequate capital resources to meet current working capital and capital expenditure requirements, a lingering economic downturn or significant increase in our expenses could require additional financing at less than attractive rates or on terms that are excessively dilutive to existing stockholders. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our stock price and could require us to delay or abandon clinical development plans.

Sales of our partnered products will be dependent, in large part, on reimbursement from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, distribution partners and other organizations. As a result of negative trends in the general economy in the U.S. or other jurisdictions in which we may do business, these organizations may be unable to satisfy their reimbursement obligations or may delay payment. In addition, federal and state health authorities may reduce Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, and private insurers may increase their scrutiny of claims. A reduction in the availability or extent of reimbursement could negatively affect our or our partners’ product sales and revenue.

In addition, we rely on third parties for several important aspects of our business. During challenging and uncertain economic times and in tight credit markets, there may be a disruption or delay in the performance of our third‑party contractors, suppliers or

41

Table of Contents

partners. If such third parties are unable to satisfy their commitments to us, our business and results of operations would be adversely affected.

Our success in preclinical studies or clinical trials may not be indicative of results in current or future clinical trials.

Our success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will generate the same results or otherwise provide adequate data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a product candidate. Certain product candidates may fail to show the necessary safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials.

In addition, the design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product, and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. We have limited experience designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support regulatory approval. There is a high failure rate for drugs and biologic products proceeding through clinical trials. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience regulatory delays or rejections because of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of our product candidate development. Any such delays could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

We, or our potential collaborators, may not commercialize, market, promote, or sell any product candidate without obtaining marketing approval from the FDA, the EMA or other comparable regulatory authority, and we may never receive such approvals. Even if our product candidates appear sufficiently effective and/or safe in patients in well-controlled clinical trials, it is impossible to predict if or when these product candidates will receive regulatory approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

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

42

Table of Contents

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials or other testing of those product candidates, or if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Our product development costs may also increase if we experience delays in testing and we may be required to obtai