As soon as practicable after the effective date of this registration statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 check the following box.  

If this form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in 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 to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act.  

may obtain regulatory approval. We may not succeed in these activities and we may never generate revenue from product sales that are significant enough to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business for any reason, including as a result of the The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, discover or develop other product candidates or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our business could cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

global pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred, supply chains have been disrupted, facilities and production have been suspended, and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such as travel, has fallen. The extent to which impacts our business and operating results will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted, including new information that may emerge potential waves or cycles of the pandemic or new virus variants, and the actions to contain the virus or treat its impact. For example, ineffective or uncoordinated vaccine deployment or other responses to the emergence of more virulent or infectious variants of the virus, or limitations on vaccine availability could risk increasing the duration and severity of the pandemic, which could have various negative impacts on our business, the extent of which we cannot fully predict.

Site initiation, participant recruitment and enrollment, participant dosing, distribution of clinical trial materials, study monitoring and data analysis for our planned clinical trials may be delayed due to changes in hospital or university policies, federal, state or local regulations, prioritization of hospital resources toward pandemic efforts, or other reasons related to the pandemic. Additionally, some participants and clinical investigators may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols. For example, quarantines or other travel limitations (whether voluntary or required) may impede participant movement, affect sponsor access to study sites, or interrupt healthcare services, and we may be unable to conduct our planned clinical trials. If the global effort to control the spread continues on the current trajectory for an extended period of time, we risk a delay in activating sites and enrolling subjects as previously projected. Any such delays to our planned clinical trials for our current product candidates could impact the use and sufficiency of our existing cash reserves, and we may be required to raise additional capital earlier than we had previously planned. We may be unable to raise additional capital if and when needed, which may result in further delays or suspension of our development plans.

Further, as a result of the public health emergency, we may be required in the future to develop and implement additional clinical trial policies and procedures based on new guidance and regulatory requirements promulgated by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. For example, the FDA issued guidance in March 2020, which the FDA subsequently updated, on conducting clinical trials during the pandemic, which describe a number of considerations for sponsors of clinical trials impacted by the pandemic. In June 2020, the FDA also issued a guidance on good manufacturing practice considerations for responding to infection in employees in drug products manufacturing, including recommendations for manufacturing controls to prevent contamination of drugs. Additional related guidance released by the FDA includes guidance addressing resuming normal drug and biologics manufacturing operations; manufacturing, supply chain, and inspections; and statistical considerations for clinical trials during the public health emergency.

Infections and deaths related continue to disrupt certain healthcare and healthcare regulatory systems globally. Such disruptions could divert healthcare resources away from, or materially delay review by, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies. It is unknown how long these disruptions could continue, were they to occur. Any elongation our

The pandemic could have an adverse impact on our commercial launch plans for TRUDHESA due to the continuation of government-imposed quarantines, stay at home orders, travel restrictions, mandated business closures and other public health safety measures which may result in limiting our ability to hire a sales force prior to launch, conduct necessary trainings of such sales force and attending and presenting at various conferences or other programs. Even though TRUDHESA has been approved by the FDA, continuation of these government-imposed orders may also result in patients not visiting their healthcare providers or their pharmacies to get their prescriptions filled, interactions by sales and medical representatives in healthcare settings may be suspended, and any remote interactions may be less effective than interactions. In addition, due to the prioritization of healthcare resources toward pandemic efforts, even remote interactions may not be possible. These factors could have an adverse impact on our business and our ability to effectively launch TRUDHESA.

We currently utilize third parties to, among other things, manufacture raw materials and our product candidates, components, parts, and consumables, and to perform quality control and testing. If either we or any third-party in the supply chain for materials used in the production of our product candidates are adversely impacted by restrictions resulting from our supply chain may be disrupted, limiting our ability to manufacture product candidates for our clinical trials.

The spread has caused a broad impact globally, including restrictions on travel and quarantine policies put into place by businesses and governments, may have a material adverse effect on our business. While the potential economic impact brought by and the duration of the pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, it has already caused, and is likely to result in further, significant disruption of global financial markets and the trading prices of pharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of which may reduce our ability to access capital either at all or on favorable terms. In addition, a recession, depression or other sustained adverse market event resulting from the global effort to could materially and adversely affect our business.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times, and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Separately, in response to on March 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities and products. As of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it was continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. As of July 2020, and as reflected in an August 2020 guidance document last updated May 2021, utilizing a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct such inspections based on data about the virus’ trajectory in a given state and locality and the rules and guidelines that are put in place by state and local governments, the FDA is either continuing to, on a basis, conduct only mission critical inspections, or, where possible to do so safely, resuming prioritized domestic inspections, which generally include inspections. Foreign inspections that are not deemed mission-critical remain postponed, while those deemed mission-critical will be considered for inspection on a basis. The FDA will use similar data to inform resumption of prioritized operations abroad as it becomes feasible and advisable to do so. The FDA may not be able to maintain this pace, and delays or setbacks are possible in the future. Should the FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval because available information raises concerns about the adequacy of the facility or site and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, the FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, the FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. Additionally, regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, as of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it is continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the pandemic in line with its user fee performance

Our promotional materials and training methods must comply with FDA and other applicable laws and regulations, including laws and regulations prohibiting marketing claims that promote the use of our products or that omit material facts or make false or misleading statements about the safety or efficacy of our products. We are responsible for training our marketing and sales force not to promote our product candidates for uses, but healthcare providers may use our products as the FDA does not restrict or regulate a physician’s choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. The FDA also could conclude that a claim is misleading if it determines that there are inadequate nonclinical and/or clinical data supporting the claim, or if a claim fails to reveal material facts about the safety or efficacy of our products. If the FDA determines that our promotional labeling or advertising materials promote an use or make false or misleading claims, it could request that we modify our promotional materials or training content or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fines and criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the and post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure they are promoted and marketed in compliance with the FDCA and its implementing regulations and only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the approved labeling. For example, our labeling for TRUDHESA does not include any of the data from the exploratory efficacy endpoints that we evaluated in our Phase 3 safety clinical trial or contain any efficacy claims based on the results of this study. If the FDA disagrees with our claims or approach to describing the efficacy results from any data deemed as unreliable or uninterpretable, including our exploratory efficacy analyses, in our promotional materials, it may take enforcement action against us. In addition, without conducting clinical trials designed to investigate the clinical superiority of our product candidates to marketed products, we would not be able to make any such claims in our promotional materials. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications and promotion of their products, including specific restrictions for promotions of products with Black Box Warnings. If we promote our product candidates in a manner inconsistent with the labeling or otherwise not in compliance with the FDCA or implementing regulations, we may be subject to enforcement action. Violations of the FDCA relating to improper promotion of prescription drugs may lead to warning letters,

It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they determine that our promotional or training materials promote an unapproved use or make false or misleading claims, which could result in significant fines or penalties. Although our policy is to refrain from statements that could be considered promotion of our products or false or misleading claims, the FDA or another regulatory agency could disagree with the manner in which we advertise and promote our products. Violations of the FDCA may also lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws, which may lead to costly penalties and may adversely impact our business. Recent court decisions have impacted the FDA’s enforcement activity regarding promotion in light of First Amendment considerations; however, there are still significant risks in this area, in part due to the potential for False Claims Act exposure. Competitors may also object to our promotional claims, particularly with regard to clinical superiority to marketed products, which could lead to trade complaints to FDA or other actions related to unfair competition.

Many companies have also faced government investigations or lawsuits by whistleblowers who bring a action under the False Claims Act on behalf of themselves and the government for a variety of alleged improper marketing activities. In addition, the government and private whistleblowers have pursued False Claims Act cases against pharmaceutical companies for causing false claims to be submitted as a result of the marketing of their products for unapproved uses. If we are found to have improperly promoted our products, we may be subject to significant liability, including civil fines, criminal fines and penalties, civil damages, exclusion from federally funded healthcare programs and potential liability under the federal False Claims Act and any applicable state false claims act. In addition, we may incur liability from claims initiated under the Lanham Act or other federal and state unfair competition laws with respect to how our products are marketed and promoted. Furthermore, the use of our products may increase the risk of product liability claims. The scope of potential liability with respect to any such claims, enforcement actions, or lawsuits is uncertain, and we cannot assure you that we will not receive claims from competitors or other third parties or be subject to enforcement actions in the future from regulatory agencies. Moreover, threatened or actual government enforcement actions or lawsuits by third parties could generate adverse publicity, which could decrease demand for our products and require that we devote substantial resources that could be used productively on other aspects of our business.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, (i) subjected therapeutic biologics to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars by creating a licensure framework for follow on biologic products, (ii) proscribed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and therapeutic biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, (iii) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, (iv) established annual nondeductible fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and therapeutic biologics, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs, (v) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs and therapeutic biologics to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs and therapeutic biologics to be covered under Medicare Part D, which has since been increased to 70% by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, (vi) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, (vii) expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health program (viii) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research and (ix) established a

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial, and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. By way of example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Reform Act, among other things, included a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period to allow people to obtain health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021 and remained open through August 15, 2021, and instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, among others. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is uncertain how any such challenges and the healthcare measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and the medical device excise tax, and effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. The BBA, among other things, also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing from 50% to 70% that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In addition, CMS published a final rule that would give states greater flexibility, effective January 1, 2020, in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension implemented under various relief legislation from May 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021, unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Our estimates of the potential market opportunity for TRUDHESA and our other product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research reports and other surveys, including surveys commissioned by usThese assumptions include the size of our target populations, the prevalence and incidence of each of our target indications, the number of patients receiving current treatment, the percentage of patients unsatisfied with the current treatments, the number of diagnosed but untreated patients, the compliance and adherence of patients in our target populations, the number of treatment centers and prescribing physicians and the percentage of payer acceptance. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, if any of these assumptions proves to be inaccurate, then the actual market for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of our potential market opportunityIf the actual market for any of our product candidates is smaller than we expect, our product revenue may be limited, and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability.

In addition, the FDA has required labeling restrictions on the patients and uses of TRUDHESA and we anticipate may require similar labeling restrictions on our other product candidates that may be approved by the FDA, including but not limited to contraindications for use in certain populations. For example, upper nasal cavity drug delivery may not be appropriate for use by patients with certain conditions, such as chronic rhinitis, seasonal allergies or anatomical nasal obstruction.

In some countries, including member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and other countries and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or

We rely on CROs and other third parties to assist in managing, monitoring and otherwise carrying out nonclinical and clinical trials for our product candidates. We compete with many other companies for the resources of these third parties. Any disruption in supply from any supplier or manufacturing location, including on account of the could lead to supply delays or interruptions which would damage our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Further, the third parties on whom we rely generally may terminate their engagements at any time. Having to enter into alternative arrangements would delay development and commercialization of our product candidates.

For example, we identified increased levels of impurities in some drug vials of certain drug lots used in our TRUDHESA STOP301 trial. Vials from those drug lots were removed from the trial and we conducted a root cause investigation, identifying the likely root cause as long stoppages in the production of two lots. We have not identified any safety issues in our Phase 3 clinical trials related to exposure to the increased levels of impurity. We had a meeting with the FDA on this topic and described our investigation and response to the issue in the NDA submission. At that time, the FDA did not concur that the investigation had adequately identified the root cause of the presence of impurities. While we have conducted additional investigations that have led us to believe we identified the root cause and we have worked with our CMO to avoid those conditions in future production runs, there is no guarantee that the FDA will agree that our subsequent investigations have adequately identified the root cause, or that our corrective and preventive actions have sufficiently remediated the issue.

Additionally, as we scale up manufacturing of our product candidates and conduct required stability testing, issues may arise involving product-packaging and third-party equipment malfunctions. These issues may require refinement or resolution in order to proceed with commercial marketing of our product candidates. In addition, quality issues may arise during and validation of commercial manufacturing processes. Any issues in our product or delivery devices could result in increased scrutiny by regulatory authorities, delays in our regulatory approval process, increases in our operating expenses, or failure to obtain or maintain approval for our product candidates.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain, maintain, protect and enforce patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, intellectual property rights of others, relating to our product candidates, our technology such as our proprietary POD nasal drug delivery platform, and methods for treating patients using our product candidates, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. As of June 30, 2021, we solely owned six issued U.S. patents, 13 pending U.S. patent applications, 29 issued foreign patents, 67 pending foreign patent applications, and two pending international applications that cover our marketed product candidates, development product candidates, and our proprietary POD nasal drug delivery platform. We may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our technology and our product

We may be required to spend significant resources to monitor and protect our intellectual property rights. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. Any patents that are issued may subsequently be invalidated or otherwise limited, allowing other companies to develop offerings that compete with our offerings, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. In addition, issuance of a patent does not guarantee that we have a right to practice the patented invention. Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, post-grant review, review, nullification or derivation action before patent offices for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such initial grant, or in court. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In addition to seeking patent protection for certain aspects of our technology and our product candidates, we also consider trade secrets, including confidential and to the maintenance of our competitive position. We protect trade secrets and confidential and part, by entering confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to maintain confidentiality and assign their inventions to us. Despite these efforts, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties. In addition, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates or our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that an individual connected with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our product candidates or certain aspects of our platform technology. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without legally infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

We, our collaborators, or any future strategic partners may be subject to third-party claims for infringement or misappropriation of patent or other proprietary rights. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, post grant review and review proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. We have previously received communications from third parties claiming that our technology infringes on their patents. While we do not believe that these claims have merit, we cannot be certain that these third parties would not pursue infringement claims against us. There are issued and pending patents that might claim aspects of our technology and our product candidates, and modifications that we may need to apply to our technology or our product candidates. Thus, it is possible that one or more individuals or organizations will hold patent rights to which we will need a license. If those individuals or organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights or refuse to grant us a license on reasonable terms, we may not be able to market product candidates or perform research and development or other activities covered by these patents which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We are obligated under certain of our license and collaboration agreements to indemnify and hold harmless our licensor or collaborators for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by us. If we, our licensor or collaborators, or any future strategic partners are found to infringe a third-party patent or other intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have infringed willfully. In addition, we, our licensor or collaborators, or any future strategic partners may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from a third party, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license, we or our existing or future collaborators may be unable to effectively market our technology or our product candidates, which could limit our ability to generate revenue or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations. In addition, we may find it necessary to pursue claims or initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights. The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation could divert our management’s attention. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our technology or our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including generics or biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to our products.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm or rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to the USPTO and non- U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or in could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. In the United States, numerous recent changes to the patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the USPTO may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, some of which cases either narrow the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weaken the rights of patent owners in certain situations. For example, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. precludes a claim to a nucleic acid having a stated nucleotide sequence that is identical to a sequence found in nature and unmodified. We currently are not aware of an immediate impact of this decision on our patents or patent applications because we are developing product candidates that contain modifications that we believe are not found in nature. However, this decision has yet to be unambiguously interpreted by courts and by the USPTO. We cannot assure you that the interpretations of this decision or subsequent rulings will not adversely impact our patents or patent applications. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, and similar legislative and regulatory bodies in other countries in which may pursue patent protection, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

Since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors, including our scientific may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We are not currently required to comply with the SEC’s rules that implement Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and are therefore not required to make a formal assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for that purpose. Pursuant to Section 404, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company or a filer, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to

Our information technology systems, and those of our contractors, service providers and consultants, may be vulnerable to physical or electronic intrusions, computer viruses or other attacks, as well as employee, vendor, or contractor errors or malfeasance. As part of our business, we and our contractors and consultants maintain large amounts of confidential information, including personal information on patients and our employees. Breaches in security and other information security events and incidents, including from ransomware, other malicious code, and other cyberattacks, could result in interruption to our systems and operations, or those of our contractors, consultants or our respective service providers, and the loss, unavailability, and unauthorized modification, use, acquisition or disclosure of information, including information subject to intellectual property protection or for which the loss or other compromise of such information may lead to the loss of intellectual property protection. Any such breach or other incident may result in significant costs to remediate and otherwise respond, including efforts to analyze, correct, eliminate, remediate or work around deficiencies in our systems or our security measures, recover and validate data, and to address any applicable legal or contractual obligations. Further, any actual or perceived breach in security or security incident may result in potential regulatory actions or litigation, including material claims for damages, interruption to our operations, delays in regulatory filings and approvals, damage to our reputation or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. Like many businesses, we have been in the past, and may again be in the future, subject to phishing attacks. In 2018 we experienced a successful phishing attack. While we were able to swiftly contain and remediate this incident, without a material impact to our business, there can be no assurances that we will be able to defend against or successfully remediate any such attacks that may occur in the future. Further, companies have experienced an increase in phishing and social engineering attacks from third parties, including in connection with the pandemic. Also, due to the pandemic, the majority of our employees are working remotely. As a result, we may

have increased cybersecurity and data security risks, due to increased use of home networks and virtual private networks, as well as increased disbursement of physical machines. While we have implemented IT controls to reduce the risk of a cybersecurity or data security breach or incident, there is no guarantee that these measures will be adequate to safeguard all systems, especially with an increased number of employees working remotely. While we expect to implement and maintain appropriate information security policies and systems in order to prevent unauthorized loss, unavailability, modification, use or disclosure of confidential information, including personal information and other information relating to individuals, there can be no assurance that any such loss, unavailability, modification, use or disclosure will not occur. We incur significant costs in an effort to detect and prevent security breaches and other security-related incidents and we expect our costs will increase as we make improvements to our systems, policies and processes to prevent further breaches and incidents. In the event of a future breach or incident, we could be required to expend additional significant capital and other resources in an effort to prevent further breaches or incidents, which may require us to divert substantial resources. Moreover, we could be required or otherwise find it appropriate to expend significant capital and other resources to respond to, notify third parties of, and otherwise address the incident or breach and its root cause. Each of these could require us to divert substantial resources.

While we maintain insurance with respect to cybersecurity, our insurance may be insufficient to cover all liabilities incurred by us in connection with any privacy or cybersecurity incidents. We also cannot be certain that any insurance coverage will be adequate for data handling or data security liabilities actually incurred, that insurance will continue to be available to us on economically reasonable terms, or at all, or that any insurer will not deny coverage as to any future claim. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed available insurance coverage, or the occurrence of changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or requirements, could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our financial condition, operating results and reputation.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. Unused losses incurred in taxable years beginning on or prior to December 31, 2017, will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. Under the Tax Reform Act, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, unused U.S. federal net operating losses generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of such federal net operating losses is limited to 80% of current year taxable income in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020. As a result, our net operating loss carryforwards generated in taxable years beginning on or before December 31, 2017, may expire prior to being used, and the deductibility of our net operating loss carryforwards generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, may be limited. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Reform Act or the CARES Act. In addition, both our current and our future unused losses and other tax attributes may be subject to limitation under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) if we undergo, or have undergone, an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in our equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. We have not completed a Section 382 study to assess whether an ownership change has occurred or whether there have been multiple ownership changes since our formation due to the complexity and cost associated with such a study and the fact that there may be additional ownership changes in the future. If we undergo an ownership change (or if we previously underwent such an ownership change), our ability to use all of our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes may be limited. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted, which included certain changes in tax law intended to stimulate the U.S. economy in light of outbreak, including temporary beneficial changes to the treatment of net operating losses, interest deductibility limitations and payroll tax matters. Future changes in U.S. tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisors regarding the implications of potential changes in U.S. tax laws on an investment in our common stock.