You should consider carefully the risks described under “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this section to
“we,” “us,” “our,” “Roivant” and the “Company” refer to Roivant Sciences Ltd. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, as the context requires. A summary of the risks that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition,
operating results and prospects include the following:
Risks Related to Our Securities, Our Jurisdiction of Incorporation and Certain Tax Matters
This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains statements, including matters discussed under Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors,” Part I, Item 3. “Legal Proceedings” and Part II, Item 7. “Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in other sections of this report, that are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Our
forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our or our management team’s expectations, hopes, beliefs, intentions or strategies regarding the future, and statements that are not historical facts. In addition,
any statements that refer to projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,”
“estimate,” “expect,” “intends,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “would” and similar expressions may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement
is not forward-looking.
The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are based on our current expectations and beliefs concerning future developments and their potential effects on us taking
into account information currently available to us. There can be no assurance that future developments affecting us will be those that we have anticipated. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, they could cause our actual
results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. Some factors that could cause actual results to differ include, but are not limited to risk associated with:
These risks are not exhaustive. New risk factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for our management to predict all risk factors, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our
business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect
our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements,
such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently
uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements.
Investors and others should note that we may announce material business and financial information to our investors using our investor relations website (https://investor.roivant.com/), SEC filings,
webcasts, press releases, and conference calls. We use these mediums, including our website, to communicate with our shareholders and the public about our company, our products and product candidates and other matters. It is possible that the
information that we make available may be deemed to be material information. We therefore encourage investors and others interested in our company to review the information that we make available on our website. Information contained on, or that
can be accessed through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and you should not consider information on our website to be part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We obtained the industry and market data in this Annual Report on Form 10-K from our own research as well as from industry and general publications, surveys and studies conducted by third parties.
Industry and general publications, studies and surveys generally state that the information contained therein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but the accuracy and completeness of such information is not guaranteed. These
third parties may, in the future, alter the manner in which they conduct surveys and studies regarding the markets in which we operate our business. As a result, you should carefully consider the inherent risks and uncertainties associated with the
industry and market data contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including those discussed in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors.”
References to “Roivant,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” in the following section refer to Roivant Sciences Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiaries, unless the context
otherwise requires.
Roivant is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company that aims to improve the lives of patients by accelerating the development and commercialization of medicines that matter. Today, Roivant’s
pipeline is concentrated in inflammation and immunology and includes VTAMA, a novel topical approved for the treatment of psoriasis and in development for the treatment of atopic dermatitis; IMVT-1402 and batoclimab, fully human monoclonal
antibodies targeting the neonatal Fc receptor (“FcRn”) in development across several IgG-mediated autoimmune indications; and brepocitinib, a potent small molecule inhibitor of TYK2 and JAK1 for the treatment of dermatomyositis and non-infectious
uveitis, in addition to several other therapies in various stages of clinical development. We advance our pipeline by creating nimble subsidiaries or “Vants” to develop and commercialize our medicines and technologies. Beyond therapeutics, Roivant
also incubates discovery-stage companies and health technology startups complementary to its biopharmaceutical business.
The following table summarizes selected commercial and development-stage pipeline products and product candidates.
Note: All clinical stage drugs in our current pipeline are investigational and subject to health authority approval. Pipeline reflects both ongoing clinical trials and expected upcoming trials.
* Indicates registrational or potentially registrational trials.
The Vant model unlocks key strategic advantages for Roivant and, we believe, ultimately enables us to develop transformative medicines for diseases for which there are no approved therapies or
where the current standard of care treatment has significant limitations faster than our competitors. We believe we are uniquely positioned to accomplish this by:
The structural advantages of the Vant model combined with our “force of will” culture and investor mindset have enabled us to achieve an impressive track record: Since Roivant’s founding in 2014,
we have commercialized VTAMA, the leading branded topical in psoriasis, developed six FDA-approved medicines and completed 11 large registrational Phase 3 studies – the last 10 of which have yielded positive data (inclusive of approvals and Phase 3
studies from Vants transferred to Sumitomo Pharma).
The table below summarizes select potential future payment obligations from acquisitions, in-licensings and subsequent financings for select products and product candidates:
Note: The summaries above do not purport to be complete. Please refer to “—Asset Acquisition and License Agreements; Other Vant Agreements” and the agreements themselves, filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on
Form 10-K, for more information on the terms of these agreements.
The following table summarizes our ownership of certain of our subsidiary companies and affiliates as of March 31, 2024.
In the upcoming year, we have a robust set of expected near-term catalysts, including the items set forth below. In addition, we plan to in-license multiple potentially category-leading drugs per year.
Note: References are to calendar years, unless otherwise specified. As used above, “FY” refers to Roivant's fiscal year. All catalyst timings are based on current expectations and, where applicable, contingent on FDA
feedback, and may be subject to change.
|
• |
As of March 31, 2024 we own 55% of the issued and outstanding shares of Immunovant common stock and 49% on a fully diluted basis.
|
Priovant Overview
|
• |
Priovant is developing brepocitinib, a potent small molecule inhibitor of TYK2 and JAK1, for the treatment of dermatomyositis (“DM”), non-infectious uveitis (“NIU”), and other immune-mediated diseases.
|
|
• |
Brepocitinib is a potentially first-in-class, orally administered, small molecule inhibitor of TYK2 and JAK1 that suppresses signaling of TYK2- and JAK1-dependent cytokines linked to autoimmune disease,
including type I and type II interferon, IL-6, IL-12, and IL-23.
|
|
• |
DM is a chronic, immune-mediated disease of the skin and muscles. Patients with DM usually present with a characteristic skin rash and proximal muscle weakness, which may lead to significant functional
impairment or disfigurement. Patients with DM are at a substantially increased risk of interstitial lung disease, malignancy, and heart failure, contributing to an estimated 5-year mortality rate of 10-40%.
|
|
• |
NIU is an immune-mediated disease of the eye. Patients with NIU usually present with eye inflammation, which can manifest as eye pain, eye redness, light sensitivity, blurred vision, reduced vision, and/or
floaters. Patients with NIU are at a substantially increased risk of blindness, contributing to approximately 10% of cases of blindness in the U.S.
|
|
• |
We estimate that there are approximately 37,000 adult DM patients and approximately 400,000 adult NIU patients in the US, including 70-100,000 adult non-anterior NIU patients.
|
• |
Limitations of current treatments:
|
|
• |
Corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (“DMARDs”), and immunosuppressants, administered alone or in combination, are traditional therapies for patients with DM and NIU. Many of these
therapies are associated with significant toxicities and limited efficacy.
|
|
• |
For patients with DM who do not respond adequately to traditional therapies, IVIg (OCTAGAM 10%) is an important FDA-approved treatment. However, clinical trial data from the Phase 3 ProDERM study of IVIg in
patients with DM and case reports from years of prior off-label use confirm that even with IVIg, many patients with DM continue to suffer from residual disease activity. Moreover, IVIg administration is burdensome, typically requiring
several hours of infusion therapy for multiple days each month. IVIg also has a black box warning for serious risks, including thrombosis and kidney failure.
|
|
• |
For patients with NIU who do not respond adequately to traditional therapies, adalimumab (HUMIRA) administered subcutaneously, is the only FDA-approved modern treatment. NIU patients treated with HUMIRA
have failure/relapse rates of approximately 50%, indicating a large unmet need for more efficacious treatment options.
|
|
• |
Brepocitinib has been evaluated in seven positive completed Phase 2 studies in immune-mediated diseases (alopecia areata, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, plaque psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa,
Crohn’s disease and non-infectious uveitis). In the six placebo-controlled studies, treatment with brepocitinib was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful efficacy. In the Phase 2 NEPTUNE proof-of-concept
study, brepocitinib demonstrated the best Treatment Failure rates observed to date among active NIU studies measuring this registrational endpoint.
|
Study Population
|
|
N1
|
|
Brepocitinib Dose
|
|
Primary Endpoint Result
|
|
Statistical
Significance
|
Alopecia Areata
|
|
942
|
|
30 mg once daily3
|
|
49.18 placebo-adjusted CFB in SALT Score at week 24
|
|
P < 0.00014
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Psoriatic Arthritis
Ulcerative Colitis
Plaque Psoriasis
|
|
218
167
212
|
|
30 mg once daily
30 mg once daily
30 mg once daily
|
|
23.4% placebo-adjusted ACR20 RR at week 16
-2.28 placebo-adjusted CFB in Mayo Score at week 8
-10.1 placebo-adjusted CFB in PASI score at week 12
|
|
P = 0.0197
P = 0.0005
P < 0.0001
|
Hidradenitis
Suppurativa
Crohn’s Disease
Non-infectious Uveitis
|
|
100
151
26
|
|
45 mg once daily5
60 mg once daily6
45 mg once daily
|
|
18.7% placebo-adjusted HiSCR Rate at week 16
21.4% placebo-adjusted SES-CD 50 Rate at week 12
29.4% Treatment Failure Rate at week 24
|
|
P = 0.02984
P = 0.00124
|
|
1. |
Overall study N represents patients randomized to all brepocitinib dose levels or placebo and excludes patients randomized to other agents.
|
|
2. |
Includes patients from initial 24-week study period only.
|
|
3. |
60 mg once daily for 4 weeks followed by 30 mg once daily for 20 weeks.
|
|
4. |
One-sided p-value (pre-specified statistical analysis).
|
|
5. |
Brepocitinib 45 mg once daily was the only brepocitinib dose evaluated in this study.
|
|
6. |
Brepocitinib 60 mg once daily was the only brepocitinib dose evaluated in the induction period of this study.
|
The non-infectious uveitis study was conducted by Priovant; all other brepocitinib studies shown here were conducted by Pfizer.
ACR20: American College of Rheumatology 20% Improvement; RR: Response Rate; CFB: Change From Baseline; PASI: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; SALT: Severity of Alopecia Tool; HiSCR:
Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response; SES-CD: Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease
|
• |
Brepocitinib’s safety database includes over 1,400 exposed participants evaluated in completed and ongoing clinical studies. In these studies, brepocitinib was generally safe and well-tolerated, and rates of JAK class
treatment-emergent adverse events (“TEAEs”) of interest were comparable to those observed in the development programs of approved JAK inhibitors. Collectively, these data suggest a safety profile that is similar to those of approved JAK
inhibitors.
|
|
• |
In the Phase 2 NEPTUNE study of once-daily oral brepocitinib in NIU, the 45 mg results represented the best Treatment Failure rates observed to date among active NIU studies measuring this registrational endpoint. On the pre-specified
primary efficacy endpoint of Treatment Failure at week 24, 29% of subjects receiving brepocitinib 45 mg and 44% of subjects receiving brepocitinib 15 mg met Treatment Failure criteria (lower failure rates reflect greater treatment
benefit). The Treatment Failure rate from disease activity (discontinuations censored) was 18% in the brepocitinib 45 mg arm. All secondary efficacy endpoints were also positive and dose responsive, including measurements of potential
benefit on prevention and treatment of uveitic macular edema. Brepocitinib was generally safe and well-tolerated in the study, with no new safety and tolerability signals identified.
|
|
• |
Brepocitinib has not been evaluated in DM to date. However, several FDA-approved JAK inhibitors have been clinically validated in DM patients refractory to standard-of-care therapies, as reported in more than 100 off-label case reports
and in an open-label clinical trial. In addition, since DM pathobiology is driven by dysregulations in cytokines whose signaling is mediated by both TYK2 and JAK1, we believe that, with its unique dual inhibition of both TYK2 and JAK1,
brepocitinib, as compared to inhibitors selective to either TYK2 or JAK1, has the potential to demonstrate superior clinical efficacy in DM.
|
• |
Development plan and upcoming milestones:
|
|
• |
Priovant is currently conducting a large randomized, controlled Phase 3 study of brepocitinib in patients with refractory dermatomyositis. This study will enroll approximately 225 subjects in total and will evaluate 15 mg and 30 mg of
brepocitinib once-daily compared to placebo. The primary endpoint of this study is the mean Total Improvement Score (“TIS”), a validated myositis improvement index, at Week 52. Topline data is expected in calendar year 2025.
|
|
• |
Priovant is currently planning a Phase 3 study in non-infectious uveitis that is expected to initiate in the second half of calendar year 2024.
|
|
• |
Priovant is also evaluating brepocitinib for development in other orphan and specialty immune-mediated diseases.
|
The below schematics show the trial designs for the ongoing DM Phase 3 trial:
Roivant ownership:
|
• |
As of March 31, 2024, we own 75% of the issued and outstanding shares of Priovant and 68% on a fully diluted basis.
|
Kinevant Overview
|
• |
Kinevant is focused on developing namilumab for sarcoidosis and potentially other diseases.
|
|
• |
Namilumab is a fully human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody with broad potential in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases being developed with potentially the least frequent dosing schedule among subcutaneous anti-GM-CSFs in Phase 2
clinical trial, with a single dose every four weeks after an initial loading period.
|
|
• |
Sarcoidosis is a multi-system inflammatory disease characterized by the presence of non-necrotizing granulomas believed to be formed by an exaggerated immune response to unidentified antigens. Sarcoidosis primarily affects the lungs
and lymphatic system, though sarcoidosis may damage any organ. GM-CSF, a key pathogenic cytokine, has been implicated in multiple parts of the granulomatous response.
|
|
• |
Sarcoidosis affects approximately 200,000 people in the U.S., with over 90% of cases presenting with pulmonary involvement.
|
|
• |
An estimated 54% of pulmonary sarcoidosis patients are diagnosed, and approximately 90% of these patients receive some form of treatment. Market research with HCPs and third-party analysis of claims data suggest that approximately 25%
of diagnosed and treated pulmonary sarcoidosis would be eligible for treatment with second-line or later therapy.
|
• |
Limitations of current treatments:
|
|
• |
Corticosteroids are the most widely used treatment for sarcoidosis, but they carry significant side effects when used longer-term. Second- and third-line treatment options, including immunosuppressive therapies and biologics, are
limited by slow onset, safety risk, inconsistent effectiveness, and reimbursement challenges, leaving significant unmet medical need that could be met by a novel biologic.
|
|
• |
Early clinical data in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and subsequent Phase 2 studies showed namilumab to be well-tolerated with a single subcutaneous injection given up to every four weeks.
|
|
• |
In a Phase 1 study of healthy volunteers with a single subcutaneous injection, namilumab was observed to be generally well-tolerated.
|
|
• |
In a Phase 2 trial in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis conducted by Takeda, namilumab demonstrated decreased disease activity compared to placebo. In this trial, patients were given a subcutaneous injection of
either 20, 80, or 150 mg of namilumab four times over a ten-week period. Over the 12-week study period, 14 of 27 (52%) subjects receiving placebo and 45 of 81 (56%) receiving namilumab experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event
(TEAE). The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, dyspnea, bronchitis, and headache.
|
• |
Development plan and upcoming milestones:
|
|
• |
We have completed enrollment for a Phase 2 trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of namilumab in pulmonary sarcoidosis, with data expected in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2024.
|
The below schematic shows the trial design for the Phase 2 trial in pulmonary sarcoidosis:
|
o |
As of March 31, 2024, we own 96% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Kinevant, and 90% on a fully diluted basis.
|
Genevant Overview
|
• |
Genevant is a technology-focused nucleic acid delivery and development company with two delivery platforms—a lipid nanoparticle (“LNP”) platform and a ligand conjugate platform—an expansive intellectual property portfolio and deep
scientific expertise, currently focused on partnering with other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies to enable the development of nucleic acid therapeutics for unmet medical needs.
|
• |
Delivery platforms and patent portfolio:
|
|
• |
Genevant has two delivery platforms: LNP and ligand conjugate.
|
|
• |
Proven technology as demonstrated by head-to-head in vivo ionizable lipid study assessing LNP potency and immune stimulation.
|
|
• |
Clinically validated for hepatocyte and vaccine applications and in various stages of development for other traditionally hard-to-reach tissues and cell types, including lung, eye, central nervous system, and hepatic stellate and
immune cells.
|
|
• |
Approximately 650 issued patents and pending patent applications as of March 31, 2024, including patents directed to:
|
|
• |
lipid structures, including cationic and PEG-lipids
|
|
• |
particle compositions, including commonly used ranges of lipid ratios for nucleic acid-containing particles
|
|
• |
nucleic acid-containing particles with certain structural characteristics
|
|
• |
mRNA-containing LNP formulations
|
|
• |
various aspects of our manufacturing process
|
|
• |
Ligand conjugate platform:
|
|
• |
Novel GalNAc ligands with demonstrated ability to deliver to the liver in preclinical studies.
|
|
• |
In preclinical head-to-head testing, demonstrated equal or better preclinical potency, assessed by duration and magnitude of knockdown, compared to a current industry benchmark.
|
|
• |
Applying delivery expertise to design novel extrahepatic ligands to expand therapeutic reach.
|
• |
Collaboration-based business model:
|
|
• |
Genevant seeks to partner with other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies in the development of RNA therapeutics, crafting mutually beneficial collaborations that allow collaboration partners to access innovative technologies
while providing Genevant the opportunity to leverage our expertise to expand the technology and its therapeutic application.
|
|
• |
Genevant uses its expertise in the delivery of nucleic acid therapeutics to develop optimal delivery systems for its collaborators’ identified payloads or target tissues.
|
|
• |
Genevant’s collaboration-based business model is to seek upfront payments, R&D reimbursements, milestones and royalties payment or profit sharing upon success, while also retaining certain rights in the delivery-related
intellectual property developed in the context of the collaboration for potential use or out-licensing.
|
|
• |
Some current collaboration partners include Novo Nordisk, BioNTech, Takeda, Gritstone, Tome Biosciences, ST Pharm, Korro Bio, Chulalongkorn University (through its Vaccine Research Center) and Providence Therapeutics.
|
• |
Clinical and preclinical data:
|
|
• |
Genevant LNP technology has been in clinical testing in over a dozen distinct product candidates, representing hundreds of subjects of clinical experience.
|
|
• |
In a head-to-head study comparing multiple LNP formulations varying only the key ionizable lipid, Genevant’s current lead formulation outperformed third-party formulations. Our formulation showed superior potency and avoidance of
immune stimulation relative to others.
|
|
• |
Genevant LNP technology is included in the first RNA-LNP product to receive FDA-approval, Alnylam’s Onpattro (patisiran).
|
|
• |
In February 2022, Genevant and Arbutus jointly filed a complaint against Moderna in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of six patents. In April 2024, the court in the Moderna case issued its
claim construction (Markman) ruling, in which it agreed with Genevant and Arbutus’ proposed constructions for three of the four disputed terms. The court is expected to entertain requests to file summary judgment motions in late calendar
year 2024 and a trial date has been set for April 2025.
|
|
• |
In April 2023, Genevant and Arbutus jointly filed a complaint against Pfizer and BioNTech in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting infringement of five patents. The case is
ongoing and a date for a claim construction (Markman) hearing has not been set.
|
|
• |
As of March 31, 2024, we own 83% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Genevant and 65% on a fully diluted basis.
|
Asset Acquisition and License Agreements; Other Vant Agreements
Dermavant
GSK and Welichem Agreements; Thermo Fisher Agreement
In July 2018, our subsidiary Dermavant Sciences GmbH (“DSG”) acquired the worldwide rights (other than for China) with respect to certain intellectual property rights retained by Welichem Biotech
Inc. (“Welichem”) to VTAMA and related compounds from Glaxo Group Limited and GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Ltd. (collectively, “GSK”) pursuant to an asset purchase agreement (the “GSK Agreement”). GSK previously acquired
rights to a predecessor formulation of VTAMA from Welichem pursuant to an asset purchase agreement between GSK and Welichem entered into in May 2012 (the “Welichem Agreement”). Under the GSK Agreement, DSG made an upfront payment of £150.0
million (approximately $191 million) to GSK. The GSK Agreement does not require DSG to pay any royalties on sales of VTAMA following commercialization or make any commercial milestone payments, except for milestones owed to Welichem as described
below.
Following the FDA approval of VTAMA in May 2022, DSG became obligated to pay a regulatory milestone to GSK of £100.0 million (approximately $126.0 million on the date of achievement) following
the receipt of marketing approval of VTAMA in the U.S. The milestone was paid in July 2022. Additionally, the first sale of VTAMA in May 2022 resulted in the achievement of a milestone to Welichem of CAD$25.0 million (approximately $20.0 million
on the date of achievement). The milestone was paid in August 2022.
In addition, under the GSK Agreement, DSG assumed all obligations under the Welichem Agreement, including initially up to CAD$180.0 million in potential development and commercial milestone
payments, of which CAD$105.0 million have been achieved and paid as of March 31, 2024.
In August 2018, in connection with the GSK Agreement, DSG and GlaxoSmithKline Trading Services Limited (“GSK Trading”) entered into a clinical manufacturing and supply agreement (the “Clinical
Supply Agreement”) for VTAMA pursuant to which DSG obtained an existing supply of VTAMA drug product and drug substance as well as additional supply of VTAMA drug product for clinical trials on a cost plus basis. As required under the GSK
Agreement, in April 2019, DSG entered into a commercial manufacturing and supply agreement (the “Commercial Supply Agreement”) with GSK Trading to continue to provide certain quantities of VTAMA drug product and drug substance at agreed upon
minimum quantities and price. The Commercial Supply Agreement commenced in April 2022 upon completion of certain quality and regulatory conditions. In July 2022, DSG and GSK entered into a Partial Termination and Supplementary Fee Agreement
relating to the Clinical Supply Agreement and Commercial Supply Agreement, which amended the terms of the Clinical Supply Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement (the “GSK Amendment”). The GSK Amendment released GSK Trading from certain
commitments to supply VTAMA and released DSG from certain commitments to purchase VTAMA in exchange for a supplementary fee. Other supply and purchase commitments under the Clinical Supply Agreement and the Commercial Supply Agreement remain in
effect and were not impacted by the GSK Amendment.
In addition, in July 2022, DSG and Thermo Fisher Scientific (“TFS”) entered into a Master Commercial Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, under which TFS will provide a supply of VTAMA to DSG at
an agreed upon price.
Collaboration and License Agreement with Japan Tobacco Inc.
In January 2020, DSG entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Japan Tobacco Inc. (“Japan Tobacco”) (the “Japan Tobacco Agreement”). Pursuant to the Japan Tobacco Agreement, DSG
granted Japan Tobacco exclusive rights to develop, register and market tapinarof in Japan for the treatment of dermatological diseases and conditions, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. In connection with the Japan Tobacco Agreement,
Japan Tobacco has signed an exclusive license with its subsidiary, Torii, for co-development and commercialization of tapinarof in Japan.
Under the Japan Tobacco Agreement, DSG has received (i) an upfront payment of $60.0 million in January 2020 and (ii) payments of $10.0 million and $15.0 million in December 2021 and September
2023, respectively, related to development milestones that were achieved, and DSG may receive up to an additional $28.0 million upon the achievement of certain development milestones for tapinarof in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. In addition,
DSG will be entitled to tiered purchase prices specified in the Japan Tobacco Agreement in consideration of DSG’s commercial supply of tapinarof to Japan Tobacco under the terms of a separate commercial supply agreement entered into between the
parties in February 2024. DSG also has the right to receive royalties, to be negotiated by the parties and consistent with the purchase prices, based on product sales of tapinarof in the indications to the extent that DSG is no longer responsible
for supplying tapinarof to Japan Tobacco.
The Japan Tobacco Agreement will remain in effect until expiration of the obligation to pay royalties, unless terminated in accordance with the following: (1) for any reason by Japan Tobacco upon
written notice to DSG, which notice must be provided (x) at least 90 days in advance, if the termination is prior to regulatory approval of tapinarof in Japan for any dermatological disease or condition, and (y) at least 180 days in advance, if
the termination is subsequent to regulatory approval of tapinarof in Japan for any dermatological disease or condition; (2) by either party upon written notice for the other party’s material breach if such party fails to cure such breach within
the specified cure period; or (3) by DSG if Japan Tobacco or its affiliates or sublicenses participate in a challenge to certain of our patents.
Dermavant Financing Agreements—Funding Agreement with NovaQuest
In connection with Dermavant’s acquisition of tapinarof from GSK pursuant to the GSK Agreement, Dermavant and NovaQuest Co-Investment Fund VIII, L.P., an affiliate of NovaQuest Capital
Management, LLC (“NovaQuest”) entered into a funding agreement (the “NovaQuest Agreement”). Pursuant to the NovaQuest Agreement, Dermavant borrowed $100.0 million in August 2018 and $17.5 million in October 2018.
In exchange for the $117.5 million in total funding from NovaQuest, Dermavant agreed to make fixed payments to NovaQuest under the NovaQuest Agreement upon regulatory approval of tapinarof. For
each of the atopic dermatitis and psoriasis indications, Dermavant is required to make quarterly payments to NovaQuest totaling $176.3 million per indication over a six-year period following regulatory approval of tapinarof for the applicable
indication in the U.S. In the event that Dermavant receives regulatory approval for one indication, and Dermavant terminates the development of the other indication for any reason other than a Technical Failure (as defined below), then Dermavant
will be required to make the above-referenced quarterly payments to NovaQuest up to $440.6 million over a 15-year period for the approved indication (the “15-Year Payments”). A Technical Failure is deemed to occur for an indication if the
development program for such indication is terminated due to (1) significant safety concerns, (2) material adverse developments or (3) the receipt by Dermavant of a complete response letter or a final non-approval letter from the FDA is expected
to result in significant delay or cost to reach commercialization for the applicable indication. In addition, Dermavant is required to make up to $141.0 million in payments to NovaQuest upon achievement of certain commercial milestones. In the
event that Dermavant is required to start making the 15-Year Payments, then Dermavant has the right to offset such amounts by up to $88.1 million of the commercial milestone payments, with such offset being applied to the quarterly payments in
reverse chronological order (such that the final quarterly payments owed will be used first to offset the commercial milestone payments). The NovaQuest Agreement does not contain any royalty payment requirements on commercialization of tapinarof.
Upon receiving FDA approval for the psoriasis indication, Dermavant made its first quarterly payment of $7.3 million under the NovaQuest Agreement in May 2022 and has made cumulative quarterly payments totaling $58.8 million as of March 31, 2024.
In May 2024, Dermavant entered into an amendment to the NovaQuest Agreement as part of a renegotiation of its existing debt obligations. For more information, see “Item 9B. Other Information.”
Dermavant Financing Agreements—Dermavant Revenue Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement
In May 2021, DSG, as seller, entered into a Revenue Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “RIPSA”) with XYQ Luxco, NovaQuest Co-Investment Fund XVII, L.P., an affiliate of NovaQuest, and MAM
Tapir Lender, LLC, an affiliate of Marathon Asset Management, L.P. (collectively, the “Purchasers”), together with U.S. Bank National Association, as collateral agent.
In June 2022, following satisfaction of the funding conditions set forth in the RIPSA, including receipt of marketing approval from the FDA for VTAMA (received in May 2022), the Purchasers paid
DSG a total of $160.0 million in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the RIPSA (the “Purchase Price”). In consideration therefor, each of the Purchasers has the right to receive a low single-digit to high single-digit tiered
percentage of quarterly revenues based on the achievement of specified net sales thresholds for VTAMA in the U.S., up to a cap of $344.0 million. Payments of such quarterly revenues to the Purchasers under the RIPSA are secured by a security
interest in certain VTAMA-related assets, including intellectual property rights and certain other assets that are owned by, licensed to or otherwise controlled by DSG related to the development and commercialization of VTAMA.
The RIPSA contains certain representations and warranties and covenants applicable to DSL and its subsidiaries. The RIPSA also contains certain Events of Default (as defined in the RIPSA) such as
the breach of payment and other obligations, bankruptcy-related events and cross-defaults with respect to other related documents and agreements creating indebtedness. The occurrence of an Event of Default following the Purchasers’ funding of the
Purchase Price triggers DSG’s obligation to pay an Event of Default Fee (as defined in the RIPSA) of $160.0 million, less revenue payments previously paid, as liquidated damages.
In May 2024, Dermavant entered into an amendment to the RIPSA as part of a renegotiation of its existing debt obligations. For more information, see “Item 9B. Other Information.”
Dermavant Financing Agreements—Dermavant Credit Agreement with XYQ Luxco
In May 2021, our subsidiaries Dermavant Sciences Ltd. (“DSL”), Dermavant Holdings Limited, Dermavant Sciences IRL Limited and DSG, as borrowers (the “Borrowers”), and certain other subsidiaries
of DSL, as initial guarantors, entered into a credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with XYQ Luxco, as lender, and U.S. Bank National Association, as collateral agent. The Credit Agreement provides for a term loan of $40.0 million (the “Term
Loan”), the proceeds of which were used by the Borrowers to repay in full and terminate a then-existing credit facility with Hercules Capital Inc., with the remaining proceeds to be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes.
The Term Loan bears interest at a fixed interest rate of 10.0% per annum, with interest paid quarterly in arrears until maturity in May 2026, at which time the principal amount is due. The
Borrowers have the option to prepay the Term Loan in whole or in part, subject to, until May 2025, a prepayment premium of 2.5% of the principal amount being repaid. From May 2025 through maturity, the Term Loan may be prepaid in whole or in part
without a prepayment premium. Optional and mandatory prepayment of the Term Loan, as well as other forms of prepayment, repayment, applications or reductions, will also require that DSL pays an Exit Fee (as defined in the Credit Agreement),
calculated based on the amount so prepaid, repaid, applied or reduced.
The Borrowers’ obligations under the Credit Agreement are unconditionally guaranteed by the initial guarantors and secured by first priority security interests in substantially all of the
tangible and intangible assets of the Borrowers and guarantors, including certain intellectual property rights, bank accounts, any and all insurance receivables, intercompany receivables and/or trade receivables and certain quotas and/or
participation rights.
The Credit Agreement contains certain representations and warranties, affirmative covenants, negative covenants and conditions that are customarily required for similar financings, including a
covenant against the occurrence of a “change in control” (subject to the Borrowers’ right to prepay the Term Loan), financial reporting obligations and certain limitations on indebtedness, liens (including on intellectual property and other
assets), investments, distributions (including dividends), collateral, transfers, mergers or acquisitions, taxes, corporate changes and deposit accounts.
The Credit Agreement contains a minimum cash covenant that requires the initial Borrowers and the guarantors thereunder to maintain a minimum cash balance of $10.0 million until the earlier of
(a) a Qualified IPO (as defined in the Credit Agreement), (b) an Ultimate Parent Spinout (as defined in the Credit Agreement), and (c) the date that XYQ Luxco, in its capacity as a purchaser under the RIPSA, has received cumulative payments from
DSG under the RIPSA in an aggregate amount equal to its pro rata portion of the funding amount thereunder. The Credit Agreement also contains customary events of default (subject, in certain instances, to specified grace periods) including, but
not limited to, the failure to make payments of interest, premium, fees, indemnity or principal under the Term Loan, the failure to comply with certain covenants and agreements specified in the Credit Agreement, defaults in respect of certain
other indebtedness and certain events relating to bankruptcy or insolvency. If any event of default occurs, the principal, premium, if any, interest and any other monetary obligations on all the then outstanding amounts under the Term Loan may
become due and payable immediately. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, a default interest rate of an additional 2% per year may be applied to the outstanding principal balance, and the lender may declare all outstanding obligations
immediately due and payable and take such other actions as set forth in the Credit Agreement. Upon the occurrence of certain bankruptcy and insolvency events, the obligations under the Credit Agreement would automatically become due and payable.
On the closing date of the Term Loan and in accordance with the Credit Agreement, DSL issued to XYQ Luxco a warrant to purchase an aggregate of 1,199,072 common shares of DSL. The warrant is
exercisable at any time until the earlier of (x) seven years from the date of issuance and (y) three years from the closing of an underwritten initial public offering of DSL’s common shares pursuant to an effective registration statement. The
warrant includes customary registration rights and customary anti-dilution provisions for the common shares underlying the warrant in respect of certain corporate events (including share splits, share combinations, share dividends and other
recapitalization transactions).
In May 2024, Dermavant entered into an amendment to the Credit Agreement as part of a renegotiation of its existing debt obligations. For more information, see “Item 9B. Other Information.”
Immunovant
License Agreement with HanAll Biopharma Co., Ltd.
In December 2017, our wholly owned subsidiary, Roivant Sciences GmbH (“RSG”), entered into a license agreement with HanAll Biopharma Co., Ltd. (“HanAll”) (the “HanAll Agreement”). Under the
HanAll Agreement, RSG received (1) the non-exclusive right to manufacture and (2) the exclusive, royalty-bearing right to (a) develop, import and use (i) the antibody referred to as batoclimab, (ii) certain back-up and next-generation antibodies
(including IMVT-1402), and (iii) products containing such antibodies, and (b) to commercialize such products, in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the E.U., the U.K., Switzerland, the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America (the “HanAll Licensed
Territory”), for all human and animal uses. RSG also received the right to grant a sublicense, with prior written notice to HanAll of such sublicense, to: (1) a third party in any country in the HanAll Licensed Territory outside of the U.S. and
E.U.; (2) an affiliate of RSG in any country in the HanAll Licensed Territory; and (3) a third party in the U.S. and E.U. only after submission of a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) in the U.S. or a Marketing Authorization Application in the
E.U. Pursuant to the HanAll Agreement, RSG granted to HanAll an exclusive, royalty-free license under certain RSG patents, know-how and other intellectual property controlled by RSG relating to such antibodies and products to develop, manufacture
and commercialize such antibodies and products for use outside of the HanAll Licensed Territory. HanAll also reserves the right to conduct discovery or research activities with the batoclimab antibody, and certain back-up and next-generation
antibodies (including IMVT-1402), with or through a contract research organization or service provider in the HanAll Licensed Territory.
In December 2018, Immunovant Sciences GmbH, (“ISG”) obtained and assumed all rights, title, interest and obligations under the HanAll Agreement from RSG, including all rights to IMVT-1402 and
batoclimab in the HanAll Licensed Territory, for an aggregate purchase price of $37.8 million.
Pursuant to the HanAll Agreement, ISG was obligated to reimburse HanAll for half of certain specified research and development expenses incurred by HanAll, up to an aggregate reimbursement amount
of $20.0 million, which obligation has since expired. As of March 31, 2024 and 2023, ISG did not have any additional amounts payable to HanAll for research and development costs incurred and reported to it pursuant to the HanAll Agreement.
During the quarter ended June 30, 2023, ISG achieved its third and fourth development and regulatory milestones under the HanAll Agreement of $12.5 million, combined, which was paid during the
quarter ended September 30, 2023. ISG will be responsible for future contingent payments and royalties, including up to an aggregate of $420.0 million (after an aggregate amount of $32.5 million paid for milestone events achieved as of March 31,
2024) upon the achievement of certain regulatory and sales milestone events. ISG is also obligated to pay HanAll tiered royalties ranging from the mid-single digits to mid-teens percentage of net sales of licensed products, subject to standard
offsets and reductions as set forth in the HanAll Agreement. These royalty obligations apply on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis and end upon the latest of: (A) the date on which the last valid claim of the licensed patents
expire, (B) the date on which the data or market exclusivity expires or (C) 11 years after the first commercial sale of the licensed product, in each case, with respect to a given product in a given country.
Except for cost-sharing in connection with the research program, ISG is solely responsible, at its expense, for all other activities related to the research, development and commercialization of
licensed products for the HanAll Licensed Territory. ISG may use a third party for manufacturing activities necessary for the research, development and commercialization of licensed products for the HanAll Licensed Territory. In addition, under
the HanAll Agreement, ISG has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products in the HanAll Licensed Territory. Each party has agreed that neither it nor certain of its affiliates will clinically
develop or commercialize certain competitive products in the Licensed Territory.
Under the HanAll Agreement, ISG has the sole right, but not the obligation, to control the prosecution, defense and enforcement of the licensed patents in the HanAll Licensed Territory, and
HanAll has backup rights to prosecution, defense and enforcement with respect to any licensed patents for which ISG elects not to exercise such rights.
The HanAll Agreement will expire on a product-by-product basis on the expiration of the last royalty term with respect to a given licensed product, unless earlier terminated. ISG may terminate
the HanAll Agreement in its entirety without cause upon 180 days’ written notice following 30 days of discussion. Either party may terminate the HanAll Agreement upon 60 days’ written notice for uncured material breach (or 30 days in the case of
non-payment), or immediately upon written notice if the other party files a voluntary petition, is subject to a substantiated involuntary petition or for certain other solvency events. HanAll may terminate the HanAll Agreement if ISG or its
affiliates challenge the validity or enforceability of any of the licensed patents.
Product Service Agreement and Master Services Agreement
On November 17, 2021, ISG entered into a Product Service Agreement (“PSA”) with Samsung Biologics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), pursuant to which Samsung will manufacture and supply ISG with batoclimab
drug substance for commercial sale, if approved, and perform other manufacturing-related services with respect to batoclimab. ISG previously entered in a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) with Samsung, dated April 30, 2021, which governs certain
terms of its relationship with Samsung. Upon execution of the PSA, ISG committed to purchase process performance qualification batches of batoclimab and pre-approval inspection batches of batoclimab which may be used for regulatory submissions
and, pending regulatory approval, commercial sale. In addition to these, since ISG did not exercise an early termination right prior to its expiration in January 2024, ISG has an additional minimum obligation
to purchase additional batches of batoclimab in the four-year period of 2026 through 2029.
The PSA will continue until the later of December 31, 2029 or the completion of the services thereunder, unless the PSA is terminated earlier. Either party may terminate the PSA on account of (i)
the other party’s material breach of the PSA that is not cured within a specified period after the termination notice, (ii) the other party’s insolvency or bankruptcy or (iii) certain force majeure events. The remaining minimum purchase
commitment related to this agreement was estimated to be approximately $46.2 million as of March 31, 2024.
Priovant
License and Collaboration Agreement with Pfizer, Inc.
In September 2021, our subsidiary Priovant Therapeutics, Inc. (“Priovant”) entered into a license and collaboration agreement with Pfizer (the “Pfizer-Priovant License Agreement”). Pursuant to
the Pfizer-Priovant License Agreement, Pfizer granted Priovant (i) an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable, royalty-bearing license under certain patents and (ii) a non-exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable, royalty-bearing license under certain
know-how, in each case, to develop, manufacture and commercialize brepocitinib and TYK2 compounds and products incorporating such compounds for all human and animal uses. In exchange for Pfizer’s inventory of these compounds, Priovant paid Pfizer
$10.0 million. Priovant also granted back to Pfizer (i) an exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-bearing license under certain patents and (ii) a non-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-bearing license under certain know-how, in each case, to
commercialize (x) brepocitinib and products incorporating such compound outside of the U.S. and Japan, and (y) TYK2 compounds and products incorporating such compound outside of the U.S., in each case for all human and animal uses.
Priovant is obligated to pay Pfizer a mid tens-of-millions sales milestone payment if aggregate net sales of its licensed products in Priovant’s territory in a given year exceed a mid
hundreds-of-millions amount. Pfizer is obligated to pay Priovant a low tens-of-millions milestone payment if aggregate net sales of its licensed products outside of Priovant’s territory in a given year exceed a mid hundreds-of-millions amount.
Priovant is obligated to pay Pfizer a tiered, sub-teens royalty on aggregate net sales of its licensed products in Priovant’s territory. Pfizer is obligated to pay Priovant a tiered high
single-digit to sub-teens royalty on aggregate net sales of its licensed products outside of Priovant’s territory. Each of Priovant’s and Pfizer’s royalty obligations apply on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis and end upon the
expiration of a customary royalty term, which is the latest of (a) a certain amount of years following the first commercial sale of the applicable products in the applicable country, (b) the date on which the regulatory exclusivity provided by
the applicable government authority for the applicable products in that country expires and (c) the date upon which the use, sale, offer for sale or importation of such product in such country would no longer be covered by a valid claim of a
licensed product right. Either party may terminate for the other party’s uncured breach and Priovant has the right to terminate for convenience.
Genevant
Cross-License Agreement with Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
In April 2018, our subsidiary, Genevant Sciences Ltd. (together with its subsidiaries, “Genevant”), entered into a cross-license agreement with our affiliate, Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
(“Arbutus”), which the parties amended twice in June 2018 (as amended, the “Arbutus Cross-License Agreement”). Pursuant to the Arbutus Cross-License Agreement Arbutus granted Genevant an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, transferable,
irrevocable and perpetual license under certain patents and know-how relating to Arbutus’s lipid nanoparticle and GaINAc technology for RNA-based applications other than hepatitis B virus (“HBV”), and certain other excluded fields. The license is
subject to certain rights which have previously been licensed by Arbutus to other third parties. Under the Arbutus Cross-License Agreement, Genevant granted back to Arbutus an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual,
royalty-free license under the intellectual property licensed under the Arbutus Cross-License Agreement and certain intellectual property acquired by Genevant after the effective date of the Arbutus Cross-License Agreement for applications
involving the treatment and prevention of HBV.
Genevant is obligated to pay Arbutus tiered low single-digit percentage royalties on sales of products covered by the licensed patents. If Genevant sublicenses intellectual property licensed from
Arbutus or collaborates with any third-party to develop, manufacture or commercialize any products covered by the intellectual property licensed by Arbutus, it will be required to pay Arbutus the lesser of (i) up to 20% of the Royalty-Related
Receipts (as defined in the Arbutus Cross-License Agreement) received by Genevant from such sublicensees or collaborators and (ii) tiered low single-digit royalties on net sales by sublicensees. Genevant’s royalty obligations apply on a
product-by-product, country-by-country basis and end on the date on which the last valid claim of the licensed patents in such country that covers such licensed product expires. The patents and pending patent applications, if granted, currently
licensed under the Arbutus Cross-License Agreement begin to expire as early as 2023, ending as late as 2039, without giving effect to any potential patent term extensions or patent term adjustments. Unless earlier terminated based on customary
termination rights, the Arbutus Cross-License Agreement will continue until the expiration of Genevant’s royalty obligations.
In December 2021, Arbutus and Genevant Sciences GmbH, as an assignee of Genevant, entered into the third amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Arbutus Cross License Agreement, which, among other
things, clarified the treatment of proceeds received by Genevant from an action for infringement by any third parties of Arbutus’s intellectual property licensed to Genevant. In such an infringement action, Arbutus would be entitled to receive,
after deduction of litigation costs, 20% of the proceeds received by Genevant or, if less, tiered low single-digit royalties on net sales of the infringing product (inclusive of the proceeds from litigation or settlement, which would be treated
as net sales). The Amendment also clarified that, if a third party sublicensee of intellectual property licensed by Genevant from Arbutus commercializes a sublicensed product, Arbutus becomes entitled to receive a specified percentage of certain
revenue that may be received by Genevant for such sublicense, including royalties, commercial milestones and other sales related revenue, or, if less, tiered low single-digit royalties on net sales of the sublicensed product. The specified
percentage is 20% in the case of a mere sublicense (i.e., naked sublicense) by Genevant without additional contribution and 14% in the case of a bona fide collaboration with Genevant.
Intellectual Property
Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for current and future products and product candidates, technologies and know-how; to operate
without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the proprietary rights of others; and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing
or in-licensing U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We may also rely on trade secrets,
know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.
The patent positions of companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the
fields of genetic therapy, cell therapy, biologics or pharmaceutical products generally has emerged in the U.S. or in Europe, among other countries. Changes in the patent laws and rules, either by legislation, judicial decisions, or regulatory
interpretation in other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights, and more generally could affect the value of our intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third
parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, importing or otherwise commercializing any of our patented inventions, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, defending and enforcing patent claims
that cover our technology, inventions, and improvements. We cannot be sure that any patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be
sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our product candidates and technology. Moreover, our issued patents and those that may issue in the future may
not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our product candidates or technology. The area of patents and other intellectual property rights in biotechnology is an evolving one with many risks and
uncertainties, which may prevent us from commercializing our current and future products and product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology.
Our issued patents and those that may issue in the future may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented or invalidated, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related
products or technologies or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our current and future products and product candidates and technologies. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide
us with complete protection or competitive advantages against competitors or other third parties with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies that achieve similar outcomes but with different
approaches. For these reasons, we may have competition for our product candidates. Moreover, the time required for development, testing and regulatory review of our product candidates may shorten the length of effective patent protection
following commercialization. For this and other risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms and product candidates, please see the section entitled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Roivant’s Business and
Industry—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”
Patents and Patent Applications
Dermavant
As of March 31, 2024, DSG is the exclusive owner of patent families that include 13 issued U.S. patents and 8 pending U.S. and Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) patent applications, as well as 99
issued patents and more than 72 pending patent applications in other jurisdictions, including the European Union and Japan, relating to VTAMA, the synthesis of VTAMA, intermediates made in the synthesis, the drug substance crystal form, topical
formulations of VTAMA and uses thereof in certain diseases and disorders.
One of these patent families is directed to the topical formulation of VTAMA, and its use to treat plaque psoriasis, for which VTAMA has received FDA approval, as well as its use to treat atopic
dermatitis, which has been evaluated in Phase 3 clinical trials, which includes a family of patents and patent applications in the U.S. and major foreign jurisdictions that has a natural expiration date in 2036, without taking into account any
possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. Within this patent family, we have issued four formulation patents in the U.S. with claims directed
to topical, homogeneous, oil-in-water micro-emulsions, including VTAMA, containing tapinarof (the active ingredient in VTAMA), an oil phase, a surfactant and other specific ingredients. DSG also owns two issued patents in the U.S. covering
methods of using the patented formulations to treat inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Like the formulation patents, the method-of-use patents have a natural expiration date in 2036 in the U.S., without taking into
account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees. Foreign counterpart formulation and method-of-use patents are both issued and pending,
and the issued counterparts also have a natural expiration date in 2036, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental
fees.
DSG also owns two drug substance (“DS”) patents in the U.S. covering the high purity crystal form of VTAMA, as DS, the DS synthesis and several novel intermediates that are formed in the
synthesis. The DS patents have a natural expiration date in 2038 assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees and without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions. DSG
has also filed foreign counterpart DS applications that are both issued and pending in foreign jurisdictions and the issued counterparts similarly have a natural expiration date in 2038, without taking into account any possible patent term
adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. DSG also owns a method-of-use patent in the U.S. covering the method of treating mild to severe plaque psoriasis by
topically administering VTAMA to achieve treatment success as measured by psoriasis PGA scores. This patent expires in 2039, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate
maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees. Finally, DSG owns two method-of-use patents in the U.S. covering the method of treating mild to severe atopic dermatitis by topically administering VTAMA to achieve treatment success as
measured by psoriasis IGA scores. These patents expire in 2039 assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees and without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions.
Anti-FcRn Franchise
Following ISG’s assumption of all rights, title, interest and obligations under the HanAll Agreement from RSG in December 2018, by virtue of the license of patent rights under the HanAll
Agreement, ISG is the exclusive licensee of certain patents, patent applications and know-how directed to batoclimab, IMVT-1402 and certain back-up and next-generation antibodies, and products containing such antibodies, in the HanAll Licensed
Territory. As of May 22, 2024, the in-licensed patent portfolio includes a patent family covering batoclimab with pending patent applications and/or issued patent(s) in the U.S., Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, European Patent Office, Egypt,
Israel, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. This in-licensed patent family was filed in 2015 and discloses anti-FcRn antibodies, including batoclimab, pharmaceutical compositions thereof, methods of treating autoimmune disease using the same,
polynucleotides encoding such antibodies, expression vectors including such polynucleotides, host cells transfected with such recombinant expression vectors, methods of manufacturing such antibodies and methods of detecting FcRn in vivo or in
vitro using such antibodies. Notably, in this in-licensed patent family, a U.S. patent was issued on July 2, 2019, with claims directed to batoclimab as defined by its CDRs and epitope or antigen-binding fragment thereof, and a pharmaceutical
composition comprising such antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof. Furthermore, another U.S. patent was issued in this in-licensed patent family on January 28, 2020, with claims directed to batoclimab as defined by its CDRs or
antigen-binding fragment thereof, a pharmaceutical composition comprising such antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof, as well as methods of treating various autoimmune diseases using such antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof,
polynucleotides and expression vectors encoding the same, host cells transfected with such expression vectors and methods of producing such antibody or antigen-binding fragment. A further patent was issued in the U.S. on March 28, 2023 with
claims to an isolated anti-FcRn antibody other than batoclimab or an antigen-binding fragment thereof, a pharmaceutical composition comprising such antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof, as well as methods of treating various autoimmune
diseases using such antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof, polynucleotides and expression vectors encoding the same, host cells transfected with such expression vectors and methods of preparing such antibody or antigen-binding fragment. A
European patent in this family was issued on May 10, 2023 with claims directed to batoclimab as defined by its heavy and light chain variable sequences. There are also issued patents in this family in Brazil, Canada, Israel, Mexico, and Saudi
Arabia. In this family, applications are pending in Argentina, Mexico, the U.S. and in Europe. The patents of this patent family may expire in 2035, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extension and assuming payment
of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.
In addition, the in-licensed patent portfolio includes another patent family that discloses a pharmaceutical formulation for an anti-FcRn antibody. This patent family includes pending
applications in the U.S., and in Europe, Israel, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, and any patent issued in this patent family may expire in 2041, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extension and assuming
payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.
Additionally, as of May 22, 2024, independent of the licensed patent portfolio, ISG owns patent families directed to methods of treating thyroid eye disease (Graves’ ophthalmopathy) and methods
of treating warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia using anti-FcRn antibodies that include patent applications in the U.S. as well as foreign counterparts in certain jurisdictions. Any patent issued from these patent families may expire in 2039 and
2040, respectively, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extension and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.
ISG jointly owns rights with HanAll to a patent family covering IMVT-1402 and its uses to treat autoimmune disease. A PCT application is pending in this family. Notably, in this patent family, a
U.S. patent was issued on March 12, 2024, with claims directed to IMVT-1402 as defined by its CDRs, a pharmaceutical composition comprising such antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof, and methods of treating an autoimmune disease using
such antibody or antigen-binding fragment thereof. The patents of this patent family may expire in 2043, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extension and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal,
annuity, or other governmental fees.
ISG also owns PCT applications directed to methods of treating Graves’ Disease and methods of treating Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy using anti-FcRn antibodies including
IMVT-1402 and batoclimab. Any patent issued from these patent families may expire in 2043, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extension and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or
other governmental fees.
ISG also owns a PCT application directed to high concentration protein formulations with polysorbate excipients and methods of making the same. Any patent issued from this patent family may
expire in 2044, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extension and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees.
ISG also owns a U.S. provisional application directed to methods of improving anti-FcRn therapies, which describes specific dosing regimens for IMVT-1402. Any patent issued from this patent
family may expire in 2044, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extension and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees. For information regarding ISG’s license
agreement with HanAll, please see “—Asset Acquisitions and License Arrangements.”
Priovant
As of March 31, 2024, Priovant Therapeutics, Inc. has (1) exclusively licensed rights to six patent families for brepocitinib containing at least 172 issued patents and 65 pending patent
applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, including the European Union and Japan, with claims covering a composition of matter, a crystalline form, a topical formulation, a process for making brepocitinib, a treatment of hidradenitis, a
dosage regimen for treatment of hidradenitis and treatment of dermatomyositis with brepocitinib. These patents and pending applications, if issued, are expected to expire as early as 2035, in each case without taking into account any possible
patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees, and (2) exclusively licensed rights to three patent families for ropsacitinib containing at least 126 issued
patents and 25 pending patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions, including the European Union and Japan, with claims covering a composition of matter, a treatment of hidradenitis and a crystalline form. These patents and pending
applications, if issued, are expected to expire as early as 2037, in each case without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other
governmental fees.
Genevant
As of March 31, 2024, we own or co-own 19 patent families containing 38 issued patents and 111 pending patent applications in the U.S., European Union and numerous other jurisdictions, including
claims relating to lipid nanoparticle delivery technology, polymers and nucleic acid delivery constructs. These patents and pending applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2029 and 2044, in each case without taking into account
any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees.
As of March 31, 2024, we have licensed 35 patent families containing 481 issued patents and 269 pending patent applications in the U.S., European Union and numerous other jurisdictions, including
claims relating to delivery systems. These patents and pending applications, if issued, are expected to expire between July 2024 and 2039, in each case without taking into account any possible patent term adjustment or extensions and assuming
payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees.
Trade Secrets
In addition to our reliance on patent protection for our inventions, product candidates and research programs, we also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and
potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality and invention assignment agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators,
employees and consultants. 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 an
employee or 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 or other third parties. As
a result, we may not be able to meaningfully protect our trade secrets. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Roivant’s Business and Industry—Risks Related to Our
Intellectual Property.”
Government Regulation
Government authorities in the U.S. at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, manufacture, testing, quality control,
approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, as well as diagnostics, and any future product
candidates. Generally, before a new drug, biologic or diagnostic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for
review and approved, authorized, or cleared by the applicable regulatory authority.
U.S. Government Regulation of Drug and Biological Products
In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”) and its implementing regulations and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act
(the “PHSA”), and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations, such as those related to competition. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the
subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product
development process, approval process or following approval may subject an applicant to administrative actions or judicial sanctions. These actions and sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending
applications, withdrawal of an approval, license revocation, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, voluntary or mandatory product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution,
injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement, debarment from producing or marketing drug products or biologics, disqualification from conducting research, and civil or criminal fines or penalties. Any agency or
judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our business, the market acceptance of our products and our reputation.
Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through either an NDA or a BLA process before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. The process generally involves the following:
|
• |
completion of extensive preclinical studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including studies conducted in accordance with GLP requirements;
|
|
• |
submission to the FDA of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;
|
|
• |
approval by an IRB, or independent ethics committee at each clinical trial site before each human trial may be initiated;
|
|
• |
performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials in accordance with applicable IND regulations and requirements, GCP requirements and other clinical trial-related regulations to establish the safety and efficacy of the
investigational product for each proposed indication;
|
|
• |
submission to the FDA of an NDA or BLA;
|
|
• |
a determination by the FDA within 60 days of its receipt of an NDA or BLA to accept the filing for review;
|
|
• |
satisfactory completion of one or more FDA pre-approval inspections of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the drug or biologic will be produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities,
methods and controls are adequate to preserve the drug or biologic’s identity, strength, quality and purity;
|
|
• |
potential FDA inspection of the clinical trial sites that generated the data in support of the NDA or BLA and/or us as the sponsor;
|
|
• |
payment of user fees for FDA review of the NDA or BLA (unless a fee waiver applies);
|
|
• |
agreement with FDA on the final labeling for the product and the design and implementation of any required REMS; and
|
|
• |
FDA review and approval of the NDA or BLA, including consideration of the views of any FDA advisory committee, prior to any commercial marketing or sale of the drug or biologic in the U.S.
|
The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and the regulatory scheme for drugs and biologics is evolving and subject to
change at any time. We cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.
Preclinical Studies
Before testing any drug or biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product
chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. In the U.S., the conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and
requirements, including GLP regulations for nonclinical (e.g., safety/toxicology) studies.
In the U.S., an IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for
clinical trials, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some
long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive AEs and carcinogenicity, may continue, and additional preclinical testing may commence, after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt
by the FDA, unless before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns
before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. Additionally, the review of information in an IND submission may prompt FDA to, among other things, scrutinize
existing INDs or marketed products and could generate requests for information or clinical holds on other product candidates or programs.
Clinical Trials
The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally
physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical
trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. In
the U.S., each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial
will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each
clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public
registries. Information about certain clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.
A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not
conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA or BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was
conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.
Clinical trials generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap or be combined.
|
• |
Phase 1 clinical trials generally involve a small number of healthy volunteers or disease-affected patients who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the product candidate. The primary purpose of these
clinical trials is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability and safety of the product candidate.
|
|
• |
Phase 2 clinical trials involve studies in disease-affected patients to evaluate proof of concept and/or determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further PK and PD information is
collected, possible adverse effects and safety risks are identified, and a preliminary evaluation of efficacy is conducted.
|
|
• |
Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve a large number of patients at multiple sites and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use, its safety in use and to
establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labeling.
|
In March 2022, the FDA finalized a guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” the draft of which was
released in August 2018. This final guidance outlines how drug developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology drug development, i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial,
to compress early phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can
potentially bring efficiency to drug development and reduce developmental costs and time.
Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment
of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and are commonly intended to generate additional safety data regarding use of the product in a clinical setting. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical
trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA or post-approval.
Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA
and the investigators 15 days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected AEs, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human
subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening
suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.
Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and other types of clinical trials 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 on various grounds, 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 or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of
qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data
from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a
process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must
develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do
not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.
FDA Review Process
Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of
preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. The NDA or BLA is a request
for approval to market the drug or biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug or safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous
results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including
studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of FDA. FDA approval of an
NDA or BLA must be obtained before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the U.S.
Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (the “PDUFA”), as amended, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or
reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs,
unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.
The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs and BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA or BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision
on accepting an NDA or BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA. Under the goals and
policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date
of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs or BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional
information or clarification. During the COVID-19 pandemic, because of travel and other restrictions, the FDA significantly curtailed its inspection program. The reduction in pre-approval inspections resulted in delays to some product approvals.
Even with the mostly complete resumption of the FDA’s normal inspection program and continued use of alternative inspection tools, there may be delays to product approvals in the future based on a resurgence of, or new problems with respect to
the FDA’s ability to conduct inspections and then, even after a complete resumption of the FDA’s normal inspection program, a possible backlog in applications under review by the agency.
The FDA has developed the Oncology Center of Excellence RTOR pilot program to facilitate a more efficient review process for certain oncology product candidates. Although this program allows FDA
to begin reviewing clinical data prior to submission of a complete NDA or BLA, the program is not intended to change the PDUFA review timelines.
Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP
requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required
specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an
advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by
recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the
applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic with specific prescribing
information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the
specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require the applicant to obtain additional clinical data, including the potential requirement to conduct additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s)
and/or to complete other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, or to conduct additional preclinical studies or manufacturing activities. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit
the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA or BLA does not
satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.
Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that
affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or more than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the U.S. for this type of disease or
condition will be recovered from sales of the product.
Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are
disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.
If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug
exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical
superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a
different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a
competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same
indication or disease. If we pursue marketing approval for an indication broader than the orphan drug designation we have received, we may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not
identical, requirements and benefits.
Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Priority Review Vouchers
Under the FDCA, as amended, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biologics that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening
disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S. or affects more than 200,000 in the U.S. and for which
there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the U.S. a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the U.S. of such drug. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may
be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biologic application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a priority review voucher (a “PRV”).
A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its NDA or BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its NDA or BLA. Moreover,
a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the
eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the rare pediatric disease PRV program through September 30, 2024, with the potential for PRVs to be granted through
September 30, 2026.
Expedited Development and Review Programs
A sponsor may seek to develop and obtain approval of its product candidates under programs designed to accelerate the development, FDA review and approval of new drugs and biologics that meet
certain criteria. For example, the FDA has a fast-track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and
demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. For a fast track-designated product, the FDA may
consider sections of the NDA or BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the
application and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast-track status any
time before receiving NDA or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting.
A product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast-track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development or review, such as priority
review and accelerated approval. Priority review means that, for an NDA for a new molecular entity or original BLA, the FDA sets a target date for FDA action on the marketing application at six months after accepting the application for filing as
opposed to ten months. A product is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to
available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. If criteria are not met for priority
review, the NDA for a new molecular entity or original BLA is subject to the standard FDA review period of ten months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for
approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.
A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, generally provides a meaningful advantage over other
available therapies, and demonstrates an effect on either a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (“IMM”), that is
reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the disease or condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the
FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. FDA may require such trials to be underway prior to, or within a specific period after,
approval and will specify the conditions for such studies. Further, sponsors must provide reports on post-marketing trial progress no later than 180 days after approval and every 180 days thereafter until such trials are completed. The failure to
conduct required post-approval clinical trials with due diligence and the failure to submit the required reports are prohibited acts. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional
materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product. FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial is not conducted or fails to
verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product. FDA can withdraw accelerated approvals on an expedited basis provided certain procedures are followed.
Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat
a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial
treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include holding meetings with the sponsor
and the review team throughout the development of the therapy; providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and
clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA
review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and considering alternative clinical trial designs when scientifically appropriate, which may
result in smaller trials or more efficient trials that require less time to complete and may minimize the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of
fast-track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the NDA or BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with the FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of
the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review.
The FDA has also announced the availability of the RTOR pilot program for oncology product candidates that are likely to demonstrate substantial improvements over available therapy, which may
include drugs previously granted breakthrough therapy designation for the same or other indications and candidates meeting other criteria for other expedited programs, such as fast track and priority review. Submissions for RTOR consideration
should also have straightforward study designs and endpoints that can be easily interpreted (such as overall survival or progression free survival). Acceptance into the RTOR pilot does not guarantee or influence approvability of the application,
which is subject to the usual benefit-risk evaluation by FDA reviewers, but the program allows FDA to review data earlier, before an applicant formally submits a complete application. The RTOR pilot program does not affect FDA’s PDUFA timelines.
Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or the time period for FDA review or
approval may not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval.
Pediatric Information and Pediatric Exclusivity
Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (the “PREA”), certain NDAs and BLAs and certain supplements to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the
claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or
full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new
dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan (“PSP”), within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase
3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification
for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor
must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials
and/or other clinical development programs.
A drug or biologic product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the U.S. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This
six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.
Post-Marketing Requirements
Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping
activities, reporting of adverse experiences and certain problems in the manufacturing process, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations
(known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA
and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses and any promotion that is false or misleading, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses or in a false or
misleading manner may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication.
Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or NDA/BLA
supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.
The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals, including the requirement for a REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or
BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution
methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for
non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.
FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the
production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance
of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their
establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to
expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the
discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA or BLA, including recall.
Once an approval is granted, the FDA may issue enforcement letters or withdraw the approval of the product if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if
problems occur after the drug or biologic reaches the market. Corrective action could delay drug or biologic distribution and require significant time and financial expenditures. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug or
biologic, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of
post-market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:
|
• |
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the drug or biologic, suspension of the approval, complete withdrawal of the drug from the market or product recalls;
|
|
• |
fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;
|
|
• |
refusal of the FDA to approve applications or supplements to approved applications, or suspension or revocation of drug or biologic approvals;
|
|
• |
drug or biologic seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of drugs;
|
|
• |
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties; or
|
|
• |
debarment from producing or marketing drug products or biologics.
|
Regulation of Companion Diagnostics
Success of certain product candidates may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic. A companion diagnostic is a medical device, typically an in vitro device, which provides information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding drug or biological product. Companion diagnostics can identify patients who are most likely to
benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular
therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are generally regulated as medical devices by the FDA. In the U.S., the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other
federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage,
advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance. Unless an exemption or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance through the
premarket notification process (“510(k) clearance”) or premarket approval from the FDA prior to commercialization.
To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating
that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a preamendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or other predicate devices, for which the FDA has not yet called for
the submission of a premarket approval application (“PMA”). In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device or predicate devices and
assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device or predicate devices with respect to intended use, technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject
device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device or predicate devices, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application
is completed, but can take significantly longer.
PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the
FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA, typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will typically conduct a
pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the Quality System Regulation (the “QSR”), which will transition to the Quality Management System Regulation once effective and requires manufacturers
to follow design, testing, control, corrective and preventative action, documentation, and other quality assurance procedures. The FDA’s review of an initial PMA application is generally required by statute to take six months, although the
process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter,
which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny the approval of the PMA or issue a
not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance
with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to
post-marketing requirements including the requirements of FDA’s QSR, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug and biologic makers, companion diagnostic makers are
subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA is able to conduct an inspection of the product(s) and the company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.
FDA has taken the position that developers of companion diagnostic tests associated with novel therapeutic products should seek clearance or approval at the same time that the therapeutic
developer seeks approval. FDA has recognized that contemporaneous clearance or approval of a companion diagnostic with a therapeutic is not always possible, though FDA has indicated that coordination of contemporaneous clearances/approvals is a
policy goal. In October 2018, FDA issued a safety alert warning against the use of unapproved or uncleared genetic tests to predict patient response to specific medications. While FDA has historically exercised enforcement discretion against
laboratory developed tests—tests which are developed and performed in a single Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (“CLIA”) certified laboratory—the 2018 alert and a subsequent 2019 Warning Letter against Inova Genomics Laboratory
suggested that FDA may prioritize for enforcement certain uncleared or unapproved tests marketed as companion diagnostic tests. Subsequently, FDA has attempted to encourage collaboration between in vitro
diagnostic test developers and therapeutic developers and to clarify FDA expectations as to companion diagnostic labeling, particularly through guidance in the oncology area. In September 2023, FDA announced a proposed rule, which was published
in October 2023, to revise the regulatory definition of an in vitro diagnostic product to explicitly capture laboratory developed tests and make clear that such tests are medical devices subject to FDA regulation. The proposed rule also described
a proposed policy under which FDA will gradually end its general enforcement discretion policy for laboratory developed tests in phases over a four-year period. Although FDA and other stakeholders would have preferred a legislative solution to
the regulation of laboratory developed tests, we anticipate that FDA will attempt to issue the final rule this year.
Biosimilars and Exclusivity
Certain of our product candidates, including batoclimab, are regulated as biologics. An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an
FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCI Act”), as part of the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize
duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences
between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to
the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference
product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch.
Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products as compared to small molecule drugs, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation
that are still being worked out by the FDA.
A reference biological product is granted four and twelve year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. The FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or
interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and the FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the
reference biological product until twelve years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the U.S. Date of first licensure does
not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer
of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing
schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new
product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of
exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.
Other Regulatory Matters
Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, including the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the “CMS”), the Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights, other divisions of the Department of HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.
Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in making clinically-appropriate decisions enabling patient access to any products for which we obtain marketing
approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers and physicians and any future arrangements with third-party payers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may
constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the U.S., these laws include: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims
Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).
The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay
any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal
healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, a person
or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including 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.
Drug manufacturers can be held liable under the federal civil False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or
entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims
for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties
for each separate false claim; the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, which would preclude reimbursement of our products under the Medicare and Medicaid programs; and, although the federal False Claims Act
is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example,
providing certain billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. Claims which include items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false or fraudulent claims for purposes of
the False Claims Act. Our future marketing and activities relating to federal, state, and commercial reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law.
HIPAA created federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, 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 by trick, scheme or device, 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. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or
specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.
The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health
program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.
We are subject to data privacy and security regulations administered and enforced by the federal government as well as statutes and regulations adopted in the states in which we conduct our
business. At the federal level, the FDA regulations for the protection of human research subjects require that we protect the privacy of personal information and obtain appropriate informed consent in connection with research using identifiable
subject information or identifiable biological samples. In addition, the data privacy and security regulations implementing HIPAA impose strict limitations on the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including for
research purposes. Civil and criminal penalties may be imposed on entities subject to HIPAA, both by the HHS Office for Civil Rights and by state attorneys general, who have the authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in
federal courts to enforce the HIPAA privacy and security regulations and to seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing such actions. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission has broad authority to investigate and initiate
enforcement actions regarding any activity affecting the privacy or security of personal information that it deems deceptive or unfair. At the state level, a rapidly growing body of privacy and data protection laws impose requirements and
restrictions, some of which are more stringent than federal law and many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws can result in the imposition of significant
civil and criminal penalties.
Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (the “Sunshine Act”), within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological
and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or
distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and
investment interests held by physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations were extended to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician
providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. In addition, many states also govern the reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not preempted, and may
have a more prohibitive effect than the Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts.
Similar federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving
healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply
regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the
relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.
In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state,
including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical
and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales
representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales
and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.
The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent
and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and
settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other
healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties,
damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, individual imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the
curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do
business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with
applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.
Current and Future Legislation
In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system
directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare.
For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted in the U.S. The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed, and are expected to continue to significantly change, the way healthcare is
financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the changes made by the ACA to preexisting law of importance to the pharmaceutical industry are that the ACA:
|
• |
made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs
to 23.1% of average manufacturer price (“AMP”), and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, as well as
potentially impacting their rebate liability by modifying the statutory definition of AMP.
|
|
• |
imposed a requirement on manufacturers of branded drugs to provide a 70% (increased pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of 2019) point-of-sale discount off the negotiated price of
branded drugs dispensed to Medicare Part D beneficiaries in the coverage gap (i.e., “donut hole”) as a condition for a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs being covered under Medicare Part D.
|
|
• |
extended a manufacturer’s Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations.
|
|
• |
expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the 340B Drug Discount Program.
|
|
• |
established a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected.
|
|
• |
imposed an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government
healthcare programs.
|
|
• |
established a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research. The research
conducted by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute may affect the market for certain pharmaceutical products. The ACA established the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation within CMS to test innovative payment and service
delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.
|
Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and
amendments to the ACA in the future. Most recently, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in June 2021; however, there are ongoing challenges in federal court and future legal disputes remain possible. Additionally, Congress
has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA, and the law may be subjected to various Executive Orders and/or regulatory action to expand or reduce the scope of the law, based on the
administration controlling the White House. The law may continue to exert significant pressure on pharmaceutical pricing and our profitability.
Moreover, in May 2018, the Trump administration released its “Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs,” or the Blueprint, and former President Trump also issued a number of
Executive Orders in 2020 that were aimed at lowering the prices of prescription drugs. Some rules enacted under the Trump Administration have been stayed as a result of pending litigation or are under review or have been rescinded by the Biden
Administration and/or Congress. For example, a rule enacted under the Trump Administration known as the “Most Favored Nations” rule would have set Medicare Part B reimbursement at an amount no higher than the lowest price that a drug manufacturer
receives on a particular product in an index of foreign countries. This rule was the subject of litigation and was formally rescinded the Biden Administration in August 2021. Other initiatives under the Trump Administration have taken effect. For
example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a form of drug utilization management, for Part B drugs, which took effect on January 1, 2020.
Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending
reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the
legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013, following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2013, and will remain in effect through the first six months of 2032 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, the Medicare sequester reductions under the Budget Control Act were suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31,
2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a 1% reduction through the end of June 2022, after which the cuts returned to 2%. Absent further Congressional action, there is a possibility that an up to 4% Medicare sequester could be triggered in
January 2025, pursuant to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (“PAYGO”). Under PAYGO, if the five- or ten-year PAYGO scorecard shows a net cost at the end of a Congressional session, then the Office of Management and Budget is required to
issue a sequestration order. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was expected to trigger a PAYGO sequestration order at the end of the 2021 Congressional session. However, subsequent legislation has delayed a Statutory PAYGO sequestration order
until after 2024. Additionally, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 eliminated the Medicaid unit rebate AMP cap effective as of January 1, 2024, and the removal of this rebate cap could significantly impact our Medicaid rebate liability in the
future.
There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. with respect to drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and
proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. In July
2021, President Biden issued an executive order pertaining to drug pricing, which expressed support for legislation allowing direct negotiation in Medicare Part D and inflationary rebates, and directed various executive branch agencies to take
actions to lower drug prices and promote generic competition. In August 2022, Congress enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”), a law that included sweeping changes to the payment for drugs under the Medicare program. Among other provisions,
the IRA contains (i) a drug price negotiation program for certain high spend Medicare drugs that have been on the market for a certain length of time and lack generic or biosimilar competition, under which Medicare prices for such drugs are
capped by a “maximum fair price”; (ii) new manufacturer rebate obligations on certain drugs paid under Medicare Part B or D whose prices increase faster than inflation relative to a benchmark period; and (iii) a redesign of the Part D benefit,
including capping patients’ annual out-of-pocket costs on Part D drugs, lowering the beneficiary out-of-pocket threshold, streamlining the Part D benefit to eliminate the “coverage gap” phase, and replacing the manufacturer coverage gap discount
program with a new manufacturer discount program – the Medicare Part D Manufacturer Discount Program – that provides discounts throughout the post-deductible benefit phases. CMS has begun to implement certain aspects of the IRA, including issuing
final guidance describing drug negotiation, inflationary rebates and Part D redesign and selecting Part D drugs for the initial rounds of negotiation, which ultimately will result in the establishment of maximum fair prices, which would become
effective in 2026. In November 2023, CMS released final guidance on the Medicare Part D Manufacturer Discount Program implementing exceptions for “specified manufacturers” and “specified small manufacturers,” which allows for a phase-in of
discounts under the program. Although CMS did not find Dermavant eligible for these exceptions (presumably because sales of VTAMA did not begin until 2022, following its FDA approval in May 2022), we cannot predict how these exceptions may impact
other aspects of Roivant’s business in the future. Over time, provisions of the IRA could increase our government discount and rebate liabilities, reduce the revenues we are able to collect from sales of our products as well as present challenges
for payor negotiations and formulary access. However, the degree of impact that the IRA will ultimately have upon our business remains unclear at this time.
In October 2022, President Biden issued an executive order calling on the Secretary to consider whether to select for testing by the CMS innovation center new health care payment and delivery
models that would lower drug costs and promote access to innovative drug therapies for beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, including models that may lead to lower cost-sharing for commonly used drugs and support
value-based payment that promotes high-quality care. In response, the CMS innovation center released a report in February 2023, identifying three selected models: Medicare High-Value Drug Model, the Cell & Gene Therapy Access Model, and the
Accelerating Clinical Evidence Model. We cannot predict how these new provisions would be implemented or the impact they will have on our business.
It is possible that Congress or the Administration may take further actions to control drug prices. Further federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we
expect these already enacted and ongoing initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop
product candidates.
At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biotherapeutic product pricing, including restrictions on
pricing or reimbursement at the state government level, limitations on discounts to patients, marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, policies to encourage importation from other countries (subject to federal
approval) and bulk purchasing, including the National Medicaid Pooling Initiative. In particular, the obligation to provide notices of price increases to purchasers under laws such as California’s SB-17 may influence customer ordering patterns
for our products, which in turn may increase the volatility of our revenues as a reflection of changes in inventory volumes. In addition, some state legislatures have established Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (“PDABs”), which under
certain circumstances may conduct affordability reviews and establish upper payment limits for drugs purchased in the state. On August 4, 2023, the Colorado PDAB commenced an affordability review of five prescription drugs, including three
products that are indicated to treat plaque psoriasis (ENBREL®, COSENTYX®, STELARA®). We cannot predict the outcome of this affordability review, whether the Colorado PDAB will establish upper payment limits for one or more of these drugs, or the
impact of any such upper payment limit on utilization of VTAMA. We may continue to see additional state action related to prescription drug pricing.
Packaging and Distribution in the United States
If our products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable
child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.
The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to
prevent the unauthorized sale, diversion or misuse of pharmaceutical products.
The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable
regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or
withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur
significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.
Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements;
(ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our
business.
Other U.S. Environmental, Health and Safety Laws and Regulations
We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of
hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we
contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use
or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to
comply with such laws and regulations.
We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against
potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.
In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations
may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.
U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our future products, 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. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA
regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 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. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA
or BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. 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. In the future, we may apply for
restoration of patent term for our 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 or
BLA.
Marketing 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 marketing exclusivity
within the U.S. 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 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 the data required for approval. 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 marketing
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, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the 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. 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 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.
European Union and United Kingdom Drug Development
On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the U.K. voted in favor of leaving the European Union (commonly referred to as Brexit). Thereafter, on March 29, 2017, the country formally notified the
European Union of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The U.K. formally left the European Union on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which EU pharmaceutical law remained
applicable in the U.K. However, this ended on December 31, 2020. On December 30, 2020, the U.K. and European Union signed the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which includes an agreement on free trade between the two parties. Further, on February
27, 2023, an agreement in principle was reached by the UK and EU (the “Windsor Agreement”), relating to post-Brexit trade issues in Northern Ireland, which if implemented into the respective legislation, seeks to simplify the supply of medicines
between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and will mean the EU legislation may not apply in all cases in Northern Ireland. Since the regulatory framework in the U.K. covering the quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical
trials, marketing authorizations, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval
of product candidates in the U.K., as the UK legislation now has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for medicinal products and devices in the U.K. in the long term.
The MHRA has published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow now the transition period is over, which will be updated as the U.K.’s regulatory position on medicinal products and medical devices evolves over time. There are
also a number of ongoing consultations on the future legislation in the UK.
In the EEA, which is comprised of the Member States of the European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and in the U.K., our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory
requirements. As in the U.S., medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the relevant competent authority has been obtained.
Similar to the U.S., the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EEA and U.K. are subject to significant regulatory controls. The EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (the
“Directive”) sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the
Directive differently into their national laws, including in the UK. This has led to significant variations in the Member State regimes. Under this regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the EU/UK
countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority (the “NCA”), and one or more Ethics Committees (“ECs”). Under this regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated
drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the country where they occurred.
The EU clinical trials legislation is undergoing a transition process due to the application of a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (the “Regulation”), which is mainly aimed at
harmonizing and streamlining clinical trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. In April 2014, the EU adopted the Regulation, which started
to apply on January 31, 2022 and replaced the current Directive. Specifically, the new Regulation, which is directly applicable in all Member States without the need for EU Member States to transpose it into national law, aims at simplifying and
streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. For instance, the new Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications.
It also provides for increased transparency and proactive publication of clinical trial documents and results, subject to certain exceptions and derogations.
Following Brexit, this Regulation is not applicable in the UK, and the national legislation put in place to implement the Directive continues to apply to trials conducted in the UK.
European Union and United Kingdom Drug Marketing
Much like the federal Anti-Kickback Statue prohibition in the U.S., the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians and/or healthcare organizations to induce or encourage the prescription,
recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order, administration or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the EEA and U.K. EU Directive 2001/83/EC, which is the Directive governing medicinal products for human use, as implemented in
the relevant Member State and the UK, the national anti-bribery laws of the European Union Member States, and the Bribery Act 2010 in the UK, as well as the industry Codes of Practice that are based on the European Federation of Pharmaceutical
Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Code of Practice, collectively govern the provision of benefits or advantages to induce or reward improper performance. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment. EU
Directive 2001/83/EC further provides that, where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons
unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy. This provision has been transposed into the national laws of the EU Member States, as well as in the UK Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and so remains applicable
in the UK despite its departure from the EU.
Depending on the applicable national rules in the EU Member States and the UK, payments and other transfers of value made to physicians, physician associations, medical students, healthcare
organizations, patient organizations and other stakeholders in the EU Member States, the UK and Member States of the EEA must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval
by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual country. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct,
applicable in the relevant country. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.
European Union and United Kingdom Drug Review and Approval
In the EEA, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization (“MA”). There are two main types of marketing authorizations for innovative medicinal products,
which, however, are based on largely identical regulatory rules, requirements and timelines, including the requirements concerning the presentation and content of the application for marketing authorization.
|
• |
The centralized MA is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure, based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (the “CHMP”), of the EMA, and is valid throughout the entire
territory of the EEA. The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicinal products (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or
tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV, AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases.
The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or which are in the interest
of public health in the EEA.
|
|
• |
National MAs, which are issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only cover their respective territory, are available for products not falling within the mandatory scope of
the centralized procedure. If a product is to be authorized in more than one Member State, the assessment procedure is coordinated between the relevant EU Member States. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a
Member State of the EEA, the national MA can be recognized in another Member States through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national MA in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved
simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which the MA is sought, one of
which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (the “RMS”). The competent authority of the RMS coordinates the preparation of a draft assessment report, a draft summary of the product characteristics (the “SmPC”), and a
draft of the labeling and package leaflet, which are sent to the other Member States (referred to as the Concerned Member States) for their final approval. If the Concerned Member States raise no objections, based on a potential serious
risk to public health, to the assessment, SmPC, labeling, or packaging circulated by the RMS, the coordinated procedures is closed, and the product is subsequently granted a national MA in all the Member States (i.e., in the RMS and the
Concerned Member States).
|
Under the above-described procedures, during the assessment of the documents submitted in the MAA and before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA
make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.
Now that the U.K. (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the European Union, Great Britain is no longer covered by centralized MAs (under the Northern Irish Protocol of the
Withdrawal Agreement, centralized MAs will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, although this may change if the Windsor Agreement is implemented). All medicinal products with a valid centralized MA as of December 31, 2020 were automatically
converted to MAs valid in Great Britain on January, 1 2021 (unless the MA holder opted out of this procedure). On January 1, 2024, the International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”) was introduced, whereby the Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (the “MHRA”), the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by other international regulators, including the European Commission and the U.S. FDA, in order to more quickly grant a new MA valid in Great Britain or the
U.K. A separate application will, however, still be required and the MHRA has the right to undertake its own assessment of the dossier. There are two such routes, allowing recognition in a 60-day or 110-day timelines. The IRP is in addition to
the MHRA’s national procedures, including the shortened 150-day timetable.
European Union and United Kingdom Data Protection and Market Exclusivity
In the EEA and UK, innovative medicinal products, approved on the basis of a full dossier of preclinical and clinical data as part of the MAA, qualify for eight years of data protection upon
marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data protection, if granted, prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from referencing the innovator’s preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of
the reference innovative product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EEA/UK, for a period of eight years from the date of authorization of the reference product. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a
generic or biosimilar marketing authorization application can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year
period can be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation
prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies. Even if an innovative medicinal product gains the prescribed period of data protection, however, another company
may market another version of the product if such company obtained a MA based on a marketing authorization application with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials (i.e., without
cross-referencing to the data within the reference innovative product).
European Union and United Kingdom Orphan Designation and Exclusivity
In the EEA, the European Commission, based on the scientific assessment from the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of
products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions and either (i) such condition affects not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EEA, or (ii) it is unlikely that
the development of the medicine would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment in its development. In either case, the applicant must also demonstrate that no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment has
been authorized (or, if a method exists, the product would be a significant benefit to those affected compared to the product available).
In the EEA, orphan drug designation entitles a party to benefits such as scientific advice (protocol assistance) and financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers. In addition, if
the criteria for orphan designation are found to be maintained at the time of authorization of the product, ten years of market exclusivity is granted following grant of an orphan marketing authorization. During this market exclusivity period,
neither the EMA nor the European Commission nor any of the competent authorities in the EEA Members States can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product” for the same indication. A “similar
medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. This orphan exclusivity
period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Market exclusivity may also be
broken, so a similar product may be authorized for the same indication, in very select cases, such as if (i) it is established that a similar medicinal product is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the authorized product;
(ii) the marketing authorization holder consents to the grant of the similar product; or (iii) the marketing authorization holder cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an
application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.
On April 26, 2023, as part of the EU Pharmaceutical Strategy, the European Commission published a proposal for a comprehensive revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation. If adopted by the
European Parliament and the Council, the new legislation is likely to significantly change the regulatory regime applicable to both (i) the “non-orphan” data protection and market exclusivity regime described in the previous section; and (ii) the
orphan exclusivities. Subject to the outcome of the ongoing legislative process in the European Parliament and the Council, the revisions may potentially reduce/modulate the rewards that could be granted to both non-orphan and orphan medicinal
products. In addition, the proposal envisages changes to the concept of unmet medical need and considers introducing novel rewards for orphan medical products addressing high unmet medical need. The adoption of the new legislation is not expected
before 2025 and it will start to apply 18 months after the entry in force.
From January 1, 2021, a separate process for orphan drug designation has applied in Great Britain. There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation step required (as there is in the
EEA), and the application for orphan designation will be reviewed by the MHRA at the time of the marketing authorization application. The criteria are the same as in the EEA, save that they apply to Great Britain only (e.g., there must be no
satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition concerned in Great Britain). Orphan exclusivity granted to a centralized marketing authorization will also apply in Northern Ireland (although this may change if the
Windsor Agreement is implemented).
European Union and United Kingdom Pediatric Investigation Plan
In the EEA and UK, MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (a “PIP”),
agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (a “PDCO”) or MHRA as relevant. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The
PDCO/MHRA can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric
clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO/MHRA when this data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult
populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. If a marketing authorization is obtained and trial results are included in the product information, even when
negative, and the product is approved in all Member States, non-orphan products are eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension. In the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market
exclusivity may be available. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted.
As noted above, the upcoming legislative reforms in the EU, which are part of the new EU Pharmaceutical Strategy may potentially result in a reduction of the above pediatric rewards and/or
imposition of additional requirements for grant of rewards.
European Union and United Kingdom Data Protection Regime
The processing of personal data, including health data, in the EEA is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which became effective May 25, 2018. The GDPR applies to any
company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the European Union or EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data
subjects in the European Union or EEA. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for data controllers of personal data, including inter alia stringent requirements relating to lawful and legitimate basis and purposes for the processing of
personal data, the consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, requirements to conduct privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, appointment of a data
protection officers, conclusion of data processing agreements, mandatory data breach notification and “privacy by design” requirements, and creates direct obligations on service providers acting as data processors. The GDPR also imposes strict
rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the U.S. Until recently, one such data transfer mechanism was the EU-US Privacy Shield, but the Privacy Shield was
invalidated for international transfers of personal data in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). In July 2023, the U.S. and EU implemented the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”) replacing the invalidated Privacy
Shield. Companies can now use this new mechanism to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S. and potentially from Switzerland to the U.S., subject to national implementation in Switzerland. The UK Extension to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy
Framework (“Data Bridge”) entered into force in October 2023, allowing certifying entities to transfer personal data from the UK to the U.S. At the moment it is unclear whether the anticipated legal challenges against the DPF, which may be
similar to the challenge that led to the invalidation of the Privacy Shield, would be successful.
In July 2020, the CJEU upheld the validity of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) as a legal mechanism to transfer personal data out of the EEA to jurisdictions that the European Commission has
not found to provide an adequate level of protection and in July 2021, the European Commission adopted new SCCs. Even so, companies relying on SCCs must, subject to additional guidance from regulators in the EEA and the U.K., regularly evaluate
and implement supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under SCCs.
The use of the new SCCs may increase the legal risks and liabilities under EEA privacy, data protection, and information security laws. Given that, at present, there are few, if any, viable
alternatives to the SCCs and the DPF, any transfers by us or our vendors of personal information from the EEA to the US may not comply with the EEA data protection laws, which may increase our exposure to the GDPR’s heightened sanctions for
violations of its cross-border data transfer restrictions and may prohibit our transfer of EEA personal information outside of the EEA (including clinical trial data), and may adversely impact our operations, product development and ability to
provide our products.
The competent authorities and courts in a number of EU Member States continue to closely scrutinize and question the GDPR compliance of processing of personal data by US-based entities or
entities with links to US-based entities, independently of whether personal data is actually transferred outside the EEA. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States
may result in fines up to €20 million or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to claim material and non-material damages resulting from
infringement of the GDPR. In June 2021, the CJEU issued a ruling that expanded the scope of the “one stop shop” under the GDPR. According to the ruling, the competent authorities of EU Member States may, under certain strict conditions, bring
claims to their national courts against a company for breaches of the GDPR, including unlawful cross-border processing activities, even such company does not have an establishment in the EU member state in question and the competent authority
bringing the claim is not the lead supervisory authority.
In addition, further to the U.K.’s exit from the European Union on January 31, 2020, the GDPR ceased to apply in the U.K. at the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020. However, as of
January 1, 2021, the U.K.’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 incorporated the GDPR (as it existed on December 31, 2020 but subject to certain UK specific amendments) into UK law, referred to as the UK GDPR. The UK GDPR and the UK Data
Protection Act 2018 set out the U.K.’s data protection regime, which is independent from but aligned to the European Union’s data protection regime. Non-compliance with the UK GDPR may result in monetary penalties of up to £17.5 million or 4% of
worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. With respect to transfers of personal data from the EEA to the U.K., on June 28, 2021 the European Commission issued an adequacy decision in respect of the UK’s data protection framework, enabling data
transfers from EU member states to the UK to continue without requiring organizations to put in place contractual or other measures in order to lawfully transfer personal data between the territories. While it is intended to last for at least
four years, the adequacy decision will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European Commission renews or extends it and may be modified or unilaterally revoked in the interim at any point, and if this occurs it could lead to additional
costs and increase our overall risk exposure. On March 8, 2024, the British Government published the Data Protection and Digital Information (No.2) Bill intended to create a more business friendly regime in the UK through changes to the existing
legislation. At this stage it is unclear whether and when this legislation will be adopted and whether such legislative reforms could potentially lead the European Commission not to extend or to revoke the UK adequacy decision.
Rest of the World Regulation
For other countries outside of the European Union and the U.S., such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product
licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their
origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.
If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure
of products, operating restrictions and
Additional Laws and Regulations Governing International Operations
If we further expand our operations outside of the U.S., we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate
for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the U.S. to comply with
certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of
internal accounting controls for international operations.
Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the
pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other
work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions. Further, other anti-corruption laws, such as the UK Bribery Act, are broader and can regulate payments to non-governmental entities.
Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the U.S., or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national
security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the U.S., it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may
preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the U.S., which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.
The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC
also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.
Coverage and Reimbursement
Successful commercialization of new drug products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for those drug products will be available from government programs, such as Medicare and
Medicaid, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drug products they will pay for and establish
reimbursement levels. The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford a drug product. Sales of drug products depend substantially, both domestically and abroad,
on the extent to which the costs of drugs products are covered or paid for by the federal or national government as well as commercial managed care organizations, pharmacy benefit managers, and similar healthcare management organizations.
A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment, and efforts of third-party payors to contain or reduce health care costs may adversely affect our ability to
establish or maintain appropriate prices for our products or any drugs that we may develop and commercialize. Such efforts include the use of accumulator adjustment programs that do not consider amounts paid by pharmaceutical copay assistance
programs as counting towards a patient’s deductible or other out-of-pocket costs. Under new rules promulgated by CMS that would have taken effect January 1, 2023, such accumulator adjustment (or similar) programs could affect the amount of
rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or affect our ability to offer various forms of patient support, including copay assistance. However, this regulation was struck down in Federal court in May 2022. Additionally,
in May 2023, CMS issued a new proposed rulemaking that would repeal the changes implemented by the court-vacated December 2020 final rule regarding co-payment assistance programs. Additionally, there was litigation challenging CMS’ co-pay
accumulator policies for non-grandfathered health plans. On September 29, 2023, a federal district court vacated provisions of the 2021 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameter (“NBPP”) final rule that provided health plans with discretion whether
to include manufacturer assistance toward the annual cost-sharing limit. Further, on December 22, 2023, the district court clarified that the effect of the vacatur is to reinstate the 2020 NBPP final rule, which barred the use of accumulators for
brand drugs without generics. Both parties initially appealed, and subsequently withdrew their appeals. In its 2025 NBPP final rule, CMS did not address its co-pay accumulator policy and has not issued other guidance explaining its interpretation
of the court’s ruling, including whether the 2020 NBPP rule will be enforced. At the same time, however, certain states have passed laws prohibiting third-party payors from utilizing accumulator programs.
Government authorities and third-party payors also have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular drug products. In many countries, the prices
of drug products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of drug products under such systems are substantially lower than in the U.S. Other countries allow companies to fix their
own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. Accordingly, in markets outside the U.S., the acquisition costs and reimbursement for drug products may lower than within the U.S.
In the U.S., the decisions about reimbursement for new drug products under the Medicare program are made by CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS determines coverage standards for products reimbursed by
Medicare, and private payors often adopt coverage standards established by CMS for the commercial marketplace. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors and coverage and
reimbursement levels for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor.
Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Also,
third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug on their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or another alternative is available. Third-party payors are
increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs.
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (the “MMA”), established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare
beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized.
While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that
identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each
category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for drugs for
which we obtain marketing approval. Any negotiated prices for any of our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for
Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from
non-governmental payors.
For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs, a manufacturer must enter into agreements with the Secretary of HHS to participate in the
Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and the 340B drug discount program. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, manufacturers are obligated to pay rebates to the State Medicaid Programs on each unit of the manufacturer’s drugs that are reimbursed by
State Medicaid Programs—both with regard to Medicaid Fee for Service and Medicaid Managed Care. Additionally, under the 340B drug discount program, manufacturers extend discounts to “covered entities” eligible to participate in the 340B program,
including various hospital providers. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) and Medicaid rebate amounts reported and paid by the manufacturer under the Medicaid Drug Rebate
Program. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although under current law these newly eligible entities (with the exception of children’s hospitals) will not be eligible to receive
discounted 340B pricing on drugs that receive an orphan designation by the FDA. As 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, revisions to the statute and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program may
cause the required 340B discount to increase.
Many parameters of the 340B program are subject to uncertainty. Several drug manufacturers have commenced litigation, which remains ongoing, challenging the legality of contract pharmacy
arrangements, which may affect the way in which manufacturers are required to extend the 340B Drug Discount Program prices to covered entities, including through contract pharmacies. Manufacturers also challenged the implementation of the 340B
Administrative Dispute Resolution Process, which is in part intended to resolve claims by covered entities that they have been overcharged for covered outpatient drugs by manufacturers. In November 2022, the Health Resources and Services
Administration (“HRSA”) issued a proposed rule to amend its administrative dispute resolution process for certain disputes arising under the 340B drug pricing program. The public comment period closed on January 30, 2023. The nature of the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Process, once finalized, may impact on our revenue. Additionally, although HRSA historically has interpreted 340B discounts to apply only to “patients” who had their care initiated at a given 340B covered entity,
a November 2023 district court ruling struck down this understanding as too narrow. Although the ruling applies only to the parties to the litigation, it introduces uncertainty as to the scope of the 340B program and may serve as a precedent for
future litigation or legislation impacting the industry at large. In another ongoing case impacting the scope of the 340B program, in November 2023, various hospitals sued HRSA to challenge an agency policy requiring that “child sites” of a
hospital must be included on that hospital’s most recent Medicare cost report to qualify for discounts under the program. The outcome of this litigation could increase the speed at which new locations of 340B covered entities are able to access
340B discounts. Finally, it also is possible that Congress could consider other legislation that amends or reforms the 340B Drug Discount Program.
Moreover, there also is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of cell or genetic therapy products. Although a new rule finalized by CMS for the Medicaid Drug
Rebate Program increased flexibility regarding the manner in which manufacturers may offer value-based discounting arrangements, and following a regulatory delay, took effect on July 1, 2022.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. The plan for the research
was published in 2012 by the Department of HHS, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures are made to Congress. Although the
results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our drug candidates, if any such drug or the
condition that they are intended to treat are the subject of a trial. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s drug could adversely affect the sales of our drug candidate. If third-party
payors do not consider our drugs to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drugs after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell
our drugs on a profitable basis.
These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and
otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.
Outside of the U.S., the pricing of pharmaceutical products and medical devices is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union and UK, pricing and
reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the
cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for
products, but monitor and control product volumes or the amount of profit made on those profits, and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices
will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures.
Human Capital Management
As of March 31, 2024, we and our subsidiaries had approximately 908 full-time employees, including 845 in the U.S.
Our human capital objectives include sourcing, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and developing our existing and future employees. We believe we can achieve our human capital objectives by implementing the
following approaches:
|
• |
Hire high-caliber talent across all levels using both a dedicated in-house talent acquisition team and top-tier executive search firms
|
|
• |
Recruit diverse, multidisciplinary talent from a broad range of industries, including biopharmaceuticals, financial services, technology, and consulting
|
|
• |
Invest in early career diversity through a robust Rotational Analyst (RA) program, hiring recent college graduates from top private and public institutions
|
|
• |
Support Roivant/Roivant Social Ventures’ Diversity in Pharma summer internship program for current PharmD candidates
|
|
• |
Offer highly competitive short- and long-term incentives through both Roivant and Vant equity programs and meaningful performance-based cash bonuses
|
|
• |
Undertake rigorous benchmarking analyses in partnership with third parties to ensure competitive compensation practices and conduct annual pay equity analyses to detect, analyze, and remediate any
compensation disparities where appropriate
|
|
• |
Provide company-wide training and speaker programs on topics such as unconscious bias and professional development
|
|
• |
Partner with external organizations to support biopharma-related initiatives in the community
|
|
• |
Offer a professional development stipend to each employee for use towards individual growth and development
|
|
• |
Unlock unique career progression across Roivant and Vants through “Vant mobility” and offer unparalleled leadership opportunities for employees through the Vant model
|
|
• |
Cultivate diversity and inclusion among our employee base through Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), including Women@Roivant (Roivant’s women’s employee resource group), ROI-GBIV (Roivant’s LGBTQ+ employee
resource group), and BIPOC (Roivant’s black, indigenous and people of color employee resource group)
|
In addition to these specific recruitment and retention practices above, we believe the Vant model offers significant human capital advantages. Our nimble, entrepreneurial Vants operate similarly
to independent biotechnology companies where each management team, comprised of world-class drug developers and clinical operators, is solely focused on their respective Vant’s mission. Our and our Vants’ equity incentive plans are designed to
attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of share-based compensation awards to encourage focus and calculated risk-taking. As a public company, we expect to continue to hire additional
personnel and to implement procedures and processes to address public company regulatory requirements and customary practices.
Corporate and Other Information
We were registered as an exempted limited company in Bermuda in 2014, under the name Valor Biotechnology Ltd. In November 2014 we changed our name to Roivant Sciences Ltd. Our principal executive
offices are located at 7th Floor, 50 Broadway, London SW1H 0DB, United Kingdom. Our telephone number is +44 207 400 3347.
Our web page address is https://roivant.com. Our investor relations website is located at https://investor.roivant.com/. We will 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. Additionally, the SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information. The address of the SEC’s website is www.sec.gov. References to our website address do not constitute
incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC.
Our business involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, together with the other information contained in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K, including “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as the risks, uncertainties and other information set forth in
the reports and other materials filed or furnished by us and our majority-controlled subsidiary, Immunovant, Inc. (“Immunovant”), with the SEC. We cannot assure you that any of the events discussed in the risk factors below will not occur. These
risks could have a material and adverse impact on our business, prospects, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. If any such events were to happen, the trading shares of our common shares could decline, and you could lose all
or part of your investment. Unless the context otherwise requires, references in this section to “we,” “us,” “our,” “Roivant” and the “Company” refer to Roivant Sciences Ltd. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, as the context requires.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Strategy
Our limited operating history and the inherent uncertainties and risks involved in biopharmaceutical product development and commercialization may make it
difficult for us to execute on our business model and for you to assess our future viability. We have generated limited revenue from our operations since inception, and there is no guarantee that we will generate significant revenues in the
future.
We are a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical and healthcare technology company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We were
formed in April 2014, and our operations to date have primarily been limited to acquiring or in-licensing product candidates, pursuing the clinical development and commercialization of those product candidates, efforts to discover new product
candidates, financing activities and the creation or acquisition of healthcare technology companies and products, as well as the oversight and management of our subsidiaries developing and commercializing medicines, which we refer to as “Vants.”
Following the approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) in May 2022 of VTAMA® (tapinarof) cream, 1%, for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis, we commenced our transition from a
clinical-stage company to one with commercial-stage assets. In February 2024, we submitted a Supplemental New Drug Application (“sNDA”) to the FDA for VTAMA for the topical treatment of atopic dermatitis (“AD”) in adults and children 2 years of
age and older. VTAMA is not currently approved in any other jurisdictions and we do not have any other product candidates that have received regulatory approvals in the U.S. or in any other jurisdiction.
Our ability to execute on our business model and generate revenues depends on a number of factors, including our ability to:
|
• |
successfully continue to commercialize VTAMA;
|
|
• |
successfully complete ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials and obtain regulatory approvals for our current and future product candidates;
|
|
• |
identify new acquisition or in-licensing opportunities;
|
|
• |
launch commercial sales of future product candidates, whether alone or in collaboration with others, including establishing sales, marketing and distribution systems;
|
|
• |
successfully grow our healthcare technology Vants and market the products and services offered by those Vants;
|
|
• |
attract and retain experienced management and advisory teams;
|
|
• |
add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support clinical, preclinical manufacturing and commercialization efforts and operations;
|
|
• |
initiate and maintain relationships with third-party suppliers and manufacturers and have commercial quantities of products and product candidates manufactured at acceptable cost and quality levels and in
compliance with FDA and other regulatory requirements;
|
|
• |
set acceptable prices for products and product candidates and obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors;
|
|
• |
achieve market acceptance of products and product candidates in the medical community and with third-party payors and consumers;
|
|
• |
raise additional funds when needed and on terms acceptable to us;
|
|
• |
successfully identify new product candidates through our discovery efforts and advance those product candidates into preclinical studies and clinical trials; and
|
|
• |
maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio.
|
If we cannot successfully execute on these objectives, our business may not succeed and the price of our common shares may be negatively impacted.
Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with biopharmaceutical product development and commercialization, we are unable to predict when and if our products
and product candidates will achieve various milestones in their clinical development, including marketing approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities, the timing or amount of increased expenses related to these activities or when we
will be able to generate significant revenues or maintain profitability. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities to perform studies or clinical trials in addition to those that
are currently anticipated or to otherwise provide data beyond that which we currently believe is necessary to support an application for marketing approval or to continue clinical development in the U.S. or another jurisdiction, or if there are
any delays in any of our or our future collaborators’ clinical trials or the development of our product candidates that we may identify. We anticipate incurring significant costs associated with the continued commercialization of VTAMA and that
of any future product candidates, if approved, and advancing our ongoing clinical trials and discovery efforts until our revenues from product sales of VTAMA and any other approved products exceeds such expenses, which may never occur.
We may never achieve sustained profitability.
Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that a product
candidate will fail to gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. While we have received regulatory approval for one product candidate, VTAMA for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis in the U.S., and submitted an sNDA to the
FDA for VTAMA for the topical treatment of AD in adults and children 2 years of age and older, we have not yet received marketing approval for any of our other product candidates anywhere in the world and we have not generated significant product
revenues from the commercial sale of our biopharmaceutical products. We cannot estimate with precision the extent of our future losses. Since inception, we have incurred significant losses and negative cash flows from operations. As of March 31,
2024, we had cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash of approximately $6.6 billion and retained earnings of approximately $576.2 million.
We may never be able to develop or successfully commercialize new marketable drugs or achieve sustained profitability. To achieve sustained profitability, we must succeed in
developing and commercializing products that generate significant revenue. Revenue from the sale of any products or product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the
territories for which we have or may gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to obtain reimbursement at any price, the strength and term of patent exclusivity for the product, the competitive landscape of the
product market, and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. For example, even though VTAMA for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis has received regulatory approval in the U.S. and we have submitted an sNDA to the FDA
for VTAMA for the topical treatment of AD, we can provide no assurances that we will be able to achieve profitability based on sales in that indication alone or that we will be able to receive approval of and commercialize VTAMA for other
indications or in other jurisdictions. Even if we achieve profitability from product revenues in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to achieve sustained profitability would depress the value
of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, expand our pipeline, market our products and, if approved, product candidates, and continue our operations.
We may never generate meaningful product revenue from the commercial sales of our products or, if approved, product candidates or achieve or maintain profitability. It is
possible that we will incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our ability to generate meaningful product revenue and achieve sustained profitability is dependent on our ability to complete the development of our products
and product candidates, obtain necessary regulatory approvals for our current and future product candidates and manufacture and successfully market our current and future products alone or in collaboration with others.
We have relatively limited experience as a commercial-stage company and the marketing and sale of VTAMA or any future products may be unsuccessful or less successful than anticipated.
In May 2022, the FDA approved VTAMA for the treatment of adults with plaque psoriasis in the U.S. While we have launched VTAMA in the U.S., we have relatively limited
experience as a commercial-stage company and therefore face significant risks and uncertainties relating to the commercialization of VTAMA and any future products that receive marketing approval in the U.S. or another jurisdiction, including:
|
• |
our ability to recruit and retain effective sales, marketing and customer service personnel;
|
|
• |
our ability to obtain and retain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe VTAMA and any future products;
|
|
• |
the inability to manufacture and to price VTAMA and any future products at a price point sufficient to ensure an adequate and attractive level of profitability;
|
|
• |
the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for VTAMA and any future products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other
organizations;
|
|
• |
the risks associated with potential co-promotion or partnership agreements, including the failure to realize the expected benefits of such arrangements;
|
|
• |
the costs and other risks associated with expansion of a commercial product into multiple indications, including increased sales and marketing costs; and
|
|
• |
other unforeseen costs, expenses and risks associated with the commercialization of biopharmaceutical products, including compliance costs.
|
In February 2024, we submitted an sNDA to the FDA for VTAMA for the topical treatment of AD for adults and children 2 years of age and older. To the extent that we receive FDA approval for VTAMA in that indication, or receive regulatory approval for VTAMA or any of our future products or product candidates in any other jurisdictions, we would expect to
incur additional increased cash costs associated with those commercial activities.
Our relatively limited experience as a commercial-stage company means that there is limited information about our ability to overcome many of the risks and uncertainties
encountered by companies commercializing products in the biopharmaceutical industry. Further, given our relatively limited experience of commercializing products, we do not have a track record of successfully executing on the commercialization of
an approved product. As we continue to develop and seek regulatory approval of additional products and product candidates, as well as additional indications for VTAMA, and to pursue regulatory approvals for VTAMA and other products and product
candidates outside the U.S., it could be difficult for us to obtain and devote the resources necessary to successfully pursue our commercialization efforts. If we are unable to manage the risks and uncertainties associated with the
commercialization of VTAMA and any future products or product candidates that receive marketing approval, we may be unable to generate significant revenues from the sales of these products and product candidates or to achieve profitability, which
will materially affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
Our inability to successfully commercialize VTAMA or the failure of any of our product candidates in ongoing or future clinical trials or preclinical studies, in addition to
having a direct adverse impact on our business and prospects, could also have a lasting negative impact on our reputation, which could, in turn, impact our ability to successfully enter into future licensing arrangements or other transactions
with potential counterparties, raise future capital or attract key personnel to join us. Our business and prospects would be materially harmed by any such failures and our results of operations and financial condition would likely suffer
materially as a result.
Our business is dependent to a significant extent on the successful commercialization of VTAMA and the development, regulatory approval and
commercialization of our current and future products and product candidates.
We currently have one product approved by the FDA: VTAMA, which was approved for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults in the U.S. in May 2022. In
February 2024, we submitted an sNDA to the FDA for VTAMA for the topical treatment of AD for adults and children 2 years of age and older. The success of our business, including our ability to generate
any substantial revenues in the future, will depend to a significant extent on the successful commercialization of VTAMA and the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our other current and future products and
product candidates. The commercial success of VTAMA and the clinical and commercial success of our other current and future products and product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following:
|
• |
our ability to successfully implement and execute on a marketing strategy for VTAMA and to commercialize any of our current or future products in the U.S. and internationally, whether alone or in
collaboration with others;
|
|
• |
acceptance by physicians, payers and patients of the benefits, safety and efficacy of VTAMA or any of our current or future products, including relative to alternative and competing treatments;
|
|
• |
timely completion of our nonclinical studies and clinical trials, which may be significantly slower or cost more than we currently anticipate and will depend substantially upon the performance of
third-party contractors;
|
|
• |
whether we are required by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities to conduct additional clinical trials or other studies beyond those planned to support the approval and commercialization of our current
or future products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
acceptance of our proposed indications and primary and secondary endpoint assessments relating to the proposed indications of our current or future products or product candidates by the FDA and foreign
regulatory authorities;
|
|
• |
the prevalence, duration and severity of potential side effects or other safety issues experienced with VTAMA or our current or future products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
the timely receipt of necessary marketing approvals from the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities for our current or future products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
achieving, maintaining and, where applicable, ensuring that our third-party contractors achieve and maintain compliance with our contractual obligations and with all regulatory requirements applicable to
VTAMA or any of our current or future products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
the willingness of physicians and patients to utilize or adopt VTAMA and any of our current or future products or product candidates, if approved;
|
|
• |
the ability of third parties upon which we rely to manufacture clinical trial and commercial supplies of VTAMA or any of our current or future products or product candidates to remain in good standing with
relevant regulatory authorities and to develop, validate and maintain commercially viable manufacturing processes that are compliant with Current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”);
|
|
• |
the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from private third-party payers and governmental healthcare programs for VTAMA and any of our current or future products or product candidates, such
as Medicare and Medicaid;
|
|
• |
patient demand for VTAMA and any of our current or future products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
our ability to establish and enforce intellectual property rights in and to any of our current or future products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
our ability to avoid third-party patent interference, intellectual property challenges or intellectual property infringement claims; and
|
|
• |
the ability to raise any additional required capital on acceptable terms, or at all.
|
Further, competitors who are developing products in the dermatology field or that target the same indications as us with products that have a similar mechanism of action may
experience problems with their products that could indicate or result in class-wide problems or additional requirements that would potentially harm our business. Due to these risks and uncertainties, we cannot provide assurances that we will be
able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of VTAMA or any of our current or future products or product candidates to achieve or maintain profitability.
We may not be successful in our efforts to acquire or in-license new product candidates, and newly acquired or in-licensed product candidates may not
perform as expected in clinical trials or be successful in eventually achieving marketing approvals.
The success of our business depends in large part on our ability to successfully identify new product candidates, generally through acquisitions or in-licensing transactions.
Our acquisition and in-licensing efforts focus on identifying assets in development by third parties across a diverse range of therapeutic areas that, in our view, are underserved or undervalued. Once identified, we typically seek to in-license
these assets from partners for low or no upfront payment, with future royalty or milestone payments to the licensor tied to the successful achievement of pre-specified development or commercialization benchmarks. From time to time, we also use
joint venture structures for our Vants, where the licensor receives a minority equity ownership stake in the Vant formed around an in-licensed asset. Certain potential licensors may be unwilling or unable to pursue these types of transaction
structures, which could have the effect of limiting the number of available in-licensing candidates or make us a less attractive partner for a given asset, relative to other potential acquirors.
Following the acquisition or in-licensing, our strategy often entails designing low-cost studies for a product candidate that result in a quick “go/no-go” decision on whether
or how to proceed with future development for a given asset. We may decide to proceed with the development of a product candidate on the basis of that study and later determine that the more costly and time intensive trials required for
regulatory approvals do not support the initial value the product candidate was thought to hold or demonstrate the product profile required for a marketing approval. Even if a product candidate does prove to be valuable or successful in receiving
marketing approval, its value may be less than we anticipated at the time of the investment, including after payments of applicable royalty and milestone payments to the licensor, and we may not be able to recover our investment into the
development of the product candidate.
We also face significant competition for attractive investment opportunities. A number of companies compete with us for such opportunities, some of which may possess greater
financial or technical resources. If we are unable to identify a sufficient number of potential product candidates for acquisition or in-licensing, or if the product candidates that we identify do not prove to be as valuable as anticipated, we
will not be able to successfully develop or receive marketing approval for those product candidates, and our business and results of operations may suffer materially as a result. Any such failure to in-license or acquire new product candidates
from third parties, or the failure of those product candidates to succeed in clinical trials and eventually receive marketing approval, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
We face risks associated with the allocation of capital and personnel across our businesses.
Because we have finite financial and management resources, we have to make challenging decisions regarding the allocation of capital and personnel across our businesses. We
face certain risks associated with these decisions and may fail to capitalize on viable commercial product candidates or profitable market opportunities. For example, we may decide not to pursue a particular in-licensing or acquisition
opportunity, or a potential target indication for a product candidate, that later proves to have greater commercial potential than our current and planned development programs and product candidates. Similarly, our management’s attention to one
product or product candidate may divert their attention from another opportunity that ultimately might have proven more successful. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and other future product candidates may not
yield any commercially viable future product candidates. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through
collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such future product candidate.
Additionally, we may pursue additional in-licenses or acquisitions of product candidates or programs, which entails additional risk to us. Identifying, selecting and
acquiring promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial, legal and human resources expertise. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual acquisition or in-license of a successful product candidate, potentially
resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. For example, if we are unable to identify programs that ultimately result in approved products, we may spend material amounts of our
capital and other resources evaluating, acquiring and developing products that ultimately do not provide a return on our investment, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
We face risks associated with the Vant structure.
Our products and product candidates are developed at our Vants, which operate similarly to independent biopharmaceutical companies with their own management teams and equity
incentive structures. While we believe that there are significant competitive advantages to this structure, as compared to traditional pharmaceutical companies or smaller biopharma companies, the Vant structure also poses certain risks for our
business.
Operating the Vants independently, rather than under a centralized, consolidated management team, may result in increased costs at Roivant and the Vants, as certain functions
or processes, including sales and marketing, clinical and nonclinical personnel, business development, finance, accounting, human resources and legal functions, are replicated at Roivant and at multiple Vants. There may also be certain start-up
costs, associated with the establishment of a new Vant or integration of a newly acquired business into a Vant, which are greater under the Vant model than they would be under a centralized model. The use of the Vant model may also entail
increased costs for us, including the time and expenses associated with hiring Vant CEOs and management teams, overseeing Vant equity incentive arrangements and managing compliance-related risks, including the internal controls, reporting systems
and procedures necessary for us to operate as a public company. We may also be exposed to increased “key employee” risks, in the event a Vant CEO were to depart, including the loss of other senior Vant personnel, potentially resulting in adverse
impacts to commercialization or development work at the Vant. These increased expenses, complexities and other challenges may make using and scaling the Vant model more challenging and costly than it would be for a traditional pharmaceutical
company to both operate and expand the number of product candidates under development, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. This decentralized model
could also make compliance with applicable laws and regulations more challenging to monitor and may expose us to increased costs that could, in turn, harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.
In addition, a single or limited number of the Vants may, now or in the future, comprise a large proportion of our value. Similarly, a large proportion of our consolidated
revenues may be derived from one or a small number of Vants. For example, our only approved product, VTAMA, was developed and is being commercialized by Dermavant, one of our Vants. Any adverse development at Dermavant or any other Vant,
including the loss of key members of management, the termination of a key license agreement or other loss of the intellectual property underlying a product or product candidate or the failure of a clinical trial for a product candidate under
development at the Vant, could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.
We do not wholly own many of our Vants. Our Vants have equity incentive plans, which can dilute our ownership interest in the Vant as those awards vest and are exercised, and
certain of our Vants have issued debt or equity securities senior to our ownership interests, which dilutes our economic interest in the Vants and can in certain cases, such as our publicly traded subsidiary Immunovant, limit our operational
control of the Vant. The vesting and exercise of incentive equity awards at the Vants, as well as future capital needs at the Vants – which may be financed through senior debt or equity securities or common equity – may further dilute or
subordinate our ownership and economic interests in the Vants or reduce our operational control of the Vants. In addition, recipients of Vant equity awards may have economic alignment with a Vant that incentivizes them to act in ways that
prioritize the success of a Vant over the success of the Company as a whole, which could adversely impact our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. For more information on our ownership of our Vants, see
“Business–Overview–Vant Ownership.”
We manage the Vants in part through our designees who serve on the Vant boards of directors. In their capacities as directors, those individuals may owe fiduciary duties to
the Vants and their shareholders under applicable law, which may at times require them to take actions that are not directly in our interest as a shareholder. To the extent any such actions have an adverse effect on the value of our ownership
interest in the Vant, it could further adversely impact our consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.
We face risks associated with potential future payments related to our products and product candidates.
Our asset in-licensing transactions typically involve zero or low upfront payments combined with milestone and royalty payments. These arrangements generally involve a
payment or payments upon the achievement of certain development or regulatory milestones, including regulatory approval, and then royalty payments upon the achievement of specified levels of sales, which can extend for up to the life of a
product. Some of these payments may become due before a product is generating sufficient funds to enable us to meet our obligations. If this were to occur, we would default on our payment obligations and could face penalties, delays in
commercialization or development activities, the termination of a license agreement or reputational damage. Even for a product that is commercialized and generating revenue, payments could become due that are so large that the investment is not
profitable or is less profitable than anticipated. For example, this could occur if at the time of the initial investment, we overestimated the value of the product and agreed to a payment schedule using these inflated estimates. If we are unable
to make milestone and royalty payments related to our product candidates when due, our business and prospects could suffer and our ability to in-license future product candidates could be impaired.
Our business strategy and potential for future growth relies on a number of assumptions, some or all of which may not be realized.
Our business strategy and plans for future growth rely on a number of assumptions, including, in the case of our products and product candidates, assumptions related to
adoption of a particular therapy, incidence and prevalence of an indication, use of a product or product candidate versus competitor therapies and size of the addressable patient populations. Some or all of these assumptions may be incorrect due
to errors or mistaken assumptions in our analysis or the inherent uncertainties in the drug development process, among other reasons. We cannot accurately predict whether our products or product candidates will achieve significant market
acceptance in line with these assumptions or whether there will be a market for our products or product candidates that reaches the anticipated size. If any of these assumptions are incorrect or overstated, our results and future prospects will
be materially and adversely affected.
We may engage in strategic transactions that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management.
From time to time, we may consider strategic transactions, including acquisitions or divestitures of companies, asset purchases or sales and out-licensing or in-licensing of
intellectual property, products or technologies. Additional potential transactions that we may consider in the future include a variety of business arrangements, including spinoffs, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, collaborations,
restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. For example, in December 2023, we completed a transaction to sell Telavant, which was owned by us and Pfizer, to Roche for aggregate upfront consideration of $7.1 billion and a
near-term, one-time milestone payment of $150 million (the “Roche Transaction”). Any future transactions could increase our near and long-term expenditures, result in potentially dilutive issuances of our or our Vants’ equity securities,
including our common shares, or the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, amortization expenses or acquired in-process research and development expenses, and could expose us to the risk of litigation, any of which could affect our financial
condition, liquidity and results of operations. Future acquisitions, which may or may not include using all or a portion of the cash proceeds from the Roche Transaction as consideration, may also require us to obtain additional financing, which
may not be available on favorable terms or at all. These transactions may never be successful and may require significant time and attention of our management, as well as significant costs, whether or not successfully consummated. In addition,
the integration or separation of any business that we may acquire in the future may disrupt our existing business and may be a complex, risky and costly endeavor for which we may never realize the full benefits of the transaction. For any
alliances or joint ventures that we enter into in the biopharmaceutical industry, we may encounter numerous difficulties in discovering, developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products or product candidates related to such businesses,
which may delay or prevent us from realizing the expected benefits or enhancing our business. Divestiture transactions such as the Roche Transaction may adversely impact the price of our common shares, to the extent investors believe the value of
the consideration received in the transaction is not equivalent to the value of the asset or program divested. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that transactions of the nature described above will be undertaken or successfully completed,
and that any transaction we do complete will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.
We face risks associated with the use of our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, including any return of capital to shareholders.
As of March 31, 2024, we had cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash of approximately $6.6 billion, which includes the cash proceeds from the Roche Transaction. Our
management team has broad discretion in respect of use of our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, including the proceeds from the Roche Transaction. We may use all or a portion of such proceeds for one or more strategic transactions,
including acquisitions of companies, asset purchases or sales or in-licensing of intellectual property, products or product candidates or technologies, as described above. We may not be able to find a suitable strategic transaction that we deem
sufficiently attractive to pursue, and may not be able to complete a strategic transaction in the future. Our ability to complete a strategic transaction may be negatively impacted by general market conditions, volatility in the capital markets
and the other risks described herein.
We may also decide to return capital to shareholders through one or a combination of public or private share repurchases, or the issuance of cash dividends on our common
shares. As previously disclosed, our board of directors has authorized a common share repurchase program, allowing for repurchases of common shares in an aggregate amount of up to $1.5 billion (excluding fees and expenses) (the “2024 Repurchase
Program”). A portion of the 2024 Repurchase Program, approximately $648.4 million, was used to repurchase all of the common shares held by Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. in April 2024.
The timing and total amount of any additional common shares repurchased under the 2024 Repurchase Program or any future repurchase authorization from our board of directors
will depend on several factors, including the market price of our common shares, general business, macroeconomic and market conditions and other investment opportunities, as well as the discretion of our board of directors, or its delegees, that
any such activity would be in the best interests of our shareholders and in compliance with all applicable laws and our contractual obligations. In the event that we decide to pursue further repurchases of common shares, we may be limited in our
ability to repurchase our common shares by various governmental laws, rules and regulations which prevent us from purchasing our common shares during periods when we are in possession of material non-public information. We may also use our
discretion to repurchase common shares from certain shareholders without offering the opportunity to all shareholders to have their common shares repurchased at that time and price. In addition, our ability to pay dividends may be limited by
covenants of any existing and future outstanding indebtedness we or our subsidiaries incur.
The amount of cash available to return to shareholders, if any, can vary significantly from period to period for a number of reasons, including, among other things, our
results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, contractual restrictions, applicable law and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. The returns of capital to shareholders may change in form, amount, value and
frequency from time to time, and we cannot guarantee that any such future returns of capital will take place. The trading price of our common shares may decline, possibly materially, if we are unable to meet investor expectations with respect to
the timing and total amount of future capital returns to shareholders. There is no guarantee that our significant balance of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash, including the proceeds from the Roche Transaction, will be used to increase
our operating results, return capital to shareholders or enhance the value of our common shares.
We are exposed to risks related to our significant holdings of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash.
Our significant holdings of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash can be negatively affected by changes in liquidity, financial results, market and economic conditions,
political risk, currency risk, credit risk, sovereign risk, interest rate fluctuations or other factors. As a result, the value and liquidity of our cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash may fluctuate substantially. Additionally, we may from
time to time have balances in bank accounts that are in excess of insured deposit limits, and could be subject to risks of bank failures. Therefore, although we have not realized any significant losses on our cash, cash equivalents and restricted
cash, future fluctuations in their value could result in significant losses and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.
We may require additional capital to fund our operations, and if we fail to obtain necessary financing, we may not be able to successfully market our
products, acquire or in-license new products or product candidates, complete the development and commercialization of our products and product candidates and continue to pursue our drug discovery efforts.
Acquiring or in-licensing, discovering, developing, commercializing and marketing biopharmaceutical products and product candidates is expensive and time consuming, and, in
the future, we may require additional capital to pursue these activities. We are also responsible for payments to third parties under our license and acquisition agreements, including milestone and royalty payments. Because of the inherent
uncertainties in these activities – including the outcome of preclinical and clinical trials and the regulatory approval process – we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development, regulatory
approval process and commercialization of our current and future products and product candidates.
Our future funding requirements, both near- and long-term, will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:
|
• |
the time and costs necessary to complete our ongoing, planned and future clinical trials for our current and future products and product candidates;
|
|
• |
the time and costs necessary to pursue regulatory approvals for our current and future product candidates;
|
|
• |
the costs associated with future acquisitions or in-licensing transactions;
|
|
• |
the approval, progress, timing, scope and costs of our preclinical studies, clinical trials and other related activities, including the ability to enroll patients in a timely manner for our ongoing and
planned clinical trials and potential future clinical trials for our current and future product candidates;
|
|
• |
the costs associated with our ongoing, planned and future preclinical studies and other drug discovery activities;
|
|
• |
our ability to successfully identify and negotiate acceptable terms for third-party supply and contract manufacturing agreements with contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”);
|
|
• |
the costs of obtaining adequate clinical and commercial supplies of raw materials and drug products for our current and future products and product candidates;
|
|
• |
our ability to successfully commercialize VTAMA, including:
|
|
o |
the manufacturing, selling and marketing costs associated with VTAMA, including the cost and timing of expanding sales and marketing capabilities or entering into strategic collaborations with third
parties; and
|
|
o |
the amount and timing of sales and other revenues from VTAMA, including the sales price and the availability of adequate third-party reimbursement;
|
|
• |
the cost of filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing our patent claims and other intellectual property rights, including current and future patent infringement actions brought against third parties, for
our current and future product candidates;
|
|
• |
the cost of pursuing and defending potential intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement actions with third parties, relating to our current or future products or product candidates; and
|
|
• |
our ability to hire, attract and retain qualified personnel.
|
In the event that we require additional financing, we cannot be certain that additional capital will be available to us or the Vants on acceptable terms, or at all. If we or
the Vants are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue our in-licensing and acquisition, discovery, development, commercialization and
marketing activities. In addition, attempting to secure additional capital may divert the time and attention of our management from day-to-day activities and harm our business. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with our
business, we are unable to estimate the amounts of increased capital outlays, operating expenditures and capital requirements associated with our current and future product development programs and discovery efforts. Moreover, risks associated
with broader market conditions, including high levels of inflation, heightened interest rates and increasing market and banking sector instability and volatility, all of which have been observed in recent periods, may further adversely impact our
ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms or at all.
In the future, we may require significant additional capital to continue our operations, pursue business opportunities or strategic transactions, or respond to challenges,
competition or unforeseen circumstances. Until such time, if ever, that we can generate substantial revenues, we may finance future cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, strategic alliances and license and
development agreements or other collaborations at Roivant and the Vants. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities at Roivant or the Vants, our existing shareholders’ ownership, or our ownership in the Vants, may
experience substantial dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that could harm the rights of our shareholders. Additionally, any agreements for future debt or preferred equity financings, if
available, may involve covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic
alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our products and product candidates, future revenue streams, research programs or technologies or grant licenses on
terms that may not be favorable to us. The foregoing restrictions associated with potential sources of additional capital may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital or to pursue business opportunities, including potential
acquisitions.
If adequate funds are not available to us, we may be required to forego potential in-licensing or acquisition opportunities, delay, limit or terminate one or more development
or discovery programs, scale back marketing efforts for our current and future products or be unable to expand operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities, which could materially affect our business, prospects, financial
condition and results of operations.
We may not be able to complete certain strategic transactions if a proposed transaction may be subject to review or approval by regulatory authorities
pursuant to certain U.S. laws or regulations.
Certain potential acquisitions, divestitures or other business combinations that we may pursue could be subject to review or approval by regulatory authorities pursuant to
certain U.S. laws or regulations. In the U.S., certain mergers that potentially could affect competition may require certain filings and review by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. In recent years, there has been
enhanced regulatory scrutiny over such transactions. In the event that we were to make an investment, acquisition or disposition that was determined to be subject to regulatory review, and such regulatory approval or clearance is not obtained, or
the review process is extended beyond the period of time that would permit such strategic transactions to be consummated, we may not be able to consummate such strategic transactions or counterparties may be deterred from pursuing potential
strategic transactions with us. This may impair our ability to raise capital when needed and to pursue accretive transactions, which is an important part of our business model, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
prospects.
Our drug discovery efforts may not be successful in identifying new product candidates.
Our drug discovery efforts are centered on our discovery Vants, including Psivant, Covant and VantAI, which employ a variety of approaches to the drug discovery process,
including quantitative proteomics, induced proximity and covalency. As a company, we have relatively limited experience in drug discovery generally and with certain of the computational tools that are employed in those efforts. Our future success
depends, in part, on our ability to successfully use these approaches and technologies to identify promising new product candidates and eventually advance those product candidates through preclinical studies and clinical trials. We have not yet
succeeded and may not succeed in advancing any product candidates developed through these discovery efforts into clinical trials, demonstrating the efficacy and safety of such product candidates or obtaining regulatory approval thereafter. As a
result, it is difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development from our discovery Vants and we cannot predict whether the application of these approaches will result in the development and regulatory approval of any
products. In addition, many of the active drug discovery efforts at our discovery Vants are being conducted pursuant to collaboration agreements with third parties, in which the third parties are either owed milestone and royalty payments tied to
the successful development and commercialization of successfully identified drug candidates, or have been granted exclusive or shared development and commercialization rights with respect to successfully identified drug candidates in exchange for
upfront payments, shared expenses, and certain milestone and royalty payments owed to the discovery Vants. Any problems that we or our third party partners experience in the future related to this platform or any of our related development
programs may cause significant delays or unanticipated costs or may prevent the development of a commercially viable product. Any of these factors may prevent us from completing our preclinical studies or any clinical trials that we may initiate
or commercializing any internally discovered product candidates we may develop on a timely or profitable basis, if at all. Even if successful, as a result of our collaboration agreements, our rights to commercialize any successfully discovered
product candidates may be limited.
Risks Related to the Development of Our Products and Product Candidates
Clinical trials and preclinical studies are very expensive, time-consuming, difficult to design and implement and involve uncertain outcomes. We may
encounter substantial delays in clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete clinical trials or preclinical studies on the expected timelines, if at all.
Our biopharmaceutical product candidates that are in clinical development or preclinical studies will require, as applicable, extensive clinical testing before a New Drug
Application (“NDA”) or other similar application for regulatory approval, such as a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) or an application for marketing authorization in the European Union (“EU”) or United Kingdom (“UK”), may be submitted, or
extensive preclinical testing before an Investigational New Drug application (“IND”) or an application for authorization to conduct a clinical trial in the EU or UK may be submitted, a Clinical Trial Application (“CTA”). We cannot provide any
assurance that we will submit an IND, NDA, CTA or other similar application for regulatory approval for our product candidates within projected timeframes or whether any such application will be accepted for review or ultimately approved by the
relevant regulatory authorities.
Clinical trials and preclinical studies are very expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory
requirements. For instance, the FDA, an institutional review board (“IRB”), an Ethics Committee (“EC”) or other regulatory authorities may not agree with the proposed analysis plans or trial design for the clinical trials of our product
candidates, and during any such review, may identify unexpected efficacy or safety concerns, which may delay the effective date of an IND or approval of an NDA, BLA or similar application. The FDA, the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”), the
European Commission, the Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) or other relevant regulatory authority may also find that the benefits of any product candidate in any applicable indication do not outweigh its risks in a
manner sufficient to grant regulatory approval.
The FDA or other regulatory authorities may also not agree with the scope of our proposed investigational plan. For example, they may find that our proposed development
program is not sufficient to support a marketing authorization application, or that the proposed indication is considered to be too broad. Moreover, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may also refuse or impose certain restrictions on our
reliance on data supporting our clinical trial application or marketing authorization application should such data originate from studies outside of the relevant jurisdiction or be affected by regulatory non-compliance, including issues of data
integrity. In the EU, data derived from clinical trials that were conducted outside the EU cannot be used to support a CTA unless the clinical trial was registered on a relevant database. In each case, this could delay the clinical development
and authorization timeline for a given product candidate.
Failures can occur at any stage of development, including clinical trials or preclinical studies, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical
trials or preclinical studies. In addition, results from clinical trials or preclinical studies may require further evaluation, delaying the next stage of development or submission of an IND or an NDA or similar application in the U.S. or another
jurisdiction. Further, product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy results despite having successfully progressed through preclinical and earlier stage clinical trials. Such product
candidates may exhibit safety signals in later stage clinical trials that they did not exhibit in earlier studies or trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in, or the discontinuation of,
advanced clinical trials with a product candidate due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety findings, despite having promising results in earlier trials or studies. Likewise, the results of early clinical trials or preclinical studies of our
product candidates may not be predictive of the results of current or future development programs. There can also be no assurance that the results of studies conducted by collaborators or other third parties with similar product candidates in
similar indications will be viewed favorably or indicative of our own future trial results.
The commencement and completion of preclinical studies and clinical trials may be delayed by several factors, including:
|
• |
failure to obtain regulatory authorization to commence a clinical trial or reaching consensus with regulatory authorities regarding the design or implementation of our studies;
|
|
• |
other regulatory issues, including the receipt of any inspectional observations on FDA’s Form-483, Warning or Untitled Letters, clinical holds, or complete response letters or similar
communications/objections by other regulatory authorities;
|
|
• |
unforeseen safety issues, or subjects experiencing severe or unexpected adverse events;
|
|
• |
occurrence of serious adverse events in trials of the same class of agents conducted by other sponsors;
|
|
• |
lack of effectiveness during clinical trials;
|
|
• |
resolving any dosing issues, including those raised by the FDA or other regulatory authorities;
|
|
• |
inability to reach agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs
and trial sites;
|
|
• |
slower than expected rates of patient recruitment or failure to recruit suitable patients to participate in a trial;
|
|
• |
failure to add a sufficient number of clinical trial sites;
|
|
• |
unanticipated impact from changes in or modifications to protocols or clinical trial design, including those that may be required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities;
|
|
• |
inability or unwillingness of clinical investigators or study participants to follow our clinical and other applicable protocols or applicable regulatory requirements;
|
|
• |
an IRB or EC refusing to approve, suspending, or terminating the trial at an investigational site, precluding enrollment of additional subjects, or withdrawing their approval of the trial;
|
|
• |
premature discontinuation of study participants from clinical trials or missing data;
|
|
• |
failure to manufacture or release sufficient quantities of our product candidates or failure to obtain sufficient quantities of active comparator medications for our clinical trials, if applicable, that in
each case meet our quality standards, for use in clinical trials;
|
|
• |
inability to monitor patients adequately during or after treatment; or
|
|
• |
inappropriate unblinding of trial results.
|
We, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may suspend our clinical trials in an entire country at any time, or an IRB/EC may suspend our clinical trial sites within any
country, if it appears that we or our collaborators, or the principal investigator, are failing to conduct a trial in accordance with the protocol, applicable regulatory requirements, including Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) regulations, that we
are exposing participants to unacceptable health risks, or if the FDA or other regulatory authority finds deficiencies in our IND or equivalent applications for other countries or in the manner in which clinical trials are conducted. In addition,
disruptions caused by any ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting or completing our planned and ongoing clinical
trials. Therefore, we cannot predict with any certainty the schedule for commencement and completion of future clinical trials.
If we experience delays in the commencement or completion of our clinical trials, or if we terminate a clinical trial prior to completion, the commercial prospects of our
product candidates could be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from any of our product candidates, if approved, may be delayed. In addition, any delays in our clinical trials could increase our costs, cause a decline in our share
price, slow down the approval process, and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, many of the factors that
cause or lead to a termination or suspension of, or delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. We may make formulation or manufacturing
changes to our product candidates, in which case we may need to conduct additional preclinical or clinical studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Any delays to our clinical trials that occur as a result could
shorten any period during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and our competitors may be able to bring product candidates to market before we do, and the commercial viability of our product candidates
could be significantly reduced.
Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with
such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or other regulatory authorities. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a
principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected the integrity of the study. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site
and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing and authorization applications by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, as the case may be, and may
ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of any of our product candidates.
In addition, for our products or product candidates that are in clinical development, prior to our acquisition of the rights to those products or product candidates we had no
involvement with or control over the preclinical or clinical development of those products or product candidates. We are therefore dependent on our licensing and other transaction partners having conducted such research and development in
accordance with the applicable protocols and legal, regulatory and scientific standards, having used appropriately regulated and compliant equipment and devices during the preclinical or clinical development, having accurately reported the
results of all clinical trials and other research they conducted prior to our acquisition of the rights to those products or product candidates, having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these trials and other research and having
supplied us with complete information, data sets and reports required to adequately demonstrate the results reported through the date of our acquisition of these products or product candidates. Problems associated with the pre-acquisition
development of our products or product candidates could result in increased costs and delays in the commercialization of our products or development of our product candidates, which could harm our ability to generate any future revenue from sales
of products or, if approved, product candidates.
We may encounter difficulties enrolling and retaining patients in clinical trials, and clinical development activities could thereby be delayed or
otherwise adversely affected.
We may encounter delays or difficulties in enrolling, or be unable to enroll, a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our clinical trials for our products or
product candidates on current timelines, or at all, and even once enrolled we may be unable to retain a sufficient number of patients to complete any of our clinical trials for these products or product candidates. Enrollment in our clinical
trials may also be slower than we anticipate, or be stopped, leading to delays in the development timelines for our products and product candidates.
Patient enrollment and retention in clinical trials depends on many factors, including EC approval of patient participation as proposed, the size of the patient population,
the nature of the trial protocol, our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, delays in enrollment due to travel or quarantine policies, or other factors, including those related to any
ongoing effects of COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics, the existing body of safety and efficacy data with respect to the study drug, the number and nature of competing treatments and ongoing clinical trials of competing drugs for the same
indication, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial and the proportion of patients screened that meets those criteria, our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents and our ability to successfully
complete prerequisite studies before enrolling certain patient populations. For certain of our products and product candidates, including IMVT-1402 and batoclimab, which target certain autoimmune indications, there are limited patient pools from
which to draw in order to complete our clinical trials in a timely and cost-effective manner. In addition, for certain of our early-stage development programs, there may be a limited number of sites where it is feasible to run clinical trials,
making such programs particularly susceptible to delays caused by issues at those sites.
Furthermore, any negative results or new safety signals we may report in clinical trials of our products or product candidates may make it difficult or impossible to recruit
and retain patients in other clinical trials we are conducting or to resume enrolling patients once a paused clinical trial has been resumed. Similarly, negative results reported by our competitors about their drug candidates may negatively
affect patient recruitment in our clinical trials. Also, marketing authorization of competitors in this same class of drugs may impair our ability to enroll patients into our clinical trials, delaying or potentially preventing us from completing
recruitment of one or more of our trials.
Delays or failures in planned patient enrollment or retention may result in increased costs, program delays or both, which could have a harmful effect on our ability to
develop our products and product candidates, or could render further development impracticable. In addition, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials, and, while we
intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will be limited in our ability to compel their actual performance. Any such delays in our current or future clinical trials could have a material adverse impact on our operations and
financial condition and results.
The results of our preclinical studies and clinical trials may not support our proposed claims for our products or product candidates, or regulatory
approvals on a timely basis or at all, and the results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results.
Success in preclinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the results of later
clinical trials will replicate the results of prior preclinical studies and earlier clinical trials. For example, we cannot assure you that the reductions in IgG antibodies and favorable analyte profile observed in our Phase 1 trial of IMVT-1402
will be observed in future clinical trials, including pivotal trials necessary for regulatory approvals. Likewise, promising interim results or other preliminary analyses do not ensure that the clinical trial as a whole will be successful and may
lack statistical significance, which would further limit the reliability of such interim or preliminary data. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in, or the
discontinuation of, clinical trials, even after promising results were seen with their product candidates in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while
clinical trials were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical trials, including previously unobserved adverse events.
The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our products and product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials.
Products and product candidates in later stage clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical and initial clinical trials. A future failure of a clinical trial to meet its
pre-specified endpoints may cause us to abandon development of the product candidate in question. Any delay in, or termination of, our clinical trials will prevent or delay the submission of an NDA or other similar applications to the FDA or
other relevant comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities and, ultimately, our ability to commercialize our products or, if approved, our product candidates, and generate product revenues. Even if our clinical trials are completed as planned, we
cannot be certain that their results will support our claims for differentiation or the effectiveness or safety of our products and product candidates. The FDA and other regulatory authorities, including the EMA and the MHRA, have substantial
discretion in the review and approval process and may disagree that our data support the differentiated claims we propose. In addition, only a small percentage of product candidates under development result in the submission of an NDA or other
similar application to the FDA and other comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities and even fewer are approved for commercialization.
Interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become
available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.
From time to time, and in some countries, in line with the applicable requirements set out in legislation and guidance, we may publicly disclose preliminary or top-line data
from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available top-line data. For example, we previously disclosed 24-week data from our NEPTUNE trial of brepocitinib in non-anterior non-infectious uveitis, results from the
initial cohort of patients in our Phase 2 trial of batoclimab in Graves’ disease and initial human data from our Phase 1 trial of IMVT-1402. These results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a full analysis of all
data related to the particular trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result,
the preliminary and top-line results that we report may differ from future results of the same trials, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Top-line data
also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the top-line data we previously reported. As a result, preliminary and top-line data should be viewed with caution until
the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially
change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between preliminary, top-line or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of preliminary or
interim data by us or by our competitors could result in increased volatility in the price of our shares.
Further, other parties, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or
weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of a particular product or product candidate and our business in general. In addition, the information we
choose or are required to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate
information to include in our disclosure. Any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product, product
candidate or our business. If the top-line data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for and commercialize our products
and product candidates, our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition may be harmed.
Changes in methods of product manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.
As our products and product candidates proceed through the development process, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods
and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause products or product candidates to
perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. Such changes may also require additional testing, FDA notification or FDA approval, or another regulatory
authority’s notification or approval, as applicable, since similar requirements apply in other jurisdictions. This could delay the completion, or result in the abandonment, of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials, the
repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our products and product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence sales and generate revenues.
We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our clinical trials, and if those third parties perform in an unsatisfactory manner or fail to
comply with applicable requirements, it may harm our business.
We rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure the proper and timely conduct of our clinical trials, and we expect to have limited influence over their actual
performance. In addition, we rely upon CROs to monitor and manage data for our clinical programs, as well as the execution of future nonclinical studies. We expect to control only certain aspects of our CROs’ activities. Nevertheless, we will be
responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable contract, protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and that clinical trial sites meet applicable protocol and regulatory requirements.
Our reliance on CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory or specified contractual responsibilities.
We and our CROs are required to comply with Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”) and GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and other comparable
non-U.S. regulatory authorities, which also require compliance with the International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (“ICH”) guidelines for any of our products and product candidates that are
in preclinical and clinical development. The regulatory authorities enforce GCP regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. Although we may rely on CROs to conduct our
GLP-compliant nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP nonclinical studies and GCP clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and
applicable laws and regulations. Our expected reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory or contractual responsibilities. If we or our CROs fail to comply with GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed
unreliable and the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities may reject our marketing authorization applications and require us to perform additional clinical trials to generate additional data before approving our marketing applications.
Accordingly, if our CROs fail to comply with these regulations or other applicable laws, regulations or standards, or fail to recruit a sufficient number of subjects, we may be required to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory
approval process. Failure by any future CROs to properly execute study protocols in accordance with applicable law could also create product liability and healthcare regulatory risks for us as sponsors of those studies.
Our CROs are independent, third-party organizations and we do not control whether they devote sufficient time, attention and resources to our clinical and nonclinical
programs. These CROs may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials, or other drug development activities which could harm our competitive position. We
face the risk of potential unauthorized disclosure or infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property by CROs, which may reduce our trade secret and intellectual property protection and allow our potential
competitors to access and exploit our proprietary technology. If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations, fail to meet expected deadlines, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is
compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for any other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or
successfully commercialize any product or product candidate that we develop. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for any product or product candidate that we develop would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our
ability to generate revenues could be delayed.
If our relationships with these CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms or in a timely
manner. Switching or adding additional CROs involves substantial cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can adversely impact
our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we intend to carefully manage our relationships with the CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or
challenges will not have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.
We do not have our own manufacturing capabilities and rely on third parties to produce clinical and commercial supplies of our products and product
candidates.
We do not own or operate, and do not expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage and distribution or testing. Accordingly, we rely on third
parties to produce commercial and clinical supplies of our products and product candidates. For example, Dermavant, ThermoFisher and GSK have entered into agreements pursuant to which ThermoFisher and GSK are providing commercial drug product and
drug substance for VTAMA as well as drug product and drug substance for Dermavant’s completed pivotal atopic dermatitis Phase 3 ADORING 1 and ADORING 2 trials of VTAMA as well as its ongoing open label long-term extension study of VTAMA in atopic
dermatitis. If these counterparties do not fulfill their obligations under these agreements, Dermavant’s ability to sell VTAMA commercially and conduct its ongoing and future clinical trials with VTAMA may be adversely impacted.
Third-party vendors may be difficult to identify for our product process and formulation development and manufacturing due to special capabilities required, and they may not
be able to meet our quality standards. In addition, certain of our third-party manufacturers and suppliers may encounter delays in providing their services as a result of supply chain constraints. If any third-party manufacturers or third parties
in the supply chain for materials used in the production of our products or product candidates are adversely impacted by supply chain constraints, our supply chain may be disrupted, limiting our ability to manufacture our products for
commercialization and products or product candidates for our preclinical studies, clinical trials and research and development activities. Any significant delay in the supply of a product or product candidate, or the raw material components
thereof, or of equipment and devices as necessary, for either commercialization or an ongoing clinical trial, due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer or otherwise, could considerably delay marketing efforts for the product in
question or the completion of clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of the product candidate in question. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these raw materials after regulatory approval has been
obtained for our products or product candidates, the commercial launch of our products or product candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenue from the sale of our products
or product candidates and may require notification to the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Moreover, as a result of projected supply constraints for certain materials used in the production of our products or product candidates, we have in
the past and may in the future reserve manufacturing capacity in advance of receiving required efficacy or safety results from our clinical trials, which may involve committing substantial financial resources to current or future products or
product candidates that may never be approved or achieve commercialization at scale or at all. In addition, legislative, executive and regulatory proposals were recently enacted or are pending to, among other things, prevent drug shortages,
improve pandemic preparedness and reduce the dependency of the U.S. on foreign supply chains and manufacturing. While we are still assessing these developments, they could impact our selection and utilization of CMOs, vendors and other suppliers
and could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our products and product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be
conducted after we submit an NDA or other similar application to the FDA. Such facilities must also register with the FDA. Similar requirements apply in other jurisdictions. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely
dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMP requirements for the manufacture of products and product candidates. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our
specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for our products or product candidates. In addition, we have limited
control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities do not approve these facilities for the manufacture
of our products or product candidates or if they withdraw any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to market our products and develop, obtain
regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.
Further, our reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured our products and product candidates ourselves, including:
|
• |
inability to meet our product specifications and quality requirements consistently;
|
|
• |
delay or inability to procure or expand sufficient manufacturing capacity;
|
|
• |
manufacturing and product quality issues related to scale-up of manufacturing;
|
|
• |
costs and validation of new equipment and facilities required for scale-up;
|
|
• |
failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations and standards, including cGMP and similar standards;
|
|
• |
deficient or improper record-keeping;
|
|
• |
inability to negotiate manufacturing agreements with third parties under commercially reasonable terms;
|
|
• |
termination or nonrenewal of manufacturing agreements with third parties in a manner or at a time that is costly or damaging to us;
|
|
• |
reliance on a limited number of sources, and in some cases, single sources for product components, such that if we are unable to secure a sufficient supply of these product components, we will be unable to
manufacture and sell our products or product candidates in a timely fashion, in sufficient quantities or under acceptable terms;
|
|
• |
lack of qualified backup suppliers for those components that are currently purchased from a sole or single source supplier;
|
|
• |
operations of our third-party manufacturers or suppliers could be disrupted by conditions unrelated to our business or operations, including the bankruptcy of the manufacturer or supplier or other
regulatory sanctions related to the manufacturer of another company’s product candidates;
|
|
• |
carrier disruptions or increased costs that are beyond our control; and
|
|
• |
failure to deliver our products or product candidates under specified storage conditions and in a timely manner.
|
Any of these events could lead to clinical trial delays, cost overruns, delay or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully commercialize our
products and product candidates as well as potential product liability litigation, product recalls or product withdrawals. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA or other regulatory authority action, including injunction, recall,
seizure, total or partial suspension of production, or suspension or revocation of manufacturing/import authorizations and GMP certificates.
If the contract manufacturing facilities on which we rely do not continue to meet regulatory requirements or are unable to meet our requirements,
including providing an adequate supply, our business will be harmed.
All entities involved in the preparation of products and product candidates for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing CMOs for all of our products and
product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP, or similar regulatory
requirements outside the U.S. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including record-keeping, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and
products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our products and product candidates. Our failure, or the failure of
third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in the issuance of inspectional observations on FDA’s Form-483, Warning or Untitled Letters, similar communications or objections by other authorities, public safety
alerts identifying our company or products and sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, import alerts, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, suspension of
production, seizures or recalls of products or product candidates, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect clinical or commercial supplies of our products and product candidates.
We and/or our CMOs must supply all necessary documentation in support of an NDA or similar regulatory application on a timely basis, and must adhere to regulations enforced
by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Some of our CMOs have never produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore have not obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals
to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our products and product
candidates. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our products and product candidates or the associated quality systems for compliance with the
regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee the CMOs, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMO partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If these
facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the products and product candidates may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory
authority, if ever.
The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, inspect the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contractors. If any such
inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority
may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical trial or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure
of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.
Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through a supplemental NDA or similar regulatory
filing, which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. In some cases, the technical skills required to manufacture our products and
product candidates may be unique or proprietary to the original CMO and we may have difficulty, or there may be contractual restrictions prohibiting us from, transferring such skills to a back-up or alternate supplier, or we may be unable to
transfer such skills at all. In addition, if we are required to change CMOs for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new CMO maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations.
We will also need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product or product candidate according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another
regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize our products in a timely manner or within budget. In addition, changes in
manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies between our prior clinical supply used in our clinical trials and that of any new manufacturer. We may be
unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of clinical supplies, which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials. Accordingly, switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our
desired clinical and commercial timelines.
These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or
commercialization of our products and product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost,
our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.
Certain of our products and product candidates are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in
delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise harm our business.
The manufacturing processes our CMOs use to produce our products and product candidates are complex, novel and, in the case of our product candidates, have not necessarily
been validated for commercial use. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human
error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.
Our biologic product candidates may require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most small molecule drugs. Moreover, unlike small molecules, the
physical and chemical properties of biologics generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that the product is consistent from lot-to-lot or will perform in the intended
manner. Accordingly, our CMOs must employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process to assure that the process is reproducible and the product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the
manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory to conduct clinical
trials or supply commercial markets. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet the FDA, the EU, the UK or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable
production yields and costs.
In addition, the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA and other regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols
showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA, the MHRA or other comparable regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes its release. Slight
deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could
cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our CMOs also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality assurance, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our
manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any problems in our CMOs’ manufacturing processes or facilities could result in delays in
planned clinical trials and increased costs, and could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger biopharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit access to additional
attractive development programs. Problems in any of our manufacturing processes could restrict our ability to meet potential future market demand for our products or to conduct clinical trials with our product candidates.
Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Commercialization of Our Products and Product Candidates
Obtaining approval of a new drug is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and the FDA or another regulator may delay, limit
or deny approval. If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions for any products or product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.
We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and
comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of nonclinical or
clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. While we have
obtained regulatory approval in the U.S. for one of our product candidates, VTAMA, for the treatment plaque psoriasis in adults, and have submitted an sNDA to the FDA for the approval of VTAMA for the treatment of AD for adults and
children 2 years of age and older, it is possible that VTAMA will not receive this regulatory approval or obtain any other regulatory approvals in the U.S. for other indications or in other jurisdictions, and
that other current and future product candidates will not be successful in obtaining regulatory approval in the U.S. and other jurisdictions. In addition, we cannot be certain that any products or product candidates that receive regulatory
approval will be successfully commercialized.
Obtaining marketing approval of a new drug is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process and the FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may
delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:
|
• |
we may not be able to demonstrate that a product candidate is safe and effective as a treatment for the targeted indications, and in the case of our product candidates regulated as biological products, that
the product candidate is safe, pure and potent for use in its targeted indication, to the satisfaction of the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may require additional pre-approval studies or clinical trials, which would increase costs and prolong development timelines;
|
|
• |
the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical or clinical significance required by the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities for marketing approval;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may disagree with the number, design, size, conduct or implementation of clinical trials, including the design of proposed preclinical and early clinical
trials of any future product candidates;
|
|
• |
the CROs that we retain to conduct clinical trials may take actions outside of our control, or otherwise commit errors or breaches of protocols, that adversely impact the clinical trials and ability to
obtain marketing approvals;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may not find the data from nonclinical, preclinical studies or clinical trials sufficient to demonstrate that the clinical and other benefits of a product
candidate outweigh its safety risks;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may disagree with an interpretation of data or significance of results from nonclinical, preclinical studies or clinical trials or may require additional
studies;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may not accept data generated at clinical trial sites, including in situations where the authorities deem that the data was not generated in compliance with
GCP, ethical standards or applicable data protection laws;
|
|
• |
if an NDA, BLA or a similar application is referred for review by an advisory committee, the FDA or other relevant regulatory authority, as the case may be, may have difficulties scheduling an advisory
committee meeting in a timely manner or the advisory committee may recommend against approval of our application or may recommend that the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities, as the case may be, require, as a condition of
approval, additional nonclinical, preclinical studies or clinical trials, limitations on approved labelling or distribution and use restrictions;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may require development of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) drug safety program or its equivalent, as a condition of approval;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may require additional post-marketing studies and/or patient registries for product candidates;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may find the chemistry, manufacturing and controls data insufficient to support the quality of our product candidates;
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may identify deficiencies in the manufacturing processes or facilities of third-party manufacturers; or
|
|
• |
the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may change their approval policies or adopt new regulations.
|
Our future success depends significantly on our ability to successfully complete clinical trials for our product candidates, obtain regulatory approval and then successfully
commercialize those product candidates. Any inability to successfully initiate, conduct or complete clinical trials could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or
formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials to bridge data obtained from our modified product candidates to data obtained from nonclinical and
clinical research conducted using earlier versions of these product candidates. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before
we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.
Delays in the initiation, conduct or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down the product candidate development and
approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to receive regulatory approvals, commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of
clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and have a
negative impact on the price of our common shares.
Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of product candidates that we may identify and pursue for
their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive nonclinical
studies, preclinical studies and clinical trials that the applicable product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication, and in the case of our product candidates regulated as biological products, that the product
candidate is safe, pure, and potent for use in its targeted indication. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use.
Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development
process. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. We have relatively limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical
trial to support additional marketing approvals.
We cannot be certain that our current clinical trials or any other future clinical trials will be successful. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our
clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of
operations. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we
submit our product candidates for approval. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in that other jurisdiction. To the extent
that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct
additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even when regulatory approval is secured for a product or product candidate, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of the specific product candidate,
which may also limit its commercial potential.
Our products and product candidates may cause adverse effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to
suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon further development or limit the scope of any approved label or market acceptance.
Adverse events caused by or associated with our products and product candidates have caused us and could, in the future, cause us, other reviewing entities, clinical trial
sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval. If an unacceptable frequency or severity of adverse events or new safety signals are reported in our clinical
trials for our product candidates or any future product candidates, our ability to obtain regulatory approval for such product candidates may be negatively impacted. Treatment-related side effects arising from, or those perceived to arise from,
our product candidates or those from other companies targeting similar diseases, could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete their participation in our clinical trials or result in potential product
liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. For example, as previously disclosed, in early 2021, our subsidiary Immunovant voluntarily paused dosing in early
phase clinical studies for batoclimab to evaluate treatment-induced elevations in total cholesterol and LDL levels observed in some trial subjects. After evaluation of the available safety data and following discussions with multiple regulatory
agencies, Immunovant is continuing its clinical development of batoclimab. While Immunovant does not expect that increases in LDL over a short-term treatment duration would pose a safety concern for patients, the risk-benefit profile of long-term
administration of batoclimab will need to incorporate any unfavorable effects on lipid profiles. These occurrences have harmed, and any reoccurrence may continue to harm our business, financial condition and prospects.
Furthermore, if any of our products, or any future product candidates that are approved, cause serious or unexpected side effects, a number of potentially significant
negative consequences could result, including:
|
• |
regulatory authorities may withdraw, revoke, suspend, vary, or limit their approval of the product or require a REMS (or equivalent outside the U.S.) to impose restrictions on its distribution or other risk
management measures;
|
|
• |
regulatory authorities may request or require that we recall a product;
|
|
• |
additional restrictions being imposed on the distribution, marketing or manufacturing processes of the products or any components thereof, including a “black box” warning or contraindication on product
labels or communications containing warnings or other safety information about the product;
|
|
• |
regulatory authorities may require the addition of labelling statements, such as warnings or contraindications, require other labelling changes of a product or require field alerts or other communications
to physicians, pharmacies or the public;
|
|
• |
we may be required to change the way a product is administered or distributed, conduct additional clinical trials, change the labelling of a product or conduct additional post-marketing studies or
surveillance;
|
|
• |
we may be required to repeat preclinical studies or clinical trials or terminate programs for a product candidate, even if other studies or trials related to the program are ongoing or have been
successfully completed;
|
|
• |
we may be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients, or may be subject to fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;
|
|
• |
physicians may stop prescribing a product;
|
|
• |
reimbursement may not be available for a product;
|
|
• |
we may elect to discontinue the sale of our products;
|
|
• |
our products may become less competitive; and
|
|
• |
our reputation may suffer.
|
Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected products or product candidates, substantially increase the costs of
commercializing our products or product candidates in the future and have a negative impact on the price of our common shares.
The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and
gaining approval for a product candidate in one country or jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain approval for or commercialize it in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize our full market
potential.
Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in any jurisdiction, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled
clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, that such product candidate is safe and effective and, as applicable, pure and potent for its intended use. Results from nonclinical studies and
clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for a product candidate are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. In
order to market any products in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements on a country-by-country basis regarding safety and efficacy. Approval of a product candidate by the FDA
does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in any other country or jurisdiction outside the U.S. In addition, clinical trials conducted in one country, and the data generated therefrom, may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in
other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation, as well as additional
administrative review periods. Seeking regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary
widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. We have one product, VTAMA, which has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults in the U.S., and have
submitted an sNDA to the FDA for the approval of VTAMA for the treatment of AD, but do not have any other products approved for sale in the U.S. or any other jurisdiction, including in international markets, and we do not have significant
experience in obtaining regulatory approval in other markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are
delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of any product we develop will be unrealized.
FDA approval for a product candidate in the United States does not guarantee that we will be able to or that we will make efforts to obtain approval for
or commercialize our product candidates in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize the drug candidate’s full market potential.
We have one product, VTAMA, approved by the FDA for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults in the U.S. We have also submitted an sNDA to the FDA for the approval of
VTAMA for the treatment of AD. In order to market VTAMA or any of our other products or product candidates outside of the U.S., we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and
effectiveness. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country.
Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional or different administrative review periods from those in the U.S., including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as
clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the U.S., a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be sold in that
jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.
Seeking regulatory approval outside of the U.S. could result in difficulties and costs and require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and
time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in those countries. The regulatory approval process outside of the U.S. may include all of the
risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. Other than VTAMA, we do not have any products or product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have significant experience in obtaining
regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approval in international markets is delayed, our target
market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.
Following regulatory approvals for our products and product candidates, we will continue to face extensive ongoing quality and regulatory obligations and
continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense, and our products may face future development and quality or regulatory compliance difficulties.
We have one product, VTAMA, approved by the FDA for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults in the U.S. We have also submitted an sNDA to the FDA for the approval of
VTAMA for the treatment of AD. Any product or product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements, including for manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data,
labelling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, recordkeeping, traceability, conduct of potential post-marketing studies and post-marketing submission requirements, export, import, advertising and promotional activities for
such product, among other things, will be subject to extensive and ongoing requirements of and review by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports,
establishment of registration and drug listing requirements, continued compliance with cGMP or equivalent requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents,
requirements regarding the distribution of drug product samples to physicians, prior notification/review and/or approval of advertising and promotional materials by the competent authorities, record-keeping and GCP requirements for any clinical
trials that we conduct post-approval. Even when marketing approval of a product or product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of
approval, including any requirement to implement a REMS. When a product or product candidate receives marketing approval, the accompanying label may limit the approved use of the drug or the FDA or other regulatory authorities may require that
contraindications, warnings or precautions, including in some cases, a boxed warning, be included in the product labelling or accompanying documentation, which could limit sales of the product.
The FDA and other relevant regulatory authorities may also impose requirements for costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or
efficacy of a product. Failure to complete such post-marketing requirements in accordance with the timelines and conditions set forth by the FDA and other relevant regulatory authorities could significantly increase costs, result in regulatory
enforcement, or delay, limit or ultimately restrict the commercialization of such product. The FDA and other relevant regulatory authorities closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for
the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labelling and that promotional and advertising materials and communications are truthful and non-misleading. Although the FDA and other regulatory agencies do not
regulate a physician’s choice of drug treatment made in the physician’s independent medical judgment, regulatory authorities impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications and if we do not market our products or product candidates
for their approved indications or in a manner which regulators believe to be truthful and non-misleading, we may be subject to enforcement action. Moreover, in the EU and the UK we will be prohibited from promoting prescription-only medicinal
products to individuals who are not healthcare professionals. Violations of the FDCA in the U.S. and other comparable laws and regulations in other jurisdictions relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to enforcement actions and
investigations by the FDA, Department of Justice, State Attorneys General and other comparable non-U.S. regulatory agencies alleging violations of U.S. federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws
and comparable laws in other jurisdictions.
In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products or product candidates, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or
failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may negatively impact our business and the price of our common shares and may yield various results, including:
|
• |
restrictions on the manufacture of such products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
restrictions on the labelling or marketing of such products or product candidates, including a “black box” warning or contraindication on the product label or communications containing warnings or other
safety information about the product;
|
|
• |
restrictions on product distribution or use;
|
|
• |
requirements to conduct post-marketing studies or clinical trials, or any regulatory holds on our clinical trials;
|
|
• |
requirement of a REMS (or equivalent outside the U.S.);
|
|
• |
Warning or Untitled Letters or similar communications from other relevant regulatory authorities;
|
|
• |
withdrawal of the product or product candidates from the market;
|
|
• |
refusal to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications that we submit;
|
|
• |
recall of products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;
|
|
• |
suspension, variation, revocation or withdrawal of marketing approvals;
|
|
• |
refusal to permit the import or export of our products or product candidates;
|
|
• |
seizure of our products or product candidates; or
|
|
• |
lawsuits, injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
|
Non-compliance by us or any current or future collaborator with regulatory requirements, including safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance can also result in significant
financial penalties.
Our failure to maintain or continuously improve our quality management program could have an adverse effect upon our business, subject us to regulatory
actions and cause patients to lose confidence in us or our products, among other negative consequences.
Quality management plays an essential role in the manufacturing of drugs or drug products, conducting clinical trials, preventing defects, improving our product candidates
and services and assuring the safety and efficacy of our products and product candidates. We seek to maintain a robust quality management program which includes the following broad pillars of quality:
|
• |
monitoring and assuring regulatory compliance for clinical trials, manufacturing and testing of good applicable practice (“GxP”) (e.g., GCP, GLP and GMP regulated) products;
|
|
• |
monitoring and providing oversight of all GxP suppliers (e.g., contract development manufacturing organizations and CROs);
|
|
• |
establishing and maintaining an integrated, robust quality management system for clinical, manufacturing, supply chain and distribution operations; and
|
|
• |
cultivating a proactive, preventative quality culture and employee and supplier training to ensure quality.
|
Our future success depends on our ability to maintain and continuously improve our quality management program. A quality or safety issue may result in adverse inspection
reports, warning letters, monetary sanctions, injunctions to halt manufacture and distribution of drugs or drug products, civil or criminal sanctions, costly litigation, refusal of a government to grant approvals and licenses, restrictions on
operations or withdrawal, suspension or variation of existing approvals and licenses. An inability to address a quality or safety issue in an effective and timely manner may also cause negative publicity, or a loss of patient confidence in us or
our products or product candidates, which may result in difficulty in successfully launching products and the loss of potential future sales, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation or Orphan Drug Designation by the FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities, even if granted
for any product candidate, may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and does not necessarily increase the likelihood that any product candidate will receive marketing approval in the United States or other
jurisdictions.
We have sought, or may in the future seek, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Fast Track Designation or Orphan Drug Designation for certain of our product candidates. For
example, in July 2021, Immunovant was granted orphan drug designation in the U.S. by the FDA for batoclimab for the treatment of MG and, in August 2022, it received orphan drug designation from the European Commission for batoclimab for the
treatment of MG. Immunovant plans to seek orphan drug designation from the FDA for IMVT-1402 and/or batoclimab where there is a medically plausible basis for IMVT-1402 and batoclimab’s use. Immunovant may also seek orphan drug designation for
IMVT-1402 and batoclimab for the treatment of other indications in the E.U. We may also do so for other of our products and product candidates in the future where there is a basis for doing so.
A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or
condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in
clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while
minimizing the number of patients placed on potentially less efficacious control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Designation as a breakthrough
therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe a product candidate meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event,
the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure
ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if a product candidate qualifies as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may later decide that such product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for
FDA review or approval will not be shortened.
Recently, there has been heightened scrutiny of the accelerated approval pathway, with some stakeholders advocating for reform. The HHS Office of Inspector General has
initiated, and partly completed, an assessment of how the FDA implements the accelerated approval pathway. In addition, Section 3210 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, revised the accelerated approval pathway. Although this legislation
did not change the standard for accelerated approval, it, among other things, requires the FDA to specify the conditions for required post-marketing trials, permits the FDA to require such trials to be underway prior to, or within a specific
period after, approval, requires sponsors to provide reports on post-marketing trial progress no later than 180 days after approval and every 180 days thereafter until such trials are completed, makes the failure to conduct required
post-marketing trials with due diligence and the failure to submit the required reports prohibited acts, and details procedures the FDA must follow to withdraw an accelerated approval on an expedited basis. We understand that FDA approval letters
to products granted accelerated approval subsequent to passage of this legislation are including language that informs the sponsor that they are required to submit status reports of the progress of each requirement no later than 180 days
post-approval and every 180 days thereafter. Further, we understand that a company received a Complete Response Letter for a product seeking accelerated approval in two indications because enrollment had not yet begun for confirmatory portions of
ongoing clinical trials. At this time, it is not clear what impact, if any, these developments may have on our business, financial condition results of operations or prospects.
If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this
condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure
you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not necessarily experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track
Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Fast Track Designation alone does not guarantee qualification for the FDA’s priority review procedures.
Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the U.S. and the European Economic Area (the “EEA”), may designate drugs and biologics for relatively small patient
populations as orphan drugs. In the U.S., the FDA may designate a drug or biologic as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is defined as a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals
annually in the U.S. or for which there is no reasonable expectation that costs of research and development of the drug for the disease or condition can be recovered by sales of the drug in the U.S. Generally, if a product with an orphan drug
designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing
application for the same drug or biologic for the same orphan indication for that time period. In the U.S., in order for a product to receive orphan drug exclusivity, FDA must not have previously approved a drug considered the same drug for the
same orphan indication, or the subsequent drug must be shown to be clinically superior to such a previously approved same drug. The applicable period of marketing exclusivity is seven years in the U.S. A similar market exclusivity scheme exists
in the EEA. The European Commission, on the basis of a scientific opinion by the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants Orphan Drug Designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention,
or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU. Additionally, designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a
life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EU would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biological
product. In any event, Orphan Drug Designation is granted only if there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment, or, if such a method exists, the medicine must be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.
Orphan designation in the EU entitles a party to certain benefits, such as scientific assistance (protocol assistance), financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity following drug or biological
product approval. This orphan market exclusivity period prevents the European Commission, EMA and the competent authorities of the EU Member States from accepting an application or granting marketing authorization for any similar medicinal
product intended for the same orphan indication. The orphan market exclusivity applies in parallel to the “normal” data and market exclusivity in the EEA, whereby no company can make reference to (rely on) the innovator drug company’s preclinical
and clinical data in order to obtain a marketing authorization for eight years from the date of the first approval of the innovator drug in the EEA and no generic or biosimilar drug can be marketed for ten years from the first approval of the
innovator drug in the EEA; the innovator drug may qualify for an extra year’s protection. This additional one year of marketing exclusivity may be obtained where the innovator company is granted, during the first eight years of the ten years
market exclusivity, a marketing authorization for a significant new indication for the relevant medicinal product. In such a situation, the generic or biosimilar company can only market their product after 11 years from the first grant of the
innovator company’s marketing authorization for the product in the EEA.
Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure
sufficient quantity of the drug or biologic to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In the EEA, orphan drug designation, and the related benefits, may be lost if it is established before the market authorization is
granted that the designation criteria are no longer met.
Moreover, the ten year orphan market exclusivity in the EEA may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met at the end of the fifth year
since grant of the approval, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.
In April 2023, as part of the EU Pharmaceutical Strategy, the European Commission published a proposal for a comprehensive revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation
(which will not apply in the UK). If adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, the new legislation is likely to significantly change the regulatory regime applicable to both the “normal” data and market exclusivity and the orphan
exclusivities and reduce/modulate the exclusivities and rewards that could be granted to medicinal products. In addition, the proposal envisages changes to the concept of unmet medical need and considers introducing novel rewards for orphan
medicinal products addressing a high unmet medical need. The adoption of the new legislation is not expected before 2025 and it will start to apply 18 months after the entry in force.
If we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs can be approved for the
same condition. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA or the European Commission can subsequently approve the same drug for a different condition or the same condition if the FDA or the EMA concludes that the later drug is clinically
superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the EEA, a marketing authorization may also be granted, for the same therapeutic indication, to a competitor with a similar medicinal
product during the exclusivity period if we are unable to supply sufficient quantities of the medicinal product for which we received marketing authorization. Moreover, our orphan exclusivity may be reduced if we are unable to comply with any new
obligation that may be imposed by the upcoming reform of the EU pharmaceutical legislation, as discussed above.
Moreover, a September 2021 Eleventh Circuit decision in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Becerra regarding interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act exclusivity provisions as
applied to drugs approved for orphan indications narrower than the drug’s orphan designation could significantly broaden the scope of orphan drug exclusivity for such products. In January 2023, the FDA, however, issued a Federal Register notice
clarifying its approach to orphan drug exclusivity following the Catalyst decision. Consistent with the court’s decision, the FDA set aside its approval of the drug at issue in the case, but announced that, while complying with the court’s order
in Catalyst, the FDA intended to continue to apply its regulations tying the scope of orphan-drug exclusivity to the uses or indications for which a drug is approved to matters beyond the scope of that order. Legislation has also been introduced
that may reverse the Catalyst decision.
Receipt of marketing approval for our products and product candidates does not guarantee that they will achieve market acceptance by physicians, patients,
third-party payors or others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.
The commercial success of our products and product candidates will depend upon their degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the
medical community. Receipt of marketing approval for our products and product candidates does not guarantee that they will gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community. The
degree of market acceptance for any product or product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:
|
• |
the efficacy and safety of such products and product candidates as demonstrated in pivotal clinical trials and published in peer-reviewed journals;
|
|
• |
the potential and perceived advantages compared to alternative treatments, including any similar generic treatments;
|
|
• |
the ability to offer these products for sale at competitive prices;
|
|
• |
the ability to offer appropriate patient financial assistance programs, such as commercial insurance co-pay assistance;
|
|
• |
convenience and ease of dosing and administration compared to alternative treatments;
|
|
• |
the clinical indications for which the product or product candidate is approved by FDA or comparable non-U.S. regulatory agencies;
|
|
• |
product labelling or product insert requirements of the FDA or other comparable non-U.S. regulatory authorities, including any limitations, contraindications or warnings contained in a product’s approved
labelling;
|
|
• |
restrictions on how the product is dispensed or distributed;
|
|
• |
the timing of market introduction of competitive products;
|
|
• |
publicity concerning these products or competing products and treatments;
|
|
• |
the strength of marketing and distribution support;
|
|
• |
favorable third-party coverage and sufficient reimbursement; and
|
|
• |
the prevalence and severity of any side effects or adverse events.
|
Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the
products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the
willingness of other physicians to prescribe such products.
If approved, our product candidates regulated as biologics may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the “Affordable Care Act” or “ACA”), includes a
subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (the “BPCIA”), which created an abbreviated approval pathway under section 351(k) of the PHSA for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an
FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, a section 351(k) application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed
by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar or interchangeable product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity,
another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product submitted under section 351(a) of the PHSA containing the competing sponsor’s own preclinical data and data
from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of the other company’s product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA and the FDA only approved the first
interchangeable biosimilar in July 2021. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty. In addition, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, which incorporated the framework from the Creating
and Restoring Equal Access To Equivalent Samples legislation, purports to promote competition in the market for drugs and biological products by facilitating the timely entry of lower-cost generic and biosimilar versions of those drugs and
biological products, including by allowing generic drug, 505(b)(2) NDA or biosimilar developers to obtain access to branded drug and biological product samples. Its provisions do have the potential to facilitate the development and future
approval of biosimilar versions of our products, introducing biosimilar competition that could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Whether approval of a biological product qualifies for reference product exclusivity turns on whether the FDA consider the approval a “first licensure.” Not every licensure
of a biological product is considered a “first licensure” that gives rise to its own exclusivity period. We believe that our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity.
However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise. The extent to which a biosimilar, once licensed, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to
traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is variable, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our
products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.
Our commercialization efforts are dependent on our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, including agreements with third parties to sell, market
and distribute our products and product candidates.
In order to effectively market our products and product candidates, we must successfully employ our sales, distribution, marketing and related capabilities or
make arrangements with third parties to perform these services. Our subsidiary Dermavant has established a commercial sales organization for the sales, marketing and distribution of VTAMA, which was approved by the FDA in May 2022 for the
treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults in the U.S. Other Vants with product candidates in late-stage clinical development, including Immunovant, do not currently have a sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure, and would expect to build
a sales, marketing and distribution function, or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services.
There are risks involved with both establishing and maintaining internal commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services.
For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product or, if approved, product candidate for which we recruit a
sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment
would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition commercialization personnel. At Dermavant, the costs of maintaining this sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure may exceed the net revenues we are able to generate from the sale of VTAMA.
Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize a product or, if approved, product candidate on our own include:
|
• |
the inability to recruit and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, marketing, reimbursement, customer service, medical affairs, and other support personnel;
|
|
• |
the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any future approved products;
|
|
• |
the inability of reimbursement professionals to negotiate arrangements for formulary access, reimbursement, and other acceptance by payors;
|
|
• |
the inability to price products at a sufficient price point to ensure an adequate and attractive level of profitability;
|
|
• |
restricted or closed distribution channels that make it difficult to distribute our products to segments of the patient population;
|
|
• |
the lack of complementary products to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and
|
|
• |
unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent commercialization organization.
|
If we are unable to build our own sales force or negotiate a collaborative relationship for the commercialization of a product or, if approved, product candidate, we may be
forced to delay commercialization or reduce the scope of our sales or marketing activities. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund commercialization activities ourselves, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be
available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we will not be able to bring a product or, if approved, product candidate to market or generate product revenue. We could enter into arrangements with
collaborative partners at an earlier stage than otherwise would be ideal and we may be required to relinquish certain rights to our products or product candidate or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have an adverse
effect on our business, operating results and prospects.
If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of
product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop internally. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be
unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively or may expose us to legal
and regulatory risk by not adhering to regulatory requirements and restrictions governing the sale and promotion of prescription drug products, including those restricting off-label promotion. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities
successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our products or, if approved, product candidates.
Our current and future relationships with investigators, health care professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient support, charitable
organizations, customers, and others are subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties and other risks.
Our business operations and current and potential future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient support,
charitable organizations, customers, and others, expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws regulate the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our
operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our products and, if approved, product candidates. Such laws include, without limitation:
|
• |
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which is a criminal law that prohibits, among other things, persons and entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration,
directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward, or in return for, either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of, any good, facility, item or service, for which payment may be
made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program (such as Medicare and Medicaid). The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted by the federal government to include anything of value. Although there are a number of
statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and arrangements may be subject to scrutiny or penalty if they do not fully satisfy all
elements of an available exception or safe harbor. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an
exception or safe harbor. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation; in addition, the government may assert that a claim
including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute may result in civil
monetary penalties up to $100,000 for each violation. Civil penalties for such conduct can further be assessed under the federal False Claims Act. Violations can also result in criminal penalties, including criminal fines and imprisonment
of up to 10 years. Similarly, violations can result in exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid;
|
|
• |
the federal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly
presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, claims for payment that are false or fraudulent; knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent
claim; or knowingly making or causing to be made, a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. When an entity is determined to have violated the federal civil False Claims Act, the
government may impose civil fines and penalties currently ranging from $13,508 to $27,018 for each false claim or statement for penalties assessed after January 30, 2023, plus treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in
Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs;
|
|
• |
the federal health care fraud statute (established by Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”)), which imposes criminal and civil liability for, among other things, knowingly
and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or making false or fraudulent statements relating to healthcare matters; similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or
entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it to have committed a violation;
|
|
• |
the Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”), and their implementing regulations, which impose
obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information on health plans, health care clearing houses and most healthcare
providers (collectively, “covered entities”), and such covered entities’ “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection
with providing a service for or on behalf of the covered entity;
|
|
• |
various privacy, cybersecurity and data protection laws, rules and regulations at the international, federal, state and local level, which impose obligations with respect to safeguarding the privacy,
security, and cross-border transmission of personally identifiable data, including personal health information;
|
|
• |
the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which authorizes the imposition of substantial civil monetary penalties against an entity that engages in activities including, among others (1) knowingly
presenting, or causing to be presented, a claim for services not provided as claimed or that is otherwise false or fraudulent in any way; (2) arranging for or contracting with an individual or entity that is excluded from participation in
federal health care programs to provide items or services reimbursable by a federal health care program; (3) violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; or (4) failing to report and return a known overpayment;
|
|
• |
the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics, and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s
Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the government information related to payments or other “transfers of value” made to physicians, certain other healthcare providers, and teaching hospitals, and
requires applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report annually to the government ownership and investment interests held by the physicians described above and their immediate family members and payments or other
“transfers of value” to such physician owners (covered manufacturers are required to submit reports to the government by the 90th day of each calendar year); and
|
|
• |
analogous state and EU and foreign national laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research,
distribution, sales, and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare
providers and other potential referral sources; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal
government, and state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; and several recently passed state
laws that require disclosures related to state agencies and/or commercial purchasers with respect to certain price increases that exceed a certain level as identified in the relevant statutes, some of which contain ambiguous requirements
that government officials have not yet clarified; and EU and foreign national laws prohibiting promotion of prescription-only medicinal products to individuals other than healthcare professionals, governing strictly all aspects of
interactions with healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations, including prior notification, review and/or approval of agreements with healthcare professionals, and requiring public disclosure of transfers of value made to a
broad range of stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, healthcare organizations, medical students, physicians associations, patient organizations and editors of specialized press.
|
Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial
costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable healthcare laws. If our operations are
found to be in violation of any of these or any other applicable health regulatory laws that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties,
damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings,
additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our
business and our results of operations. Even the mere issuance of a subpoena, civil investigative demand or the fact of an investigation alone, regardless of the merit, may result in negative publicity, a drop in our share price and other harm to
our business, financial condition and our results of operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending
against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.
Healthcare legislative and regulatory measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of
operations.
The U.S. and many other jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could restrict or regulate
post-approval activities for our products and affect our ability to profitably sell our products, and prevent or delay marketing approval of our current and any future product candidates. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of
existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labelling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or
(iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.
In the U.S., there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs, including costs for pharmaceuticals. For example, as
discussed in detail above, the ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacted the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. In addition, other legislative changes have been
proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted. In particular, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the U.S. with respect to drug pricing practices. Most notably and as described in detail above, the IRA
brought about sweeping changes to the payment for drugs under the Medicare program. There are several ongoing legal challenges to the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, and we cannot predict the outcome of these cases or the impact they could
have on implementation of the law. Over time, the IRA could increase our government discount and rebate liabilities, reduce the revenues we are able to collect from sales of our products as well as present challenges for payor negotiations and
formulary access. However, the degree of impact that the IRA will ultimately have upon our business remains unclear at this time.
Moreover, individual states in the U.S. have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product
pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries
and bulk purchasing, such as in Colorado and Florida, as discussed in detail above. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition
and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other
healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our products or put pressure on our product pricing.
Additionally, U.S. regulators continue to pursue policies designed to lower drug costs for federal programs and patients. In May 2019, the CMS, issued a final rule to allow
Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price
reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. This rulemaking also created a new safe harbor for price reductions
reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. However, Congress has adopted various delays on the implementation or enforcement of the rule,
including a postponement until January 2032 under the IRA. On December 31, 2020, CMS enacted a final rule that, among other things, expanded the scope of drug products that may be considered “line extensions” subject to inflationary rebates under
the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. On May 23, 2023, CMS issued a Medicaid Drug Rebate Program proposed rule, which if finalized, would, among other things, require drug manufacturers to aggregate certain price concessions when calculating Best
Price, establish a price verification survey, and amend the definitions of a “covered outpatient drug” and a “manufacturer.” These changes, if finalized, could deepen rebates owed on Medicaid utilization, expand the scope of products subject to
Medicaid rebates, and subject manufacturer drug pricing practices to further scrutiny.
Moreover, upcoming legislative and policy changes in the EU and the UK, some of which may materialize in the near term, are aimed at increasing accessibility and
affordability of medicinal products, as well as at increased cooperation between the EU Member States. Such initiatives may further impact the price and reimbursement status of our products in the future.
There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the national and state levels in jurisdictions around the world directed at
containing or lowering the cost of healthcare, including prescription drugs. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability through product
revenue, or commercialize our products and, if approved, our product candidates. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from our products and, if approved, product candidates and may affect our overall financial
condition and ability to develop future product candidates and obtain marketing approval for those product candidates. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance
companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:
|
• |
the demand for our products and, if approved, product candidates;
|
|
• |
our ability to receive or set a price that we believe is fair for our products;
|
|
• |
our ability to generate revenue and achieve sustained profitability;
|
|
• |
the amount of taxes that we are required to pay; and
|
|
• |
the availability of capital.
|
We expect that healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous
coverage criteria, lower reimbursement and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for our products and, if approved, product candidates. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other
government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain sustained profitability or successfully commercialize our products
and, if approved, product candidates.
Coverage and adequate reimbursement may not be available for our products and, if approved, product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to
profitably sell our products and, if approved, product candidates.
Market acceptance and sales of our products and, if approved, product candidates will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these
products and product candidates and related treatments will be available from third-party payors, including government health administration authorities and private health insurers. The pricing and reimbursement of our products and, if approved,
product candidates, must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our products and, if approved, product candidates, will be
adversely affected. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to our products and product candidates (e.g., for administration of our products to patients) is also important. Inadequate reimbursement for such
services may lead to physician resistance and adversely affect our ability to market or sell our products and, if approved, product candidates. There is no assurance that our products or, if approved, product candidates, would achieve adequate
coverage and reimbursement levels.
In the U.S., no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement exists among third-party payors. Third-party payors decide which drugs they will pay for and establish
reimbursement levels. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own coverage and reimbursement policies. However, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to
be provided for any product or, if approved, product candidate will be made on a plan-by-plan basis. For example, while we have previously disclosed successes in achieving payor coverage for VTAMA, one payor’s determination to provide coverage
for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product, and payors may periodically review and change their coverage and reimbursement rates for products. Discussions with payors,
including PBMs, related to VTAMA are ongoing and coverage for VTAMA may change over time. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Each plan
determines whether or not it will provide coverage for a drug, what amount it will pay the manufacturer for the drug, on what tier of its formulary the drug will be placed and whether to require step therapy. The position of a drug on a formulary
generally determines the co-payment that a patient will need to make to obtain the drug and can strongly influence the adoption of a drug by patients and physicians. Patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers
prescribing such services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use our product or, if approved, product candidates, unless coverage is provided and
reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of the product or product candidate. Further, from time to time, typically on an annual basis, payment rates are updated and revised by third-party payors. Such updates could
impact the demand for our products or, if approved, product candidates, to the extent that patients who are prescribed our products or, if approved, product candidates, are not separately reimbursed for the cost of the product.
The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for
establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Even if we obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, third-party payors, such as government or private healthcare insurers, carefully review and increasingly question
the coverage of, and challenge the prices charged for, products. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that pharmaceutical companies provide them with
predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices for products. We may also be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify the coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. We
cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement will be available for any product that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, what the level of reimbursement will be. Inadequate coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for,
or the price of, any product or, if approved, product candidate. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product or, if approved,
product candidate that we develop.
Additionally, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in the U.S. and in some other jurisdictions that could affect
our ability to profitably sell any product or, if approved, product candidate. These legislative and regulatory changes may negatively impact the reimbursement for any product or, if approved, product candidate. There can be no assurance that our
products or, if approved, product candidates, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary, that they will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available, or that
reimbursement policies and practices in the U.S. and in other countries where our products and, if approved, product candidates, are sold will not harm our ability to profitably sell our products and, if approved, product candidates.
In the EU, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our products or, if approved, product candidates. In
addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments in the EU or the EU Member States may harm our ability to profitably sell our products and, if approved, product candidates. The delivery of
healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national EU Member States law. National governments and health service providers
have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. The healthcare budgetary constraints in most countries have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and
reimbursement of medicines, and a similar approach is taken in the UK where a key consideration is the affordability of drugs for treatment of patients under the National Health Service. In the UK there is also a budget cap on branded health
service medicines, and a new voluntary pricing scheme has been introduced that increases the level of rebate payment that a company is required to make to the National Health Service to take account of any spend on branded products that is above
the agreed cap, and also imposes different payment rates for newer or older medicines. A consultation on the parallel statutory scheme, which applies to companies that are not members of the voluntary scheme, is ongoing, but is also likely to
lead to higher rebates than previously. In markets outside of the U.S., EU and UK, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.
All of this could affect our ability to commercialize our products and, if approved, product candidates.
Recent federal legislation and actions by state and local governments may permit reimportation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States,
including foreign countries where the drugs are sold at lower prices than in the United States, which could materially adversely affect our operating results.
We may face competition in the U.S. for our products and, if approved, product candidates, from therapies sourced from foreign countries that have placed price controls on
pharmaceutical products. In the U.S., the Medicare Modernization Act (“MMA”) contains provisions that may change U.S. importation laws and expand pharmacists’ and wholesalers’ ability to import cheaper versions of an approved drug and competing
products from Canada, where there are government price controls. These changes to U.S. importation laws will not take effect unless and until the Secretary of the HHS certifies that the changes will pose no additional risk to the public’s health
and safety and will result in a significant reduction in the cost of products to consumers. On September 23, 2020, the Secretary of HHS made such certification to Congress, and on October 1, 2020, the FDA published a final rule that allows for
the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. Under the final rule, States and Indian Tribes, and in certain future circumstances pharmacists and wholesalers, may submit importation program proposals to the FDA for review and
authorization. Since the issuance of the final rule, on November 23, 2020, several industry groups filed federal lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, requesting injunctive relief to prevent implementation of the rule.
The court dismissed the case in February 2023. Further, authorities in Canada have passed rules designed to safeguard the Canadian drug supply from shortages. On September 25, 2020, CMS stated drugs imported by States under this rule will not be
eligible for federal rebates under Section 1927 of the Social Security Act and manufacturers would not report these drugs for “best price” or Average Manufacturer Price purposes. Since these drugs are not considered covered outpatient drugs, CMS
further stated it will not publish a National Average Drug Acquisition Cost for these drugs. Separately, the FDA also issued a final guidance document outlining a pathway for manufacturers to obtain an additional National Drug Code (“NDC”), for
an FDA-approved drug that was originally intended to be marketed in a foreign country and that was authorized for sale in that foreign country. In addition, the July 2021 executive order pertaining to drug pricing directs the FDA to support and
work with States and Indian Tribes to develop importation plans to import prescription drugs from Canada under the MMA and final rule. Several states have enacted laws intended to support importation processes and have submitted importation
program proposals to FDA. On January 5, 2024, FDA authorized Florida’s importation program for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada into Florida; however, the state must file Pre-Import Requests for specific drug products
that FDA must grant before any importation may take place. In response, Health Canada issued a statement on January 8, 2024 making clear that it is ready to take immediate action to help safeguard the Canadian drug supply if necessary. If
implemented in Florida or elsewhere, importation of drugs from Canada may materially and adversely affect the price we receive for our products and, if approved, product candidates. The regulatory and market implications of the final rule and
guidance are unknown at this time. Proponents of drug reimportation may attempt to pass other legislation that would directly allow reimportation under certain circumstances. Legislation or regulations allowing the reimportation of drugs, if
enacted, could decrease the price we receive for our products and, if approved, product candidates and adversely affect our future revenues and prospects for profitability.
Other Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
We depend on the knowledge and skills of our senior leaders and may not be able to manage our business effectively if we are unable to attract and retain
key personnel.
We have benefited substantially from the leadership, performance and vision of our senior leaders, including our Principal Executive Officer, Matthew Gline, as well as other
senior executives at Roivant and the Vants. We rely greatly on the investment experience and medical and scientific expertise of our senior leadership team to identify product candidates and guide future investments and opportunities, as well as
the drug development expertise of our and the Vants’ senior leadership to guide the preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates. Our success will depend on our ability to retain our current management team. In addition, while
we expect to engage in an orderly transition process as we integrate newly appointed officers and managers, we face a variety of risks and uncertainties related to management transition, including diversion of management attention from business
concerns, failure to retain other key personnel or loss of institutional knowledge. Competition for senior leadership in the healthcare investment industry is intense, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to retain our key personnel or
that of our Vants.
Our senior leaders and key employees may terminate their positions with us at any time. Due to the small number of employees at some of the Vants, the loss of a key employee
may have a larger impact on our business. In particular, we rely on a limited number of employees in certain key jurisdictions, including the U.K. and Switzerland. If we lose one or more members of our or the Vants’ senior leadership teams or
other key employees, our ability to successfully implement our business strategies could be adversely impacted. Replacing these individuals may be difficult, cause disruption and may take an extended period of time due to the limited number of
individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to develop, gain regulatory approval of, and commercialize product candidates successfully. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable
to hire, train, retain or motivate additional key personnel. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any members of our senior leadership team or other employees.
To encourage valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided certain equity awards that vest over time. The value to
employees of equity awards that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our share price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Despite our
efforts to retain invaluable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us at any time. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, certain of these employment
agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and
senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.
We will need to expand our organization and may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt operations.
In connection with our continued growth, we expect to hire, either directly or through our current or future affiliates, additional employees for our managerial, finance and
accounting, clinical, scientific and engineering, regulatory, operational, manufacturing, sales and marketing teams. We may have difficulties in connection with identifying, hiring, integrating and retaining new personnel. Future growth would
impose significant additional responsibilities on management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees, consultants and contractors. Also, management may need to divert a disproportionate
amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of operations across our entities, which may result in
weaknesses in infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our future growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert
financial resources from other projects, such as the development of product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenues could
be reduced, and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and ability to commercialize product candidates and new technologies and compete effectively will partly depend on our ability to effectively
manage any future growth.
Many of the other pharmaceutical and healthcare technology companies that we compete against for qualified personnel and consultants have greater financial and other
resources, different risk profiles and a longer operating history in the industry than us. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these opportunities may be more appealing to
high-quality candidates and consultants than what we have to offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel and consultants, the rate and success at which we can discover and develop our products and product
candidates will be harmed, which could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Our international operations may expose us to business, legal, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with conducting
business globally.
Part of our business strategy involves potential expansion internationally with third-party collaborators to seek regulatory approval for our products and product candidates
globally. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:
|
• |
multiple conflicting and changing laws and regulations such as tax laws, export and import restrictions, employment laws, anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws, regulatory requirements and other
governmental approvals, permits and licenses;
|
|
• |
failure by us or our collaborators to obtain appropriate licenses or regulatory approvals for the sale or use of our products or, if approved, product candidates, in various countries;
|
|
• |
difficulties in managing operations in different jurisdictions;
|
|
• |
complexities associated with managing multiple payor-reimbursement regimes or self-pay systems;
|
|
• |
financial risks, such as longer payment cycles, difficulty enforcing contracts and collecting accounts receivable and exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations;
|
|
• |
varying protection for intellectual property rights;
|
|
• |
natural disasters, political and economic instability, including wars, terrorism and political unrest, outbreak of disease, boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions; and
|
|
• |
failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), including its books and records provisions and its anti-bribery provisions, the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010 (the “U.K. Bribery
Act”), and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws in other jurisdictions, for example by failing to maintain accurate information and control over sales or distributors’ activities.
|
Any of these risks, if encountered, could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, negatively impact our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
Unfavorable global and regional economic, political and health conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of
operations.
Our business could be adversely affected by global or regional economic, political and health conditions. For example, various macroeconomic factors could adversely affect
our business, financial condition and results of operations, including changes in inflation, interest rates and overall economic conditions and uncertainties, including those resulting from political instability (including workforce uncertainty),
international hostilities (including the current military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East), trade disputes between nations and the current and future conditions in the global financial markets. For example,
if sustained high rates of inflation or other factors were to significantly increase our business costs, we may be unable to manage such increased expenses or pass through price increases. A global financial crisis or global or regional political
and economic instability, wars, terrorism, civil unrest, outbreaks of disease (for example, COVID-19), and other unexpected events, such as supply chain constraints or disruptions, could cause extreme volatility in the capital and credit markets
and disrupt our business. Business disruptions could include, among others, disruptions to our commercial activities, including due to supply chain or distribution constraints or challenges, clinical enrollment, clinical site availability,
patient accessibility, and conduct of our clinical trials, as well as temporary closures of the facilities of suppliers or contract manufacturers in the biotechnology supply chain. In addition, during certain crises and events, patients may
prioritize other items over certain or all of their treatments and/or medications, which could have a negative impact on our commercial sales. A severe or prolonged economic downturn, political disruption or adverse health conditions could result
in a variety of risks to our business, including our ability to raise capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all. Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the political or economic
climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.
We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may
achieve certain regulatory approvals before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize our products and, if approved, product
candidates and ultimately harm our financial condition.
The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. Now and in the future we may face competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty
pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide with respect to our products and product candidates. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations
that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.
There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development and commercialization of products and product candidates
for the treatment of the indications that we are also pursuing. Examples of such competing products include, but are not limited to:
|
• |
ZORYVE (roflumilast), a topical PDE4 inhibitor, a potential competitor to VTAMA;
|
|
• |
OPZELURA (ruxolitinib), a topical Janus kinase inhibitor, a potential competitor to VTAMA;
|
|
• |
VYVGART (efgartigimod alfa-fcab) and VYVGART Hytrulo (efgartigimod alfa and hyaluronidase-qvfc), neonatal Fc receptor blockers, potential competitors to IMVT-1402 and batoclimab;
|
|
• |
Nipocalimab and RYSTIGGO (rozanolixizumab-noli), anti-FcRn antibodies, potential competitors to IMVT-1402 and batoclimab;
|
|
• |
TEPEZZA (teprotumumab-trbw), an insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor inhibitor, a potential competitor to batoclimab; and
|
|
• |
Dazukibart, an interferon beta (IFN-beta) inhibitor, a potential competitor to brepocitinib.
|
Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and
development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do.
Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These
competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to,
or necessary for, our programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are
less expensive than our products and product candidates. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for treatment of our targeted disease indications or similar indications, which could give such products
significant regulatory and market timing advantages over our products and product candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours and may obtain
orphan product exclusivity from the FDA for indications that we are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. Additionally, products or technologies developed by
our competitors may render our products or product candidates uneconomical or obsolete and we may not be successful in marketing our products or, if approved, any product candidates we may develop against competitors.
In addition, we could face litigation or other proceedings with respect to the scope, ownership, validity and/or enforceability of our patents relating to our competitors’
products and our competitors may allege that our products or product candidates infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are
able to charge, for our products and, if approved, any product candidates we may develop.
The markets in which our healthcare technology Vants participate are competitive, and if we do not compete effectively, our business and operating results
could be adversely affected.
The overall market for healthcare technologies and software is global, rapidly evolving, competitive and subject to changing technology and shifting customer focus. Our
healthcare technology Vants, including Lokavant, a clinical trial technology company, and VantAI, which uses machine learning to build computational models to generate new molecular entities for targets of interest, face competition from
well-established providers of similar solutions, certain of which may have long-standing relationships with many of our current and potential customers, including large biopharmaceutical companies. We also face competition from solutions that
biopharmaceutical companies develop internally and from smaller companies that offer products and services directed at more specific markets than we target, enabling these smaller competitors to focus a greater proportion of their efforts and
resources on these markets, as well as a large number of companies that have been founded with the goal of applying machine learning technologies to drug discovery.
Many of our competitors are able to devote greater resources to the development, promotion, and sale of their software solutions and services. Third parties with greater
available resources and the ability to initiate or withstand substantial price competition could acquire our current or potential competitors. Our competitors may also establish cooperative relationships among themselves or with third parties
that may further enhance their product offerings or resources. If our competitors’ products, services or technologies become more accepted than our solutions, if our competitors are successful in bringing their products or services to market
earlier than ours, if our competitors are able to respond more quickly and effectively to new or changing opportunities, technologies, or customer requirements, or if their products or services are more technologically capable than ours, then the
business and prospects of these Vants could be adversely affected.
In addition, we are facing increasing competition from other companies that are utilizing artificial intelligence (“AI”) and other computational approaches for drug
discovery. Some of these competitors are involved in drug discovery themselves and/or with partners, and others develop software or other tools utilizing AI which can be used, directly or indirectly, in drug discovery. To the extent these other
AI approaches to drug discovery prove to be more successful than our approaches, we may not be successful in identifying potential targets or attracting collaborators to work with us.
We and our subsidiaries are subject to litigation and investigation risks which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial
condition and could cause the market value of our common shares to decline. Insurance coverage may not be available for, or adequate to cover, all potential exposure for litigation and other business risks.
We and our subsidiaries are from time to time subject to various litigation matters and claims, including regulatory proceedings, administrative proceedings, securities
litigation and other lawsuits, and governmental investigations. In addition, we and our subsidiaries may receive requests for information from governmental agencies in connection with their regulatory or investigatory authority or from private
third parties pursuant to subpoena. These proceedings may be complex and prolonged, and may occupy the resources of our and our subsidiaries’ management and employees. These proceedings are also costly to prosecute and defend and may involve
substantial awards or damages payable by us or our subsidiaries if not favorably resolved. We and our subsidiaries may be required to pay substantial amounts or grant certain rights on unfavorable terms in order to settle such proceedings. We
also face risks relating to litigation arising from judgments made by us and the Vants as to the materiality of any developments in our businesses, including with respect to preclinical and clinical data, and the resulting disclosure (or lack
thereof) may give rise to securities litigation.
We maintain insurance policies for certain litigation and various business risks, but such policies may not be adequate to compensate us for any or all potential losses. In
addition, such insurance may not be available to us in the future on economically reasonable terms, or at all. Further, our insurance, if available, may not cover all claims made against us and defending a suit, regardless of its merit, could be
costly and divert management’s attention. Because of the uncertain nature of litigation, investigations and insurance coverage decisions, it is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters as they arise from time to time, and they could
have a material adverse effect on our and our subsidiaries’ business, results of operations, and financial condition, could impact our ability to consummate a transaction that is challenged or otherwise subject to such litigation and could cause
the market value of our common shares to decline.
We may not hold a controlling stake in certain of our Vant affiliates and thus may not be able to direct our business or the development of our product
candidates.
In certain of our Vants, we may hold less than a majority ownership interest or otherwise be limited in our ability to direct or control the business and the development of
the product candidates or technologies at the Vant. In addition, for certain other Vants, including Immunovant, we may in the future come to hold less than a majority ownership interest in the Vant. Furthermore, even if we own a majority
ownership interest in a Vant, we may not necessarily be able to control the outcome of certain corporate actions. If the business or development of a product candidate at one of these Vants were to face challenges, we would be adversely affected
as a result and would be limited in our ability to cause or influence the Vant in question to take appropriate remediative actions.
Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures, cyber-attacks or a deficiency in our cyber-security protections.
Our computer systems, as well as those of various third parties on which we presently rely, or may rely on in the future, including our CROs and other contractors,
consultants, and law and accounting firms, may sustain damage from or otherwise be subject to computer viruses, unauthorized access, data breaches, phishing attacks, cybercriminals, natural disasters (including hurricanes and earthquakes),
terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Such information technology systems are additionally vulnerable to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, third-party vendors, contractors,
consultants, business partners, and/or other third parties. Any of the foregoing may compromise our system infrastructure, or that of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or lead to data leakage. The risks of a security
breach or disruption, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber intrusion, including by traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation-state and nation-state-supported actors,
sovereign governments and cyber terrorists, have generally increased over time, including for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities, along with the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted
attacks and intrusions from around the world. During times of war and other major conflicts, we and the third parties upon which we rely may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including cyber-attacks that could materially
disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain and ability to produce, sell and distribute our products and product candidates. Currently and in the coming years, there may be an increased risk of cybersecurity attacks due to the ongoing
Russia-Ukraine conflict, including cybersecurity attacks perpetrated by Russia or others at its direction in response to economic sanctions and other actions taken against Russia as a result of the invasion. Any increase in such attacks on us or
our third-party vendors or other systems could adversely affect our network systems or other operations.
We generally require our third-party providers to implement effective security measures and to identify and correct for any information technology security failures,
deficiencies or breaches. Although we seek to supervise such third parties’ security measures, our ability to do so is limited. If the information technology systems of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants become subject
to disruptions or security breaches, we may have insufficient recourse against such third parties and we may have to expend significant resources to mitigate the impact of such incidents and to develop and implement protections to prevent future
events of this nature from occurring.
We cannot anticipate all possible types of security threats and we cannot guarantee that our data protection efforts and our investments in information technology will
prevent significant breakdowns, data leakages, security breaches in our systems, or those of our third-party vendors and other contractors and consultants, or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation,
business, operations, or financial condition. If a significant cybersecurity compromise were to occur, it could result in a material disruption of our commercialization efforts, drug development programs, and other business operations. For
example, the loss of nonclinical or clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. In addition, we
rely on third parties to supply components for and to manufacture our product candidates and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the
extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of or damage to our data or applications, or in an unauthorized disclosure of personal, confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and reputational
damage and the commercialization efforts for our products and further development of any product candidate could be delayed. The costs related to significant security breaches or disruptions could be material and exceed the limits of the
cybersecurity insurance we maintain against such risks.
We are subject to stringent privacy, data protection and information security laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations
related to data privacy and security. The actual or perceived failure by us, our customers, partners or vendors to comply with such obligations could result in harm to our reputation, regulatory investigations or actions, significant
fines and liability, disruption of our clinical trials or other material adverse effects to our business.
Certain of our subsidiaries and affiliates collect, receive, store, process, use, generate, transfer, disclose, make accessible, protect and share personal information and
other information, including information we collect about patients and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials in the U.S. and abroad necessary to operate their businesses and for legal, marketing and other business-related
purposes.
We are subject to data privacy and protection laws and regulations that apply to the collection, transmission, storage and use of personally-identifying information, which
among other things, impose requirements relating to the privacy, security, transmission and disposal of personal information. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve in jurisdictions worldwide.
Any failure by us, or our subsidiaries or affiliates, to comply with applicable privacy and data security laws and regulations could result in enforcement actions against us, including possible fines, imprisonment of company officials and public
censure, claims for damages by affected individuals, damage to our reputation and loss of goodwill, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.
There are numerous U.S. federal and state laws and regulations related to the privacy, data protection and security of personal information. At the federal level, regulations
promulgated pursuant to HIPAA establish privacy and security standards for “covered entities” (group health plans and most healthcare providers) that limit the use and disclosure of individually identifiable health information those entities and
their service providers receive or create (“protected health information”), and require the implementation of administrative, physical and technological safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, integrity and availability of electronic
protected health information. While we generally are not subject to the HIPAA privacy or security regulations, we do business with various entities (including clinical trial investigators) that are subject those regulations, and we have to expend
resources to understand their obligations, adjust contractual terms in light of those obligations, or otherwise modify our business practices. Congress is actively considering adopting legislation to regulate the collection, use, and disclosure
of personal health information more broadly than the HIPAA privacy and security regulations. Such legislation might require us to make substantial expenditures and would likely create additional liability risks.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Act, while not focused on data privacy or security, has proven to be a significant federal enforcement tool with respect to protection of
personal information, and recently, personal health information in particular. The FTC has used its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair and deceptive practices affecting consumers, to bring numerous cases against
companies for failing to protect the privacy or security of personal information in a manner that is reasonable and fully consistent with stated privacy policies, notices, or other representations. Particularly because the FTC has taken these
actions based on theories that are not codified in regulations, the optimal means to mitigate the risk of such an action are uncertain.
In addition, an increasing number of U.S. states in which we operate have laws that protect the privacy and security of personal information. Certain state laws may be more
stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, which complicates compliance efforts. For example,
the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (the “CMIA”), a statute that expressly applies to pharmaceutical companies (as well as companies that provide certain technologies for processing personal health information), imposes
stringent data privacy and security requirements and obligations with respect to the personal health information of California residents. Among other things, the CMIA, with limited exceptions, requires that a pharmaceutical company obtain a
signed, written authorization from a patient or company employee in order to disclose his or her personal health information and requires pharmaceutical companies to maintain reasonable security measures to protect such information. The CMIA
authorizes administrative fines and civil penalties of up to $25,000 for willful violations and up to $250,000 if the violation is for purposes of financial gain, as well as criminal fines. Washington State’s My Health My Data Act, and a similar
Nevada law, both of which became effective on March 31, 2024, generally require consent for the collection and use of personal health information, and a separate consent for sharing any such information, and create additional risk for our
collection of health information. Violations of the Washington State law can result in civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation, up to $25,000 in treble damages at the sole discretion of the court, and injunctive relief. Consumers also may
bring their own actions to recover (i) actual damages, (ii) treble damages; and (iii) attorney’s fees. Violations of the Nevada law can result in up to $10,000 civil penalties per violation and injunctive relief.
In addition, approximately 15 states have enacted broadly applicable consumer privacy laws, which apply not only to personal health information but also many other forms of
information. These laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (collectively, the “CCPA”), typically require us to provide notice to state residents regarding our
collection, use, and sharing of their personal information, and give state residents the right to opt-out of the sale or sharing for targeted advertising of their personal information, as well as the right to limit our use and disclosure of their
“sensitive” (including health) personal information. Some of these laws require that we obtain signed consent in order to collect, use or share any sensitive personal information. Most of these laws are enforceable only by state authorities, but
the CCPA provides a private right of action for data security breaches that result in the compromise of highly sensitive personal information, which may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation. Both the
California Attorney General and the California Privacy Protection Agency, have authority to implement and enforce the CCPA.
New legislation anticipated to be enacted in various other states will continue to shape the data privacy environment nationally. The effects on our business of this growing
body of privacy and data protection laws are potentially significant, and may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies and to incur substantial costs and expenses in an effort to comply.
Outside of the U.S., laws, regulations and standards in many jurisdictions apply broadly to the collection, use, retention, security, disclosure, transfer and other
processing of personal information. For example, in EEA, the collection and use of personal data is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). The GDPR came into effect in May 2018, superseding the European
Union Data Protection Directive, and imposing more stringent data privacy and security requirements on companies in relation to the processing of personal data. The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the EU
member states governing the processing of personal data, impose strict obligations on controllers, including inter alia: (i) accountability and transparency requirements, and enhanced requirements for
obtaining valid consent; (ii) obligations to consider data protection as any new products or services are developed and to limit the amount of personal data processed; (iii) obligations to comply with data protection rights of data subjects; and
(iv) reporting of certain personal data breaches to the supervisory authority without undue delay (and no later than 72 hours where feasible). The GDPR also prohibits the transfer of personal data from the EEA to countries outside of the EEA
unless made to a country deemed to have adequate data privacy laws by the European Commission or a data transfer mechanism has been put in place. The EU-US Privacy Shield was such a transfer mechanism put in place by the EU and the U.S., but the
Privacy Shield was invalidated for international transfers of personal data in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). A replacement of the Privacy Shield – the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”) was since developed.
In July 2023, the U.S. and EU implemented the DPF. Companies can now use this new mechanism to transfer personal data from the EU to the U.S. and potentially from Switzerland to the U.S., subject to national implementation in Switzerland. The UK
Extension to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (“Data Bridge”) entered into force on October 12, allowing certifying entities to transfer personal data from the UK to the U.S. At the moment, it is unclear whether the anticipated legal challenges
against the DPF, which may be similar to the challenge that led to the invalidation of the Privacy Shield, would be successful.
While in July 2020 the CJEU upheld the validity of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) as a legal mechanism to transfer personal data to
jurisdictions that the European Commission has not found to provide an adequate level of protection and while the European Commission adopted new SCCs in July 2021, companies relying on SCCs must, subject to
additional guidance from regulators in the EEA and the U.K., regularly evaluate and implement supplementary measures that provide privacy protections additional to those provided under SCCs. The use of the new SCCs may increase the
legal risks and liabilities under EEA privacy, data protection, and information security laws. Given that, at present, there are few, if any, viable alternatives to the SCCs and the DPF, any transfers by us or our vendors of personal information
from the EEA to the US may not comply with the EEA data protection laws, which may increase our exposure to the GDPR’s heightened sanctions for violations of its cross-border data transfer restrictions and may prohibit our transfer of EEA
personal information outside of the EEA (including clinical trial data), and may adversely impact our operations, product development and ability to provide our products.
The competent authorities and courts in a number of EU Member States increasingly scrutinize and question the GDPR compliance of processing of personal data by US-based
entities or entities with links to US-based entities, independently of whether personal data is actually transferred outside the EEA. The GDPR authorizes fines for certain violations of up to 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million, whichever
is greater. Such fines are in addition to any civil litigation claims by customers and data subjects. European data protection authorities may interpret the GDPR and national laws differently and impose additional requirements, which contributes
to the complexity of processing personal data in or from the EEA. In June 2021, the CJEU issued a ruling that expanded the scope of the “one stop shop” under the GDPR. According to the ruling, the competent authorities of EU Member States may,
under certain strict conditions, bring claims to their national courts against a company for breaches of the GDPR, including unlawful cross-border processing activities, even such company does not have an establishment in the EU member state in
question and the competent authority bringing the claim is not the lead supervisory authority.
Further, as of January 1, 2021, and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the U.K. and the EU (i.e., following the U.K.’s exit from the EU—otherwise known as Brexit), data processing in the U.K. is governed by a U.K. version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data
Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which potentially authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. With respect to transfers of personal data from the EEA to
the U.K., on June 28, 2021 the European Commission issued an adequacy decision in respect of the U.K.’s data protection framework, enabling data transfers from EU member states to the U.K. to continue without requiring organizations to put in
place contractual or other measures in order to lawfully transfer personal data between the territories. While it is intended to last for at least four years, this adequacy decisions will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European
Commission renews or extends it and may be modified or unilaterally revoked in the interim at any point, and if this occurs it could lead to additional costs and increase our overall risk exposure. Moreover, other countries have also passed or
are considering passing laws requiring local data residency or restricting the international transfer of data. In March 2024, the British Government published the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill intended to create a
more business-friendly regime in the UK through changes to the existing legislation. At this stage it is unclear whether and when this legislation will be adopted and whether such legislative reforms could potentially lead the European Commission
not to extend or to revoke the UK adequacy decision.
If we or our third-party service providers are unable to properly protect the privacy and security of personal information, or other confidential data we process in our
business, we could be found to have breached our contracts. Further, if we fail to comply with applicable privacy laws, we could face civil and criminal penalties. Enforcement activity from state Attorneys General and agencies such as the
California Privacy Protection Agency, the FTC, EU Data Protection Authorities, and other regulatory authorities in relation to privacy and cybersecurity matters can result in financial liability and reputational harm, and responses to such
enforcement activity can consume significant internal resources. In the U.S., the threat of class action lawsuits based on data security breaches or alleged unfair practices adds a further layer of risk. We cannot be sure how these privacy laws
and regulations will be interpreted, enforced or applied to our operations. In addition to the risks associated with enforcement activities and potential contractual liabilities, our ongoing efforts to comply with evolving laws and regulations at
the federal and state level may be costly and require ongoing modifications to our policies, procedures and systems.
Data privacy remains an evolving landscape at both the domestic and international level, with new laws and regulations frequently being adopted and coming into effect. It is
possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our current practices. Significant resources are needed to understand and comply with this changing landscape. Failure to comply with federal, state and
international laws regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to penalties, including government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices or unwind certain lines of business, claims for damages or
other liabilities, regulatory investigations and enforcement action, litigation and significant costs for remediation, any of which could adversely affect our business. Even absent any findings that we have violated these laws, government
investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.
Our or our affiliates’ employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers and other
vendors or potential collaborators may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could harm our results of operations.
We are exposed to the risk that our or our affiliates’ employees and contractors, including principal investigators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, commercial collaborators,
service providers and other vendors may engage in misconduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate the laws and regulations of
the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such regulatory bodies; manufacturing and the FDA’s GCP, GLP and GMP standards; federal, state and foreign
healthcare fraud and abuse laws and data privacy; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are
subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing, bribery, corruption, antitrust violations and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of business activities, including research,
manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of
information obtained in the course of clinical trials, creating fraudulent data in our nonclinical studies or clinical trials or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our
reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee or third-party misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in
protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with such laws or regulations.
Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person, including any person who may have engaged in any fraud or misconduct, or government agency could allege such fraud or
other misconduct, even if none occurred. Furthermore, we rely on our CROs and clinical trial sites to adequately report data from our ongoing clinical trials. Moreover, in some instances, our licensing partners conduct clinical trials with
respect to product candidates in different territories and we rely on any such partners to share data from their ongoing clinical trials as required under our agreements with such partners. For example, any failure by such parties to adequately
report safety signals to us in a timely manner from any such trials may also affect the approvability of our product candidates or cause delays and disruptions for the approval of our product candidates, if at all. If our or our affiliates’
employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, commercial collaborators, service providers or other vendors are alleged or found to be in violation of any such regulatory standards or requirements, or become subject to
a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement and curtailment of our operations, it could have a significant impact on our business and financial results, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative
penalties, damages, monetary fines, suspension or delay in our clinical trials, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, FDA debarment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished
profits and future earnings, and additional reporting requirements and oversight, any of which could harm our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.
Potential product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and limit commercialization of our products and, if
approved, product candidates.
The sale of our products, including VTAMA, which was approved by the FDA in May 2022 for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults in the U.S., and the use of our existing
product candidates in clinical trials expose us to the risk of product liability claims. Product liability claims might be brought against us by consumers, health care providers, other pharmaceutical companies or others taking or otherwise coming
into contact with our products or product candidates. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits where drugs have had unanticipated harmful effects. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability
claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:
|
• |
delays in or an inability to commercialize VTAMA, and any future products for which we obtain marketing approval;
|
|
• |
impairment of our business reputation and significant negative media attention;
|
|
• |
delay or termination of clinical trials, or withdrawal of participants from our clinical trials;
|
|
• |
significant costs to defend the related litigation;
|
|
• |
distraction of management’s attention from our primary business;
|
|
• |
substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants;
|
|
• |
product recalls, withdrawals or labelling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
|
|
• |
decreased demand for our VTAMA, and current or future product candidates, if approved; and
|
The product liability insurance we currently carry, and any additional product liability insurance coverage we acquire in the future, may not be sufficient to reimburse us
for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive and in the future we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against
losses due to liability. We have acquired insurance coverage which extends to liabilities arising from the sale of our products; however, there is no assurance that we will be able to maintain this insurance coverage on commercially reasonable
terms or in adequate amounts or that this coverage will be sufficient to cover any losses arising from any claims related to our products or, if approved, product candidates. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought
against us could adversely affect our results of operations and business, including preventing or limiting the commercialization of our products and, if approved, product candidates.
If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could
harm our business.
We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment
and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Certain of our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract
with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be
held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.
Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous
materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of
biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.
In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and
regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.
We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes, outbreak of disease or other natural disasters and our business
continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.
Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition
and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our offices, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party
CMOs, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently
are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly
when taken together with our limited earthquake and flood insurance coverage, could have a material adverse effect on our business.
The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.
Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our research, products, product candidates, investigational medicines and the diseases our products, product
candidates and investigational medicines are being developed to treat. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations relating to such use are not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and
risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business, resulting in potential regulatory actions against us. For example, patients may use social media channels to comment on their experience in an ongoing blinded clinical study or to
report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations or we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests
in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our development candidates and investigational medicines. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive
information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website. Furthermore, our employees, affiliates and/or business partners may use social media for their personal use, and their activities on social media
or in other forums could result in adverse publicity for us. Any negative publicity as a result of social media posts, whether or not such claims are accurate, could adversely impact us. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail
to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions, or incur other harm to our business. The use of social media also creates additional risks in the EEA and the UK where promotion of prescription-only
medicines to patients and the general public is strictly prohibited. Social media content that is generated, shared or liked by our company or our directors, employees, staff or other representatives may potentially be perceived or construed as
constituting prohibited promotion of prescription-only medicinal products and trigger enforcement and penalties. This is an area of increased scrutiny in both the EEA and the UK.
The use of AI could expose us to liability or adversely affect our business.
Certain of our early-stage discovery Vants and healthcare technology businesses use machine learning and AI as part of their business. However, there are significant risks
involved in utilizing AI and no assurance can be provided that our use of AI will enhance our business or operations or result in our business or operations being more efficient or profitable. For example, AI algorithms may be flawed,
insufficient, of poor quality, reflect unwanted forms of bias, or contain other errors or inadequacies, any of which may not be easily detectable; AI has been known to produce false or “hallucinatory” inferences or outputs; AI can present ethical
issues and may subject us to new or heightened legal, regulatory, ethical or other challenges; and inappropriate or controversial data practices by developers and end-users, or other factors adversely affecting public opinion of AI, could impair
the acceptance of AI solutions, including those incorporated in our businesses. If the AI solutions that we create or use are deficient, inaccurate or controversial, we could suffer from competitive harm, legal liability, brand or reputational
harm, or other adverse impacts on our business and financial results. If we do not have sufficient rights to use the data or other material or content on which our AI solutions or other AI tools we use rely, we also may incur liability through
the violation of applicable laws, third-party intellectual property, privacy or other rights, or contracts to which we are a party.
In addition, regulation of AI is rapidly evolving worldwide as legislators and regulators are increasingly focused on these powerful emerging technologies. The technologies
underlying AI and its uses are subject to a variety of laws, including intellectual property, privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, consumer protection, competition, and equal opportunity laws, and are expected to be subject to increased
regulation and new laws or new applications of existing laws. AI is the subject of ongoing review by various U.S. governmental and regulatory agencies, and various U.S. states and other foreign jurisdictions are applying, or are considering
applying, their platform moderation, cybersecurity, and data protection laws to AI or are considering general legal frameworks for AI, such as the AI Act currently being considered in the EU. We may not be able to anticipate how to respond to
these rapidly evolving frameworks, and we may need to expend resources to adjust our offerings in certain jurisdictions if the legal frameworks are inconsistent across jurisdictions. Furthermore, because AI technology itself is highly complex and
rapidly developing, it is not possible to predict all of the legal, operational or technological risks that may arise relating to the use of AI.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection for our technology, products and product candidates, or if the
scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.
We rely, and will continue to rely, upon a combination of patents, trademarks, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants,
collaborators, advisors and other third parties to protect the intellectual property related to our brand, current and future drug development programs, products and product candidates. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain
and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our current and future products and product candidates. We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing or acquiring intellectual property and filing
patent applications in the U.S. and abroad related to our current and future development programs, products and product candidates, defending our intellectual property rights against third-party challenges and enforcing our intellectual property
rights to prevent third-party infringement. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner.
Furthermore, there is always a risk that our licensed or owned issued patents and any pending and future patent applications may not protect our products or product candidates, in whole or in part, and may not effectively prevent others from
commercializing competitive products or product candidates, or that an alteration to our products or product candidates or processes may provide sufficient basis for a competitor to avoid infringing our patent claims. The risks associated with
patent rights generally apply to patent rights that we in-license now or in the future, as well as patent rights that we may own now or in the future.
It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Although we
enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of their research and development output, such as employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators,
CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to obtain patent
protection. In addition, while we have pre-publication review procedures in effect, premature or inadvertent publication of potentially patentable subject matter could preclude our ability to obtain patent protection. We may choose not to seek
patent protection for certain innovations, products or product candidates and may choose not to pursue patent protection in certain jurisdictions, and under the laws of certain jurisdictions, patents or other intellectual property rights may be
unavailable or limited in scope and, in any event, any patent protection we obtain may be limited. As a result, our products and, if approved, product candidates may not be protected by patents in all jurisdictions. We generally apply for patents
in those countries where we intend to make, have made, use, offer for sale, or sell products and product candidates and where we assess the risk of infringement to justify the cost of seeking patent protection. However, we do not seek protection
in all countries where we intend to sell products and, if approved, product candidates and we may not accurately predict all the countries where patent protection would ultimately be desirable. If we fail to timely file a patent application in
any such country or major market, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover products or product candidates in the U.S. or in
other countries. We may also inadvertently make statements to regulatory agencies during the regulatory approval process that may be inconsistent with positions that have been taken during prosecution of our patents, which may result in such
patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable in enforcement and other adversarial proceedings.
The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current and future products or product candidates in the
U.S. or in other countries. Our pending PCT patent applications are not eligible to become issued patents until, among other things, we file a national stage patent application within 30 months in the countries in which we seek patent protection.
If we do not timely file any national stage patent applications, we may lose our priority date with respect to our PCT patent applications and any patent protection on the inventions disclosed in such PCT patent applications. We cannot guarantee
any current or future patents will provide us with any meaningful protection or competitive advantage. For example, any issued patents might not cover the pharmaceutical composition of the product or product candidate that is ultimately
commercialized. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, which can prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application or be used to
invalidate an issued patent. The examination process may require us to narrow our claims, which may limit the scope of patent protection that we may ultimately obtain. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our
current and future products and product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowly construed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, any of which could limit our
ability to prevent competitors and other third parties from developing and marketing similar products or product candidates or limit the length of terms of patent protection we may have for our products, product candidates and technologies. Other
companies may also design around technologies we have patented, licensed or developed. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent
us from marketing products or product candidates, or practicing our own patented technology, or impose a substantial royalty burden to do so. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive
us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any products or, if approved, product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product or product
candidate under patent protection could be reduced. If any of our patents are challenged, invalidated, circumvented by third parties or otherwise limited or expire prior to the commercialization of our products or, if approved, product
candidates, and if we do not own or have exclusive rights to other enforceable patents protecting our products, product candidates or other technologies, competitors and other third parties could market products or product candidates and use
processes that are substantially similar to, or superior to, ours and our business would suffer.
If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our products or product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of
protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our current and future products or product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, and threaten our ability
to commercialize our products. Any such outcome could have a materially adverse effect on our business. Our pending patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless and
until a patent issues from such applications.
The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the
subject of much litigation. The standards that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) and its counterparts in other countries use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly. In addition, the laws of countries
other than the U.S. may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S., and many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. For example, European patent law
restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than U.S. law does.
Other parties have developed technologies that may be related or competitive to our own technologies and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may
have received or may receive patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our own or licensed patent applications or issued patents. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in scientific literature often lag
behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the U.S. and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors
were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope,
validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology, products or product candidates, in whole or
in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies, products and product candidates. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. and other countries may diminish the
value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.
Patent reform legislation in the U.S., including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“the Leahy-Smith Act”), could increase those uncertainties and costs surrounding the
prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act was signed into law on September 16, 2011 and includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions
that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to
the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to challenge the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review (“IPR”),
and derivation proceedings. After March 15, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the U.S. transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent
application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. The Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the
prosecution of our patent applications, our ability to obtain future patents, and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or
patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. We are currently and may in the future be subject to third-party pre-issuance submissions of prior art to the USPTO or its equivalents and we or our licensors have in the past, and may in the future, become
involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, IPR, post-grant review or interference proceedings in the U.S. or in other jurisdictions challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. A third party may also claim that our owned
or licensed patent rights are invalid or unenforceable in a litigation. For example, on April 23, 2024, a petition for an IPR was filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) by Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd., alleging that certain claims of
U.S. Patent No. 11,590,088 (the “‘088 Patent”), relating to VTAMA (tapinarof) cream 1%, are invalid. The ‘088 Patent expires in 2039. The PTAB is not expected to decide whether to institute the IPR until approximately six months from the petition
filing date. In February 2023, Sandoz Group AG filed an opposition challenging Dermavant’s European Patent Number 3297605 which covers topical formulations of tapinarof. The opposition is ongoing and should be decided in the fourth quarter of
calendar year 2024.
In addition, certain U.S. patents relating to lipid nanoparticle molar ratios and the aggregation of lipid nanoparticles that Genevant Sciences GmbH, as assignee of Genevant
Sciences Ltd. (“Genevant”), exclusively licensed from Arbutus Biopharma Corp. (“Arbutus”) have previously been the subject of IPR proceedings brought by Moderna Therapeutics, Inc. (“Moderna”) before the
PTAB, whose decisions were subsequently reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). As previously disclosed, the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the PTAB’s decisions upholding certain claims under
those patents and invalidating others. Additionally, one European patent (EU Patent No. EP2279254) relating to lipid nanoparticle molar ratios that Genevant exclusively licensed from Arbutus is the subject of an opposition proceeding brought in
2018 by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation and Moderna at the European Patent Office (the “EPO”) Opposition Division. In 2019, the EPO Opposition Division upheld claims as amended by an auxiliary request submitted by the patent owner. Merck and
Moderna appealed and, in 2023, the Boards of Appeal of the EPO set aside the EPO Opposition Division decision and remitted the case to the EPO Opposition Division for further prosecution. In March 2024, the EPO Opposition Division issued a
preliminary opinion. Oral proceedings are scheduled for June 2024, and the case is pending. Genevant may commence litigation at any time to enforce its patent rights against infringers.
The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could
reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology, products or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, result in our inability to manufacture or
commercialize products and, if approved, product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights or result in our breach of agreements pursuant to which we license such rights to our collaborators or licensees. In addition, if the breadth
or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future products or product candidates. Such challenges
may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical
technology, products and product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology, products and product candidates. Such challenges also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists
and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Even if they are unchallenged, our owned and licensed patents and pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent
competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive
product that provides benefits similar to one or more of our products or product candidates but that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. Moreover, patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., the natural expiration of a patent is
generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, are limited. Without patent protection for our current or future products and product candidates, it may be
open to competition from generic versions of such products or product candidates. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire
before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or identical to our own
and, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Patent terms and their scope may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on current and future products and product candidates for an adequate
amount of time.
Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S.
non-provisional filing date. In certain instances, the patent term may be adjusted to add additional days to compensate for delays incurred by the USPTO in issuing the patent. Also, the patent term may be extended for a period of time to
compensate for at least a portion of the time a product or product candidate was undergoing FDA regulatory review. However, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, are limited. Even if patents covering products or product candidates
are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from other products or product candidates, including generics or biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of
new products and product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. For example, the patent covering the use of VTAMA as an active ingredient to treat psoriasis and
atopic dermatitis, but not limited to any formulation, expired in December 2020. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing product candidates similar or
identical to our products and product candidates.
We do not currently and may not in the future own or license any issued composition of matter patents covering certain of our products or product
candidates, including VTAMA, and we cannot be certain that any of our other issued patents will provide adequate protection for such products or product candidates.
Composition-of-matter patents on the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) in prescription drug products are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual
property protection for drug products because those types of patents provide protection without regard to any particular method of use or manufacture or formulation of the API used. While we generally seek composition of matter patents for our
products and product candidates, such patents may not be available for all of our products and product candidates. For example, we do not own or have a license to any issued composition of matter patents in the U.S. or any other jurisdiction with
respect to VTAMA. Instead, we rely on four issued U.S. patents claiming topical formulations of VTAMA, including the commercial formulation which was studied in Phase 3 trials and approved by the FDA, and two issued U.S. patents covering methods
of using the patented topical formulations to treat inflammatory diseases, including psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. The formulation and method-of-use patents have natural expiration dates in 2036, without taking into account any possible patent
term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees. We additionally rely on three drug substance (“DS”) patents covering the high purity commercial crystal form of the
DS, the commercial DS synthesis and several novel intermediates that are formed in the synthesis, which has a natural expiration date in 2038, without taking into account any possible patent term adjustments or extensions and assuming payment of
all appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity or other governmental fees. We also have a patent covering the use of VTAMA to treat psoriasis wherein patients achieve the Phase 3 clinical endpoints. This method of treatment patent is expected to
expire in 2040 (including a potential patent term extension for pediatric exclusivity).
Method-of-use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method and formulation patents cover formulations of the API. These types of patents do not prevent a
competitor or other third-party from developing or marketing an identical product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method or from developing a different formulation that is outside the scope of the patented formulation.
Moreover, with respect to method-of-use patents, even if competitors or other third parties do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications or uses for which we may obtain patents, physicians may recommend that patients use
these products off-label, or patients may do so themselves. Although off-label use may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method-of-use patents, the practice is common, and this type of infringement is difficult to prevent or
prosecute.
Our owned and licensed patents and pending patent applications, if issued, may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent competitors or others from
designing around our patent claims to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or therapeutics in a non-infringing manner. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and
patent applications we own or license with respect to our products and product candidates is not sufficient to impede such competition or is otherwise threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our
ability to commercialize, our products and, if approved, product candidates. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments by extending the patent term, our business may be harmed.
Our commercial success will largely depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our
proprietary technology, products, product candidates and our target indications. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of products and product candidates, patents protecting our products and product
candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidate begins to be commercialized. We expect to seek extensions of patent terms in the U.S. and, if available, in other countries where we are prosecuting patents.
Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for a limited patent term
extension (“PTE”) under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years beyond the normal expiration
of the patent as compensation for patent term lost during development and the FDA regulatory review process, which is limited to the approved indication (and potentially additional indications approved during the period of extension) covered by
the patent. This extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and is limited to only one patent that covers the approved product, the approved use of the product, or a method
of manufacturing the product. However, the applicable authorities, including the FDA and the USPTO in the U.S., and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are
available, and may refuse to grant extensions to our patents, or may grant more limited extensions than we request. We may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior
to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time-period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. Even if we are able to obtain an extension,
the patent term may still expire before or shortly after we receive FDA marketing approval for a given product or product candidate.
If we are unable to extend the expiration date of our existing patents or obtain new patents with longer expiry dates, our competitors may be able to take advantage of our
investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data to obtain approval of competing product candidates following our patent expiration and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements
imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated as a result of non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and other patent agencies in other jurisdictions in several stages over the lifetime of the
patent. The USPTO and various national or international patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In certain circumstances, we rely
on our licensing partners to pay these fees due to U.S. and non-U.S. patent agencies and to take the necessary action to comply with these requirements with respect to our licensed intellectual property. While an inadvertent lapse can in many
cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or
complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of patent rights include, but are not limited to, failure to timely file national and regional stage patent applications
based on our international patent applications, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the
patents and patent applications covering our current and future products and product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than anticipated, which would have an adverse effect on our business.
We rely on certain in-licensed patents and other intellectual property rights in connection with our development of certain products and product
candidates and, if we fail to comply with our obligations under our existing and any future intellectual property licenses with third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.
Our ability to commercialize products and develop and eventually, if approved, commercialize product candidates is dependent on licenses to patent rights and other
intellectual property granted to it by third parties. Further, development and commercialization of our current and future products and product candidates may require us to enter into additional license or collaboration agreements.
Our current license agreements impose, and future agreements may impose, various development, diligence, commercialization and other obligations on us and require us to meet
development timelines, or to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize licensed products, in order to maintain the licenses. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these licenses, our licensors may have the
right to terminate these license agreements, in which event we may not be able to market our products and product candidates. Termination of any of our license agreements or reduction or elimination of our licensed rights may also result in our
having to negotiate new or reinstated licenses with less favorable terms. Additionally, certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation
disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could harm our business, financial
condition, results of operations and prospects. For example, disputes may arise with respect to our current or future licensing agreement include disputes relating to:
|
• |
the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
|
|
• |
our financial or other obligations under the license agreement;
|
|
• |
the extent to which our technology, products or product candidates infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
|
|
• |
the sublicensing of patent and other rights;
|
|
• |
our diligence obligations under the license agreements and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations;
|
|
• |
the inventorship or ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners; and
|
|
• |
the priority of invention of patented technology.
|
If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be
unable to successfully develop and commercialize our products and product candidates. If our licenses are terminated, we may lose our rights to develop and market our technology, products and product candidates, lose patent protection for our
products, product candidates and technology, experience significant delays in the development and commercialization of our products and product candidates, or incur liability for damages. In addition, we may need to obtain additional licenses
from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties, including our
competitors, to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property that is subject to our existing licenses and to compete with our products and product candidates.
Furthermore, if our licenses are terminated, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom
to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical or competitive to ours and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of certain of our products and product candidates. Moreover, if disputes over
intellectual property that we license prevent or impair our ability to maintain other licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected products or product candidates.
In addition, certain of these license agreements, may not be assignable by us without the consent of the respective licensor, which may have an adverse effect on our ability to engage in certain transactions. Any of the foregoing could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to
maintain or enforce the patents, covering technology that it licenses from third parties. Therefore, we cannot be certain that these or other patents will be prosecuted, maintained and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of
our business. Additionally, we may not have sufficient ability to provide input into the patent prosecution, maintenance and defense process with respect to such patents, and our licensors may fail to take the steps that we believe are necessary
or desirable in order to obtain, maintain, defend and enforce the licensed patents. If our current or future licensors or collaboration partners fail to obtain, maintain, defend, protect or enforce any patents or patent applications licensed to
us, our rights to such patents and patent applications may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize products and product candidates that are the subject of such licensed rights could be adversely affected.
Furthermore, certain of our current and future licenses may not provide us with exclusive rights to use the licensed intellectual property and technology, or may not provide
us with rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize our technology, products and product candidates in the future. The intellectual
property portfolio licensed to us by our licensors at least in some respects, may therefore be used by such licensors or licensed to third parties, and such third parties may have certain enforcement rights with respect to such intellectual
property. For example, Immunovant does not have rights to develop, manufacture, use or commercialize batoclimab or IMVT-1402 or file or enforce patents relating to these assets in territories other than the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the EU, the U.K.,
Switzerland, the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America, as such rights in other jurisdictions have been retained by HanAll Biopharma Co., Ltd. (“HanAll”) or licensed by HanAll to third parties. Additionally, Dermavant does not have the
right to develop, manufacture, use or commercialize VTAMA in China, including Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan, as such rights were retained by Welichem Biotech Inc. or licensed to third parties. Patents licensed to us could be put at risk of being
invalidated or interpreted narrowly in litigation filed by or against our licensors or another licensee or in administrative proceedings brought by or against our licensors or another licensee in response to such litigation or for other reasons.
As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors or other third parties from developing and commercializing competitive products, including in territories covered by our licenses.
Third-party claims or litigation alleging infringement, misappropriation or other violations of third-party patents or other proprietary rights or seeking
to invalidate our patents or other proprietary rights, may delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our current and future products and product candidates.
Our commercial success depends in part on our avoidance of infringement, misappropriation and other violations of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties.
However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. Our competitors
or other third parties may assert infringement claims against us, alleging that our products or product candidates are covered by their patents. We cannot be certain that we do not infringe existing patents or that we will not infringe patents
that may be granted in the future. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the U.S., involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent
infringement lawsuits, interferences, derivation and administrative law proceedings, IPR and post-grant review before the USPTO, as well as oppositions and similar processes in other jurisdictions.
Numerous U.S. and non-U.S. issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we and our collaborators are developing product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical
industries expand and more patents are issued, and as we gain greater visibility, the risk increases that our products, product candidates or other business activities may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent and other proprietary
rights of third parties. Third parties may assert that we are infringing their patents or employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials,
formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our products or product candidates. We could also be required to pay damages, which could be significant, including treble damages and attorneys’
fees if we are found to have willfully infringed such patents.
Additionally, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our
products or product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to cover any of our products or product candidates, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such products or, if approved, product candidates, unless we obtained a license under the
applicable patents, or until such patents expire. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination
therapy, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product or, if approved, product candidate, unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a
license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business. In addition, we may
be subject to claims that we are infringing other intellectual property rights, such as trademarks or copyrights, or misappropriating the trade secrets of others, and to the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use intellectual
property or proprietary information owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions, which could be time-consuming and divert the attention of senior management.
Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more
of our products or, if approved, product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a
successful infringement or other intellectual property claim against it, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties
or redesign our affected products or product candidates, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on
commercially reasonable terms. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our products or, if approved, product candidates, and we have
done so from time to time. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize one or more of our products or, if approved,
product candidates, which could harm our business significantly. We cannot provide any assurances that third-party patents do not exist which might be enforced against our products or product candidates, resulting in either an injunction
prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.
Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex intellectual property litigation more effectively than we can because the competitors have substantially
greater financial and other resources. In addition, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity, adversely impact prospective customers, cause product shipment delays or prohibit us from
manufacturing, marketing or otherwise commercializing our products or, if approved, product candidates. Any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could adversely impact our ability to raise additional
funds or otherwise harm our business, results of operation, financial condition or cash flows.
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, which could adversely impact the price of
our common shares.
We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might harm
our ability to develop and market our products and product candidates.
We cannot guarantee that any of our or our licensors’ patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the
expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the U.S. and abroad that is or may be relevant to or necessary for the
commercialization of products or product candidates in any jurisdiction. Patent applications in the U.S. and elsewhere are not published until approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest
filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. In addition, U.S. patent applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. patent applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the U.S. remain
confidential until patents issue. Therefore, patent applications covering our products and product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject
to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our current and future products and product candidates, or the use thereof, provided such pending patent applications result in issued patents. Our ability to develop and
market our current and future products and product candidate can be adversely affected in jurisdictions where such patents are issued.
The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the
relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products or, if approved, product candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our products or product candidates
are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the U.S. or abroad that we consider
relevant may be incorrect and we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid or unenforceable. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our current
and future products and, if approved, product candidates.
If we fail to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents, we may be subject to infringement claims. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or
otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our products or, if approved, product candidates,
that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign products or product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to
prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights, which could be
expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents, the patents of our licensors or our other intellectual property rights. To counter infringement or
unauthorized use, we may be required to file and prosecute legal claims against one or more third parties, which can be expensive and time-consuming, even if ultimately successful. For example, in February 2022, Roivant’s subsidiary, Genevant
Sciences GmbH (“Genevant GmbH”), and Arbutus filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Moderna and an affiliate seeking damages for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,058,069, 8,492,359, 8,822,668, 9,364,435,
9,504,651, and 11,141,378 in the manufacture and sale of MRNA-1273, Moderna’s vaccine for COVID-19 (the “Moderna Action”). In November 2022, the District Court denied Moderna’s partial motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) (“§ 1498”).
In March 2023, following the submission of a Statement of Interest in the case by the U.S. Government, the court reaffirmed its prior decision and again ruled that the complaint should not be partially dismissed on the basis of § 1498. On
February 8, 2024, the court held a Claim Construction hearing on disputed terms within the claims of the asserted patents. On April 3, 2024, the court provided its Claim Construction ruling, in which it construed the disputed claim terms and
agreed with Genevant GmbH and Arbutus’ position on most of the disputed claim terms. Fact discovery is on-going and next steps include expert reports and depositions. A trial date has been set for April 21, 2025. On April 4, 2023, Genevant GmbH
and Arbutus filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pfizer and BioNTech seeking damages for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,504,651, 8,492,359, 11,141,378, 11,298,320 and 11,318,098 in the manufacture
and sale of COMIRNATY (the “Pfizer Action”). On July 10, 2023, Pfizer and BioNTech filed an answer. The Pfizer Action is ongoing and a date for a claim construction hearing has not been set.
In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours or our licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using
the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. The standards that courts use to interpret patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change, particularly as new technologies
develop. As a result, we cannot predict with certainty how much protection, if any, will be given to our patents if we attempt to enforce them and they are challenged in court and if any such suits, including the Moderna Action and the Pfizer
Action, will ultimately be resolved successfully. Further, even if we prevail against an infringer in U.S. district court, there is always the risk that the infringer will file an appeal and the district court judgment will be overturned at the
appeals court and/or that an adverse decision will be issued by the appeals court relating to the validity or enforceability of our patents. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk
of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly in a manner insufficient to achieve our business objectives, or could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. The initiation of a claim against a third party may also cause the third-party
to bring counter claims against us such as claims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the U.S., 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, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement or lack of written description or non-statutory subject matter. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion
could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant material information from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity
claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, IPR or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the U.S., in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation. The
outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. We cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. For the patents and patent
applications that we have licensed, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability,
we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of any future patent protection on our current or future products or product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could harm our business. Additionally, any adverse outcome could allow third
parties to commercialize our products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights.
Even if we establish infringement, we may not seek, or the court may decide not to grant, an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary
damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. We may not be able to detect or prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights
as fully as in the U.S. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.
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 an adverse effect on the price of our common shares.
We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct the Moderna Action, the Pfizer Action or any other such litigation or proceedings. Some of our
competitors or other third parties may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Because of the expense and uncertainty of litigation, we may conclude
that even if a third party is infringing our issued patent, any patents that may be issued as a result of our pending or future patent applications or other intellectual property rights, the risk-adjusted cost of bringing and enforcing such a
claim or action may be too high or not in the best interest of our company or our shareholders. In such cases, we may decide that the more prudent course of action is to simply monitor the situation or initiate or seek some other non-litigious
action or solution.
Because many of the patents we own or have licensed are owned or licensed by our subsidiaries, and in certain cases by subsidiaries that are not or will
not be directly commercializing products, we may not be in a position to obtain a permanent injunction against a third party that is found to infringe our patents.
Many patents that we own or have licensed are assigned to or licensed by our direct or indirect subsidiaries. For example, any patents that Immunovant has licensed are
assigned to its wholly-owned subsidiary Immunovant Sciences GmbH and any patents that Dermavant owns or has licensed are assigned to its wholly-owned subsidiary Dermavant Sciences GmbH. If a third party is found to be infringing such patents, we
and our direct subsidiaries may not be able to permanently enjoin the third-party from making, using, offering for sale or selling the infringing product or activity for the remaining life of such patent in the U.S. or other jurisdictions when
the patent is assigned to a subsidiary, which is not the entity that is or would be commercializing a potentially competitive product or service. In such a circumstance, such third-party may be able to compete with us or our subsidiaries, which
could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Changes in U.S. patent law or the patent law of other countries or jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our
ability to protect our products and product candidates.
As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical
industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. or USPTO rules and regulations could
increase the uncertainties and costs.
The U.S. has recently enacted and implemented wide-ranging patent reform legislation. In addition, patent reform legislation may pass in the future that could lead to
additional uncertainties and increased costs surrounding the prosecution, enforcement and defense of our patents and pending patent applications. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope
of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. 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. For example, in June 2022, the World Trade Organization members agreed to waive certain patent rights with respect to COVID-19 vaccines. Any waiver of our patent or
other intellectual property protection by the U.S. and other foreign governments, including with respect to Genevant’s licensed lipid nanoparticle (“LNP”) delivery technology as used in connection with messenger RNA vaccine delivery, could have a
material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Depending on actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken
our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we might obtain in the future. Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that
enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. We cannot predict
future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by U.S. and non-U.S. legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect our patents or patent applications and our ability to obtain
additional patent protection in the future.
In addition, the U.S. federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a
“nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights.” March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the
contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” For example, the research resulting in certain of our acquired or in-licensed patent
rights and technology for certain products or product candidates was funded in part by the U.S. federal government. As a result, the federal government may have certain rights to such patent rights and technology, which include march-in rights.
If the federal government decides to exercise these rights, it is not required to engage us as its contractor in connection with doing so. The federal government’s rights may also permit it to disclose our confidential information to third
parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The federal government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical
application of the government-funded technology, or because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. Further, the recipient of U.S. government
funding is required to comply with certain other requirements, including timely disclosing the inventions claimed in such patent rights to the U.S. government and timely electing title to such inventions. The U.S. government has the right to take
title to such intellectual property rights if we, or the applicable licensor, fail to disclose the invention to the government and fail to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual
property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us or the applicable licensor to expend substantial resources. In addition, our rights in such inventions
may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products or product candidates embodying such inventions in the U.S. We cannot be certain that our current or future licensors will comply with the disclosure or reporting requirements of the
Bayh-Dole Act at all times or be able to rectify any lapse in compliance with these requirements. Any exercise by the government of any of the foregoing rights or by any third-party of its reserved rights could have a material adverse effect on
our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
The validity, scope and enforceability of any patents listed in the Orange Book that cover our products or product candidates, or patents that cover our
biologic product candidates, can be challenged by third parties.
If a third party files an application under Section 505(b)(2) or an abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) under Section 505(j) with respect to any of our products or, if
approved, product candidates, for a generic product containing any of our products or product candidates, including VTAMA, and relies in whole or in part on studies conducted by or for us, the third-party will be required to certify to the FDA
that either: (1) there is no patent information listed in the Orange Book with respect to our NDA for the applicable product or, if approved, product candidate; (2) the patents listed in the Orange Book have expired; (3) the listed patents have
not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (4) the listed patents are invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of the third-party’s generic product. A certification
under 21 CFR § 314.94(a)(12)(i)(A)(4) that the new product will not infringe the Orange Book-listed patents for the applicable product or, if approved, product candidate, or that such patents are invalid, is called a paragraph IV certification.
If the third-party submits a paragraph IV certification to the FDA, a notice of the paragraph IV certification must also be sent to us once the third-party’s ANDA is accepted for filing by the FDA. We may then initiate a lawsuit to defend the
patents identified in the notice. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of receipt of the notice automatically prevents the FDA from approving the third-party’s ANDA until the earliest of 30 months or the date on which the
patent expires, the lawsuit is settled, or the court reaches a decision in the infringement lawsuit in favor of the third-party. If we do not file a patent infringement lawsuit within the required 45-day period, the third-party’s ANDA will not be
subject to the 30-month stay of FDA approval.
Moreover, a third party may challenge the current patents, or patents that may issue in the future, within our portfolio, which could result in the invalidation of some or
all of the patents that might otherwise be eligible for listing in the Orange Book for one of our products. If a third party successfully challenges all of the patents that might otherwise be eligible for listing in the Orange Book for one of our
products before an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA is filed we will be unable to obtain a 30-month stay of FDA approval of a 505(b)(2) or ANDA.
For example, our issued U.S. patents covering VTAMA may not provide adequate protection from competitive products developed by 505(b)(1) NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or 505(j) ANDA
applicants containing paragraph IV certifications if such applicants are able to design around the patents. One or more competitors may circumvent these patents by filing a marketing application with the FDA under Sections 505(b)(2) or 505(j) of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act containing a paragraph IV certification for a competitive product containing the active moiety in VTAMA and successfully challenging the validity of the patents or successfully designing around the patents.
Any successful challenge against the patents and/or designing around one or more of the patents could result in a generic version of VTAMA being commercialized before the expiration of the patents. If the patents are successfully challenged or
designed around, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects would be harmed.
For biologics, the BPCIA provides a mechanism for one or more third parties to seek FDA approval to manufacture or sell a biosimilar or interchangeable versions of brand name
biological product candidates. Due to the large size and complexity of biological product candidates, as compared to small molecules, a biosimilar must be “highly similar” to the reference product with “no clinically meaningful differences
between the two.” The BPCIA does not require reference product sponsors to list patents in the FDA’s Orange Book and does not include an automatic 30-month stay of FDA approval upon the timely filing of a lawsuit. The BPCIA, however, does require
a formal pre-litigation process which includes the exchange of information between a biosimilar applicant and a reference biologic sponsor that includes the identification of relevant patents and each parties’ basis for infringement and
invalidity. After the exchange of this information, we may then initiate a lawsuit within 30 days to defend the patents identified in the exchange. If the biosimilar applicant successfully challenges the asserted patent claims, it could result in
the invalidation of, or render unenforceable, some or all of the relevant patent claims or result in a finding of non-infringement.
If we are unsuccessful in enforcing our patents against generics or biosimilars, our products could face competition prior to the expiration of the patents which cover such
products, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, any such litigation or other proceedings to enforce or defend intellectual property rights are often very
complex in nature, may be very expensive and time-consuming, may divert management’s attention from our core business, and may result in unfavorable results that could limit our ability to prevent third parties from competing with our products
and product candidates.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on products and product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual
property rights in some countries outside the U.S. can be less extensive than those in the U.S. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries, and the breadth of patent claims allowed can be
inconsistent. In addition, the laws of some countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws of the U.S.
Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., or from selling or importing product candidates
made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and product candidates and may also export
infringing products and product candidates to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These product candidates may compete with our products or product candidates and our patents or other
intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.
We do not have patent rights in all countries in which a market may exist. Moreover, in jurisdictions where we do have patent rights, proceedings to enforce such rights could
result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, and our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Additionally,
such proceedings could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Thus, we may not be able to stop
a competitor from marketing and selling in other countries products and product candidates and services that are the same as or similar to our products and product candidates, and our competitive position would be harmed.
Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in other jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries,
particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products and product candidates, which could make it
difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products or product candidates in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in other jurisdictions, whether or not
successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing
and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our
intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.
Many countries, including European Union countries, India, Japan and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under specified
circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In those countries, we may have limited remedies, which could materially
diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from
the intellectual property that we develop or license.
If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of any trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.
In addition to seeking patents for our products and product candidates, we may rely on trade secrets, including unpatented software, know-how, technology and other
proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect this software and information, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees,
corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants.
Because we rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties to manufacture our current and future products and product candidates, and we collaborate and expect to
continue to collaborate with third parties on the development of current and future products and product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We also conduct joint research and development programs that may require us to
share trade secrets under the terms of our research and development partnerships or similar agreements. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer
agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of
the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information
increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Any disclosure, either intentional or
unintentional, by our employees, the employees of third parties with whom we share facilities or third-party consultants and vendors that we engage to perform research, clinical trials or manufacturing activities, or misappropriation by third
parties (such as through a cybersecurity breach) of our trade secrets or proprietary information could enable competitors to duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in the market. Further,
adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or
disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
In addition, these agreements typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our
trade secrets, although our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. Policing unauthorized use of our or our licensors’ intellectual property is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and we may be unable to determine the
extent of any unauthorized use. Moreover, enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and
outside the U.S. are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors and other third parties may discover our trade secrets, including our proprietary software, either through
breach of our agreements with third parties, independent development or publication of information by any of our third-party collaborators. A competitor’s or other third-party’s discovery of our trade secrets, including our proprietary software,
would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business.
We cannot guarantee that we have entered into non-disclosure, confidentiality agreements, material transfer agreements or consulting agreements with each party that may have
or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary software, technology and processes. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and proprietary
software, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures of our intellectual property is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our intellectual
property will be effective. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and
the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the U.S. are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets, including our proprietary software, were to be lawfully obtained or
independently developed by a competitor or other third-party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets, including our
proprietary software, were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third-party, our competitive position would be harmed.
Certain software utilized in our computational drug discovery efforts may include third-party open source software. Any failure to comply with the terms
of one or more open source software licenses could adversely affect our business, subject us to litigation, or create potential liability.
Certain software utilized in our computational drug discovery efforts may include third-party open source software and we expect to continue to incorporate open source
software in the future. The use of open source software involves a number of risks, many of which cannot be eliminated and could negatively affect our business. For example, we cannot ensure that we have effectively monitored our use of open
source software or that we are in compliance with the terms of the applicable open source licenses or our current policies and procedures. There have been claims against companies that use open source software asserting that the use of such open
source software infringes the claimants’ intellectual property rights. As a result, we could be subject to suits by third parties claiming infringement on such third parties’ intellectual property rights. Litigation could be costly for us to
defend, have a negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, or require us to devote additional research and development resources to modify our computational drug discovery platform.
Use of open source software may entail greater risks than use of third-party commercial software, as open source licensors generally do not provide warranties, controls on
the origin of the software or other contractual protections regarding infringement claims or the quality of the code, including with respect to security vulnerabilities. In addition, certain open source licenses require that source code for
software programs that interact with such open source software be made available to the public at no cost and that any modifications or derivative works to such open source software continue to be licensed under the same terms as the open source
software license. The terms of various open source licenses have not been interpreted by courts in the relevant jurisdictions, and there is a risk that such licenses could be construed in a manner that imposes unanticipated conditions or
restrictions on our ability to market our solutions. By the terms of certain open source licenses, if portions of our proprietary software are determined to be subject to an open source license or if we combine our proprietary software with open
source software in a certain manner, we could be required to release the source code of our proprietary software and to make our proprietary software available under open source licenses, each of which could reduce or eliminate the effectiveness
of our computational discovery efforts. We may also face claims alleging noncompliance with open source license terms or misappropriation or other violation of open source technology. Any of these events could create liability for us and damage
our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of their
former employers or other third parties.
We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other software, biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our licensors, competitors or
potential competitors. Although we seek to protect our ownership of intellectual property rights by ensuring that our agreements with our employees, collaborators and other third parties with whom we do business include provisions requiring such
parties to not use the confidential information of their former employer, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants, independent contractors or other third parties have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed
confidential information of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. We may also be subject to claims that former employers or other third parties have an ownership interest in our owned or licensed patents or patent applications.
Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims, and 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, valuable intellectual property, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar technology and therapeutics, without payment to us, could limit
the duration of the patent protection covering our technology, products and product candidates and could result in our inability to develop, manufacture or commercialize our products and product candidates without infringing third-party patent
rights. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third-party to commercialize our current or future products and product candidates. Such a license may not be
available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and other employees. Moreover, any such litigation or the threat thereof may harm
our reputation, our ability to form strategic alliances or sublicense our rights to collaborators, engage with scientific advisors or hire employees or consultants, each of which would harm our business, results of operations and financial
condition.
We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.
We rely on a combination of internally developed and in-licensed intellectual property rights and we or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees,
collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors may have inventorship disputes arise from
conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or other third parties who are involved in developing our products and product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our or
our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors 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 products or 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 harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, contractors and other third parties who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute
agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our invention assignment agreements may not be
self-executing or may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. Additionally, we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we
regard as our intellectual property. Furthermore, individuals executing agreements with us may have preexisting or competing obligations to a third party, such as an academic institution, and thus an agreement with us may be ineffective in
perfecting ownership of inventions developed by that individual.
Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities, and have a
harmful effect on the success of our business.
Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, including the Moderna Action and the Pfizer Action, may cause
us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or
developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could adversely impact the price of our common shares. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the
resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be
able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources.
Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. In addition, the
uncertainties associated with litigation could compromise our ability to raise the funds necessary to pursue our commercialization efforts, continue our clinical trials and internal research programs or in-license needed technology or other
future product candidates. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace, including compromising our ability to raise the funds
necessary to pursue our commercialization efforts, continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development collaborations that would help us commercialize our
products or, if approved, product candidates. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
We may not be successful in obtaining necessary intellectual property rights to future product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.
A third party may hold intellectual property, including patent rights, that are important or necessary to the development of our product candidates. Accordingly, we may seek
to acquire or in-license patented or proprietary technologies to develop such product candidates or to grow our product offerings and technology portfolio. However, we may be unable to acquire or in-license intellectual property rights relating
to, or necessary for, any such product candidate or technology from third parties on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are able to in-license any such necessary intellectual property, it could be on non-exclusive terms, thereby
giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same intellectual property licensed to us, and it could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. In that event, we may be unable to develop or commercialize such
product candidates or technology. We may also be unable to identify product candidates or technology that we believe are an appropriate strategic fit for our company and protect intellectual property relating to, or necessary for, such product
candidate and technology.
The in-licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights for any future product candidate is a competitive area, and a number of more established
companies are also pursuing strategies to in-license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights for product candidates that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due
to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. If we are unable to successfully
obtain rights to additional technologies or product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects for growth could suffer.
In addition, we expect that competition for the in-licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights for any future product candidate and technologies that
are attractive to us may increase in the future, which may mean fewer suitable opportunities for us as well as higher acquisition or licensing costs. We may be unable to in-license or acquire the third-party intellectual property rights for
product candidates or technology on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.
Any trademarks we have obtained or may obtain may be infringed or successfully challenged, resulting in harm to our business.
We rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish our products from the products and product candidates of our competitors. Our current and future trademark applications in
the U.S. and in other jurisdictions may not be allowed or may subsequently be opposed, challenged, infringed, circumvented, declared generic or determined to be infringing other marks. Additionally, once we select new trademarks and apply to
register them, our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties have in the past opposed, are currently opposing and may in the future oppose or attempt to cancel our trademark applications or trademarks, or otherwise challenge our
use of the trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand products or product candidates, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to
advertising and marketing new brands. Our competitors may infringe our trademarks and we may not have adequate resources to enforce our trademarks. If we attempt to enforce our trademarks and assert trademark infringement claims, a court may
determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use
of such trademarks.
We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of
interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark
infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based
on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights
or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.
Once granted, patents may remain open to invalidity challenges including opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, IPR, nullification or derivation action
in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such grant. 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.
In addition, the degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not
adequately protect our business, provide a barrier to entry against our competitors or potential competitors, or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage.
Moreover, if a third party has intellectual property rights that cover the practice of our technology, we may not be able to fully exercise or extract value from our
intellectual property rights. The following examples are illustrative:
|
• |
others may be able to make formulations or compositions that are the same as or similar to our products or product candidates, but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own;
|
|
• |
others may be able to make product candidates that are similar to our products or product candidates that we intend to commercialize that are not covered by the patents that we exclusively licensed and have
the right to enforce;
|
|
• |
we, our licensor or any collaborators might not have been the first to make or reduce to practice the inventions covered by the issued patents or pending patent applications that we own or have exclusively
licensed;
|
|
• |
we or our licensor or any collaborators might not have been the first to file patent applications covering certain of our inventions;
|
|
• |
others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;
|
|
• |
it is possible that our pending patent applications will not lead to issued patents;
|
|
• |
issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable as a result of legal challenges;
|
|
• |
our competitors might conduct research and development activities in the U.S. and other countries that provide a safe harbor from patent infringement claims for certain research and development activities,
as well as in countries where we do not have patent rights, and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive product candidates for sale in our major commercial markets; and we may not develop additional
proprietary technologies that are patentable;
|
|
• |
third parties performing manufacturing or testing for us using our products, product candidates or technologies could use the intellectual property of others without obtaining a proper license;
|
|
• |
parties may assert an ownership interest in our intellectual property and, if successful, such disputes may preclude us from exercising exclusive rights over that intellectual property;
|
|
• |
we may not develop or in-license additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;
|
|
• |
we may not be able to obtain and maintain necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms, or at all;
|
|
• |
the patents of others may harm our business; and
|
|
• |
we may choose not to file a patent application in order to maintain certain trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent application covering such intellectual property.
|
Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business and results of operations.
Risks Related to Our Securities, Our Jurisdiction of Incorporation and Certain Tax Matters
If our performance does not meet market expectations, the price of our securities may decline.
If our performance does not meet market expectations, the price of our common shares may decline. In addition, the trading price of our common shares could be volatile and
subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. Any of the factors listed below could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common shares.
Factors affecting the trading price of our common shares may include:
|
• |
actual or anticipated fluctuations in our quarterly and annual financial results or the quarterly and annual financial results of companies perceived to be similar to it;
|
|
• |
changes in the market’s expectations about operating results;
|
|
• |
our operating results failing to meet market expectations in a particular period;
|
|
• |
a Vant’s operating results failing to meet market expectations in a particular period, which could impact the market prices of shares of a public Vant or the valuation of a private Vant, and in turn
adversely impact the trading price of our common shares;
|
|
• |
receipt of marketing approval for a product or product candidate in one or more jurisdictions, or the failure to receive such marketing approval;
|
|
• |
the results of clinical trials or preclinical studies conducted by us and the Vants;
|
|
• |
changes in financial estimates and recommendations by securities analysts concerning us, the Vants or the biopharmaceutical industry and market in general;
|
|
• |
operating and stock price performance of other companies that investors deem comparable to us;
|
|
• |
changes in laws and regulations affecting our and the Vants’ businesses;
|
|
• |
the outcome of litigation or other claims or proceedings, including governmental and regulatory proceedings, against us or the Vants;
|
|
• |
changes in our capital structure, such as future issuances of securities or the incurrence of debt;
|
|
• |
the volume of our common shares available for public sale and the relatively limited free float of our common shares;
|
|
• |
any significant change in our board of directors or management;
|
|
• |
sales of substantial amounts of our common shares by directors, executive officers or significant shareholders or the perception that such sales could occur; and
|
|
• |
general economic and political conditions such as recessions, interest rates, fuel prices, international currency fluctuations and acts of war or terrorism.
|
Broad market and industry factors may depress the market price of our common shares irrespective of our or the Vants’ operating performance. The stock market in general has
experienced price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of the particular companies affected. The trading prices and valuations of these stocks, and of our securities, may not be
predictable. A loss of investor confidence in the market for companies engaging in digital payments or the stocks of other companies which investors perceive to be similar to us could depress our stock price regardless of our business, prospects,
financial conditions or results of operations. A decline in the market price of our common shares also could adversely affect our ability to issue additional securities and our ability to obtain additional financing in the future.
We have incurred and will continue to incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company and our management has devoted and will continue
to devote a substantial amount of time to new compliance initiatives.
As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, and these
expenses are expected to increase from March 31, 2024, after which date we were no longer an emerging growth company, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Securities Act. As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the
Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as rules adopted, and to be adopted, by the SEC and the Nasdaq. We also expect that compliance with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
and increased disclosure requirements will substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs. Our management and other personnel have devoted and will continue to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives.
Moreover, these rules and regulations have substantially increased our legal and financial compliance costs and made some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, these rules and regulations have made it more difficult and more
expensive for us to obtain blended director and officer liability insurance and forced us to forego securities and corporate protection coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we have incurred and will
continue to incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive
officers.
If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting, our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements
could be impaired, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting and the trading price of our common shares may decline.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our management is required to report upon the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, and our
independent registered public accounting firm is required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to assess our internal control over
financial reporting are complex and costly. If we or our auditors are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting and the trading price of our common
shares may decline.
Although we have determined that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of March 31, 2024, we cannot assure you that there will not be material
weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting in the future. Any failure to maintain internal control over financial reporting could adversely impact our ability to accurately and timely report our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. If we are unable to conclude that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm determines we have a material weakness
or significant deficiency in our internal control over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, the market price of our common shares could decline and we could be subject to
sanctions or investigations by Nasdaq, the SEC or other regulatory authorities. Failure to remedy any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, or to implement or maintain other effective control systems required of
public companies, could also restrict our future access to the capital markets.
Changes in laws or regulations, or a failure to comply with any laws and regulations, may adversely affect our business, investments and results of
operations.
We are subject to laws and regulations enacted by national, regional and local governments. In particular, we will be required to comply with certain SEC and other legal
requirements. Compliance with, and monitoring of, applicable laws and regulations may be difficult, time consuming and costly. Those laws and regulations and their interpretation and application may also change from time to time and those changes
could have a material adverse effect on our business, investments and results of operations. In addition, a failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations, as interpreted and applied, could have a material adverse effect on our business
and results of operations.
Anti-takeover provisions in our memorandum of association and bye-laws, as well as provisions of Bermuda law could delay or prevent a change in control,
limit the price investors may be willing to pay in the future for our common shares and could entrench management
Our memorandum of association and bye-laws contain provisions that could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us without the consent of our board of directors.
These provisions provide for:
|
• |
a classified board of directors with staggered three-year terms;
|
|
• |
the ability of our board of directors to determine the powers, preferences and rights of preference shares and to cause us to issue the preference shares without shareholder approval; and
|
|
• |
requiring advance notice for shareholder proposals and nominations and placing limitations on convening shareholder meetings.
|
These provisions may make more difficult the removal of management and may discourage transactions that otherwise could involve payment of a premium over prevailing market
prices for our securities. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other shareholders to elect directors of your choosing and cause us to take corporate actions other than those you desire, any
of which could harm our share price.
Our largest shareholders own a significant percentage of our common shares and are able to exert significant control over matters subject to shareholder
approval.
Our largest shareholders continue to hold a significant percentage of our common shares. As a result, these holders have the ability to substantially influence us and exert
significant control through this ownership position and, in the case of certain holders, service on our board of directors. For example, these holders may be able to control elections of directors, issuance of equity, including to our employees
under equity incentive plans, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, amalgamation, sale of assets or other major corporate transaction. These holders’ interests may not always coincide with our corporate interests
or the interests of other shareholders, and they may exercise their voting and other rights in a manner with which you may not agree or that may not be in the best interests of our other shareholders. Furthermore, our largest shareholders may
from time to time have interests that differ from ours or from one another, and from time to time there may be disputes with or between such shareholders, which could be costly, time-consuming and divert management resources. So long as these
holders continue to own a significant amount of our equity, they will continue to be able to strongly influence our decisions.
Future sales and issuances of our or the Vants’ equity securities or rights to purchase equity securities, including pursuant to our or the Vants’ equity
incentive and other compensatory plans, will result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our shareholders and could cause our share price to fall.
We and the Vants may need additional capital in the future to continue our operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, including in
our subsidiaries, our shareholders may experience substantial dilution. We or the Vants may sell securities, including convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time
to time. If we sell common shares, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. In addition, new investors could gain rights superior to our existing
shareholders.
Pursuant to our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2021 EIP”), we are authorized to grant options, restricted stock units and other share-based awards to our employees,
directors and consultants. The aggregate number of shares initially reserved for issuance under the 2021 EIP increases annually on the first day of each fiscal year during the term of the plan in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 5% of the
number of our common shares outstanding as of the day of the immediately preceding fiscal year and (ii) such number of our common shares as determined by our board of directors in its discretion. As a result of this annual increase, or if our
board of directors elects in the future to make any additional increase in the number of shares available for future grant under the 2021 EIP, and if our shareholders approve of any such additional increase, our shareholders may experience
additional dilution, and our share price may fall.
Issuance of options, restricted stock units and other share-based awards pursuant to equity incentive plans at the Vants may indirectly have a similar effect of diluting your
ownership in us since a portion of the value of our common shares is tied to the value of the Vants, which would be diluted in the event of a grant of options or other similar equity grants to the employees of the Vants.
Future sales, or the perception of future sales, of our common shares by us or our existing shareholders could cause the market price for our common
shares to decline and impact our ability to raise capital in the future.
Sales of a substantial number of our common shares by us or certain of our existing large shareholders, or the perception that these sales could occur, could substantially
decrease the market price of our common shares. Shares held by certain of our large shareholders have been registered for re-sale pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-3 and may also be sold pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act,
subject to certain restrictions (including restrictions applicable to affiliates in the case of shares held by persons deemed to be our affiliates). The market price of our common shares could drop significantly if the holders of these shares
sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them. This, in turn, could also make it more difficult for us to raise additional funds through future offerings of our common shares or other securities at prices that are attractive
to us, or at all.
If securities analysts publish negative evaluations of our shares, the price of our common shares could decline.
The trading market for our securities will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts may publish about us, our business, market or
competitors. If any of the analysts who may cover us change their recommendation regarding our common shares adversely, or provide more favorable relative recommendations about its competitors, the price of our common shares would likely decline.
If any analyst who may cover us were to cease coverage or fail to regularly publish reports, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our share price or trading volume to decline.
Because there are no plans to pay cash dividends on our common shares for the foreseeable future, you may not receive any return on investment unless you
sell our common shares for a price greater than that which you paid for it.
We may retain future earnings, if any, for future operations, expansion and debt repayment and have no plans to pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any
decision to declare and pay dividends as a public company in the future will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on, among other things, our results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements,
contractual restrictions, applicable law and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. As a result, you may not receive any return on an investment in our common shares unless you sell your shares of for a price greater than
that which you paid for them.
We are an exempted company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of Bermuda and it may be difficult for you to enforce judgments against us or our
directors and executive officers.
We are an exempted company limited by shares incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. As a result, the rights of our shareholders are governed by Bermuda law and our
memorandum of association and bye-laws. The rights of shareholders under Bermuda law may differ from the rights of shareholders of companies incorporated in another jurisdiction. It may be difficult for investors to enforce in the U.S. judgments
obtained in U.S. courts against us based on the civil liability provisions of the U.S. securities laws. It is doubtful whether courts in Bermuda will enforce judgments obtained in other jurisdictions, including the U.S., against us or our
directors or officers under the securities laws of those jurisdictions or entertain actions in Bermuda against us or our directors or officers under the securities laws of other jurisdictions.
Bermuda law differs from the laws in effect in the U.S. and may afford less protection to our shareholders.
We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. As a result, our corporate affairs are governed by the Bermuda Companies Act 1981, as amended (the “Companies Act”), which
differs in some material respects from laws typically applicable to U.S. corporations and shareholders, including the provisions relating to interested directors, amalgamations, mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and
indemnification of directors. Generally, the duties of directors and officers of a Bermuda company are owed to the company only. Shareholders of Bermuda companies typically do not have rights to take action against directors or officers of the
company and may only do so in limited circumstances. Shareholder class actions are not available under Bermuda law. The circumstances in which shareholder derivative actions may be available under Bermuda law are substantially more proscribed and
less clear than they would be to shareholders of U.S. corporations. The Bermuda courts, however, would ordinarily be expected to permit a shareholder to commence an action in the name of a company to remedy a wrong to the company where the act
complained of is alleged to be beyond the corporate power of the company or illegal or would result in the violation of the company’s memorandum of association or bye-laws. Furthermore, consideration would be given by a Bermuda court to acts that
are alleged to constitute a fraud against the minority shareholders or, for instance, where an act requires the approval of a greater percentage of the company’s shareholders than those who actually approved it.
When the affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner that is oppressive or prejudicial to the interests of some shareholders, one or more shareholders may apply to
the Supreme Court of Bermuda, which may make such order as it sees fit, including an order regulating the conduct of the company’s affairs in the future or ordering the purchase of the shares of any shareholders by other shareholders or by the
company. Additionally, under our bye-laws and as permitted by Bermuda law, each shareholder will waive any claim or right of action against our directors or officers for any action taken by directors or officers in the performance of their
duties, except for actions involving fraud or dishonesty. In addition, the rights of our shareholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our directors under Bermuda law are not as clearly established as under statutes or judicial precedent in
existence in jurisdictions in the U.S., particularly the State of Delaware. Therefore, our shareholders may have more difficulty protecting their interests than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction within the U.S.
There are regulatory limitations on the ownership and transfer of our common shares.
Common shares may be offered or sold in Bermuda only in compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act and the Bermuda Investment Business Act 2003, which regulates the
sale of securities in Bermuda. In addition, the Bermuda Monetary Authority must approve all issues and transfers of shares of a Bermuda exempted company. However, the Bermuda Monetary Authority has, pursuant to its statement of June 1, 2005,
given its general permission under the Exchange Control Act 1972 and related regulations for the issue and free transfer of our common shares to and among persons who are non-residents of Bermuda for exchange control purposes as long as the
shares are listed on an appointed stock exchange, which includes Nasdaq. Additionally, we have sought and have obtained a specific permission from the Bermuda Monetary Authority for the issue and transfer of our common shares up to the amount of
our authorized capital from time to time, and options, warrants, depository receipts, rights, loan notes, debt instruments and our other securities to persons resident and non-resident for exchange control purposes with the need for prior
approval of such issue or transfer. The general permission or the specific permission would cease to apply if we were to cease to be listed on the Nasdaq or another appointed stock exchange.
We may become subject to unanticipated tax liabilities and higher effective tax rates.
We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda. We are centrally managed and controlled in the U.K., and under current U.K. tax law, a company which is centrally managed and
controlled in the U.K. is regarded as resident in the U.K. for taxation purposes. Accordingly, we expect to be subject to U.K. taxation on our income and gains, and subject to U.K.’s controlled foreign company rules, except where an exemption
applies. We may be treated as a dual resident company for U.K. tax purposes. As a result, our right to claim certain reliefs from U.K. tax may be restricted, and changes in law or practice in the U.K. could result in the imposition of further
restrictions on our right to claim U.K. tax reliefs. We may also become subject to income, withholding or other taxes in certain jurisdictions by reason of our activities and operations, and it is also possible that taxing authorities in any such
jurisdictions could assert that we are subject to greater taxation than we currently anticipate, including as a result of the denial of treaty benefits that we may claim. Any such additional tax liability could materially adversely affect our
results of operations.
The intended tax effects of our corporate structure and intercompany arrangements depend on the application of the tax laws of various jurisdictions and
on how we operate our business.
We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda and are centrally managed and controlled in the UK. We currently have subsidiaries in the U.S., U.K., Switzerland and certain
other jurisdictions. If we succeed in growing our business, we expect to conduct increased operations through our subsidiaries in various countries and tax jurisdictions, in part through intercompany service agreements between our subsidiaries
and us. In that case, our corporate structure and intercompany transactions, including the manner in which we develop and use our intellectual property, will be organized so that we can achieve our business objectives in a tax-efficient manner
and in compliance with applicable transfer pricing rules and regulations. If two or more affiliated companies are located in different countries or tax jurisdictions, the tax laws and regulations of each country generally will require that
transfer prices be the same as those between unrelated companies dealing at arm’s length and that appropriate documentation be maintained to support the transfer prices. While we believe that we operate in compliance with applicable transfer
pricing laws and intend to continue to do so, our transfer pricing procedures are not binding on applicable taxing authorities. If taxing authorities in any of these countries were to successfully challenge our transfer prices as not reflecting
arm’s length transactions between two or more affiliated companies, they could require such affiliated companies to adjust their transfer prices and thereby reallocate the income between such affiliated companies to reflect these revised transfer
prices, which could result in a higher tax liability to us. In addition, if the country from which the income is reallocated does not agree with the reallocation, both countries could tax the same income, resulting in double taxation. If taxing
authorities were to allocate income to a higher tax jurisdiction, subject our income to double taxation or assess interest and penalties, it would increase its consolidated tax liability, which could adversely affect our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
Significant judgment is required in evaluating our tax positions and determining our provision for income taxes. During the ordinary course of business, there are many
transactions and calculations for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. For example, our effective tax rates could be adversely affected by changes in foreign currency exchange rates or by changes in the relevant tax, accounting, and
other laws (including tax treaties), regulations, principles, and interpretations. As we intend to operate in numerous countries and taxing jurisdictions, the application of tax laws can be subject to diverging and sometimes conflicting
interpretations by tax authorities of these jurisdictions. It is not uncommon for taxing authorities in different countries to have conflicting views, for instance, with respect to, among other things, the manner in which the arm’s length
standard is applied for transfer pricing purposes, or with respect to the valuation of intellectual property.
In addition, tax laws are dynamic and subject to change as new laws are passed and new interpretations of the law are issued or applied. We continue to assess the impact of
such changes in tax laws and interpretations on our business and may determine that changes to our structure, practice, tax positions or the manner in which we conduct our business are necessary in light of such changes and developments in the
tax laws of other jurisdictions in which we operate. Such changes may nevertheless be ineffective in avoiding an increase in our consolidated tax liability, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Changes in our effective tax rate may reduce our net income in future periods.
Our tax position could be adversely impacted by changes in tax rates, tax laws, tax practice, tax treaties or tax regulations or changes in the interpretation thereof by the
tax authorities in Europe (including the U.K. and Switzerland), the U.S., Bermuda and other jurisdictions, as well as being affected by certain changes currently proposed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and their
action plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Such changes may become more likely as a result of recent economic trends in the jurisdictions in which we operate, particularly if such trends continue. If such a situation were to arise, it could
adversely impact our tax position and our effective tax rate. Failure to manage the risks associated with such changes, or misinterpretation of the laws providing such changes, could result in costly audits, interest, penalties, and reputational
damage, which could adversely affect our business, results of our operations, and our financial condition.
Our actual effective tax rate may vary from our expectation and that variance may be material. A number of factors may increase our future effective tax rates, including: (1)
the jurisdictions in which profits are determined to be earned and taxed; (2) the resolution of issues arising from any future tax audits with various tax authorities; (3) changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets and liabilities; (4)
increases in expenses not deductible for tax purposes, including transaction costs and impairments of goodwill in connection with acquisitions; (5) changes in the taxation of stock-based compensation; (6) changes in tax laws (including tax
treaties) or the interpretation of such tax laws (including tax treaties) and changes in U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (7) challenges to the transfer pricing policies related to our structure; (8) potential taxation under the
OECD BEPS 2.0; and (9) potential limitation on tax attributes due to ownership changes (i.e. Internal Revenue Code 382 and 383) or expiration.
U.S. holders that own 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences because we and our
non-U.S. subsidiaries may be characterized as “controlled foreign corporations” (“CFCs”) under Section 957(a) of the Code.
A non-U.S. corporation is considered a CFC if more than 50% of (1) the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of such corporation entitled to vote, or (2) the
total value of the stock of such corporation, is owned, or is considered as owned by applying certain constructive ownership rules, by U.S. shareholders (U.S. persons who own stock representing 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of
all outstanding stock of such non-U.S. corporation) on any day during the taxable year of such non-U.S. corporation. Certain U.S. shareholders of a CFC generally are required to include currently in gross income such shareholders’ share of the
CFC’s “Subpart F income,” a portion of the CFC’s earnings to the extent the CFC holds certain U.S. property, and a portion of the CFC’s “global intangible low-taxed income” (as defined under Section 951A of the Code). Such U.S. shareholders are
subject to current U.S. federal income tax with respect to such items, even if the CFC has not made an actual distribution to such shareholders. “Subpart F income” includes, among other things, certain passive income (such as income from
dividends, interests, royalties, rents and annuities or gain from the sale of property that produces such types of income) and certain sales and services income arising in connection with transactions between the CFC and a person related to the
CFC. “Global intangible low-taxed income” may include most of the remainder of a CFC’s income over a deemed return on its tangible assets.
We believe that we were not classified as a CFC for the taxable year ended March 31, 2024. However, our non-U.S. subsidiaries will be classified as CFCs for the taxable year
ended March 31, 2024. For U.S. holders who hold 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of our common shares, this may result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences, such as current U.S. taxation of Subpart F income (regardless
of whether we make any distributions), taxation of amounts treated as global intangible low-taxed income under Section 951A of the Code with respect to such shareholder, and being subject to certain reporting requirements with the IRS. Any such
U.S. holder who is an individual generally would not be allowed certain tax deductions or foreign tax credits that would be allowed to a U.S. corporation. If you are a U.S. holder who holds 10% or more of the combined voting power or value of our
common shares, you should consult your own tax advisors regarding the U.S. tax consequences of acquiring, owning, or disposing of our common shares.
U.S. holders of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company.
Generally, if, for any taxable year, at least 75% of our gross income is passive income, or at least 50% of the average quarterly value of our assets is attributable to
assets that produce passive income or are held for the production of passive income, including cash, we would be characterized as a passive foreign investment company (a “PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. For purposes of these tests,
passive income generally includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct
of a trade or business. Additionally, if we own (directly or indirectly) at least 25% (by value) of the stock of another corporation, for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, generally we would be treated as if we held our proportionate
share of the assets of such other corporation and received directly our proportionate share of the income of such other corporation and generally we would retain the character of such assets and income as if they were held directly by us rather
than by such other corporation. If we are characterized as a PFIC, U.S. holders of our common shares may suffer adverse tax consequences, including having gains realized on the sale of our common shares treated as ordinary income rather than
capital gain, the loss of the preferential tax rate applicable to dividends received on our common shares by individuals who are U.S. holders, and having interest charges apply to certain distributions by us and the proceeds of sales or other
dispositions of our common shares that result in a gain to the U.S. holder. In addition, special information reporting may be required.
Our status as a PFIC will depend on the nature and composition of our income and the nature, composition and value of our assets from time to time. The 50% passive asset test
described above is generally based on the fair market value of each asset. If we are a CFC (determined by disregarding certain downward attribution rules) and not publicly traded for the relevant taxable year, however, the test shall be applied
based on the adjusted basis of our assets. Because our common shares should be considered to be “publicly traded” for the taxable year that ended on March 31, 2024, we would apply the 50% passive asset test using the fair market value of our
assets. In addition, our status may also depend, in part, on how quickly we utilize our cash on-hand and cash from future financings in our business.
Based on the foregoing, with respect to the taxable year that ended on March 31, 2024, we believe that we were not a PFIC based in part upon the fair market value of our
assets, including any goodwill and intangible property, and the nature and composition of our income and assets.
Our status as a PFIC is a fact-intensive determination made on an annual basis, which is subject to uncertainties, including but not limited to the fact that the value of our
assets for purposes of the PFIC determination may be affected by the trading value of our common shares, which could fluctuate significantly. The total value of our assets for purposes of the PFIC asset test frequently (though not invariably) may
be inferred using the market price of our ordinary shares, which may fluctuate considerably and thereby affect the determination of our PFIC status for future taxable years. Our U.S. counsel expresses no opinion with respect to our PFIC status
for the current or future taxable years. We will endeavor to determine our PFIC status for each taxable year and make such determination available to U.S. holders.
ITEM 1B. |
UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
|
None.
Cybersecurity Risk Management and Strategy
Roivant’s corporate information security organization, led by our Chief Information Security Officer (“CISO”), is responsible for our overall information security strategy,
policy, security engineering, operations and cybersecurity threat and incident detection and response centrally at Roivant and the majority of our Vants. Certain of our Vants, including Immunovant, Dermavant and our healthcare technology Vants,
have established and maintain separate cybersecurity functions which are similarly designed to protect their information and assets from cybersecurity threats or incidents.
Roivant and the Vants’ information security organization manages a robust enterprise security structure with the goal of preventing and mitigating any cybersecurity
incidents, while simultaneously working to continually increase information technology system resilience designed to minimize any business impact should a cybersecurity incident occur. Central to Roivant’s information security organization is our
Cybersecurity Incident Response Team, which is responsible for the protection, detection and response capabilities used to protect our data and enterprise computing networks. A Cybersecurity Risk Governance Committee oversees processes for
identifying and mitigating cybersecurity threats and incidents and helps align our risk exposure with our strategic objectives. Cybersecurity threats and incidents deemed to have a moderate or higher business impact, even if immaterial to us as a
whole, are reported to the Corporate Risk Management Committee and shared with Roivant’s board of directors.
Roivant and the Vants implement multiple levels of cybersecurity measures, including standard malware detection and prevention software, email security programs, privileged
access management, vulnerability detection and remediation software, security patching management, security event logging and reviews and special isolation and access controls for data repositories that may contain sensitive information,
including protected health information.
Roivant and the Vants’ cybersecurity programs are informed by industry standards and includes periodic risk assessments and security testing supported by cybersecurity
technologies, including third-party security solutions, vulnerability management, and monitoring tools, designed to monitor, identify and manage risks from cybersecurity threats and incidents. In addition, we have implemented employee security
and awareness training related to cybersecurity threats and incidents.
Roivant and the Vants undergo periodic internal compliance audits and external reviews to evaluate our controls, including cybersecurity controls. Additionally, a majority
of our information technology systems are built on services provided by third parties. In an effort to minimize third-party risk, we have established a process designed to assess the cybersecurity practices of third-party suppliers and related
risks, including through review of relevant supplier certifications and cybersecurity procedures and responses to standardized information-gathering questionnaires, as we deem applicable and appropriate. Our control over and ability to monitor
the security posture of third parties with whom we do business remains limited and there can be no assurance that we can prevent, mitigate or remediate the risk of any compromise or failure in the security infrastructure owned or controlled by
such third parties. Additionally, any contractual protections with such third parties, including our right to indemnification, if any at all, may be limited or insufficient to prevent a negative impact on our business from any such compromise or
failure.
Governance Related to Cybersecurity Risks
Roivant’s board of directors oversees our overall risk management strategy, including with respect to cybersecurity risks. Cybersecurity risk management policies and
procedures are integrated into our overall risk management strategy, which is overseen by the audit committee of the board of directors (“Audit Committee”). At least annually, the Audit Committee discusses our risk management program, including
any information security and technology risks and findings from any audits, with our internal audit staff, including our Chief Accounting Officer.
At the management level, our CISO is primarily responsible for leading our cybersecurity strategy centrally at Roivant and the majority of our Vants. Our CISO has extensive
cybersecurity experience across a wide array of industries, with previous leadership positions specializing in safeguarding healthcare data across various health technology companies.
At Immunovant, Dermavant and the healthcare technology Vants that have established and maintain separate cybersecurity functions, governance is similarly overseen in the
first instance by the boards of directors of those Vants as part of their overall risk management strategy, with ultimate oversight on a company-wide basis by the Roivant board of directors.
Our principal executive offices are located at 7th Floor, 50 Broadway, London SW1H 0DB, United Kingdom. Our registered office is located at Clarendon House, 2 Church Street,
Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda. Certain of our subsidiaries and affiliates also have business operations in New York, New York and Basel, Switzerland.
Our subsidiary Roivant Sciences, Inc. subleases 83,340 square feet of office space located in New York, New York, pursuant to a sublease agreement that expires in October
2032. Certain of our subsidiaries and affiliates also lease office space in New York, New York and Basel, Switzerland. We do not own any properties.
We believe that our and our subsidiaries’ leased facilities are in good condition and are well maintained and that our current arrangements will be sufficient to meet our
needs for the foreseeable future and that any required additional space will be available on commercially reasonable terms to meet space requirements if they arise.
ITEM 3. |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
|
From time to time, we may become involved in legal or regulatory proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We do not currently, however, expect any such
legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition. However, depending on the nature and timing of a given dispute, an unfavorable resolution could materially affect our current or future
results of operations or cash flows.
ITEM 4. |
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
|
Not applicable.
ITEM 5. |
MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
Market Information
Our common shares are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “ROIV.”
Holders
As of May 28, 2024, there were approximately 70 holders of record of our common shares. The actual number of holders of our common shares is greater than this number of
record holders and includes shareholders who are beneficial owners but whose common shares are held in street name by banks, brokers and other nominees.
Dividend Policy
We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We intend to retain all available funds and future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion
of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination related to dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors.
Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans
Information about our equity compensation plans in Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated herein by reference.
Performance Graph
The following stock performance graph illustrates a comparison from October 1, 2021 (the date our common shares commenced trading on the Nasdaq Global Market) through March
31, 2024, of the total cumulative shareholder return on our common shares, the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index. This graph assumes an initial investment of $100 on October 1, 2021 at the market closing price of $9.35 per
share, and that all dividends were reinvested (although dividends have not been paid on our common shares). The comparisons in the graph are required by the SEC and are not intended to forecast or be indicative of possible future performance of
our common shares.
The information included under the heading Performance Graph is “furnished” and not “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed to be “soliciting material” subject to Regulation 14A or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.
Sales of Unregistered Securities and Use of Proceeds
None.
Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities
None.
ITEM 7. |
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
|
The following discussion and analysis of Roivant’s financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with Roivant’s consolidated
financial statements and notes to those statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Certain information contained in the discussion and analysis set forth below includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and
uncertainties. Roivant’s actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of many factors. Please see “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Our fiscal year ends on March 31 and our fiscal quarters end on June 30, September 30 and December 31.
Overview
Roivant is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company that aims to improve the lives of patients by accelerating the development and commercialization of medicines that matter. Today, Roivant’s
pipeline is concentrated in inflammation and immunology and includes VTAMA, a novel topical approved for the treatment of psoriasis and in development for the treatment of atopic dermatitis; IMVT-1402 and batoclimab, fully human monoclonal
antibodies targeting the neonatal Fc receptor (“FcRn”) in development across several IgG-mediated autoimmune indications; and brepocitinib, a potent small molecule inhibitor of TYK2 and JAK1 for the treatment of dermatomyositis and non-infectious
uveitis, in addition to several other therapies in various stages of clinical development. We advance our pipeline by creating nimble subsidiaries or “Vants” to develop and commercialize our medicines and technologies. Beyond therapeutics,
Roivant also incubates discovery-stage companies and health technology startups complementary to its biopharmaceutical business.
Components of Results of Operations
Product revenue, net
With the FDA approval of VTAMA for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adult patients and our initial product launch in May 2022, we began to recognize product revenues. We record product
revenue net of estimated chargebacks, discounts, rebates, returns, and other allowances associated with the respective sales.
License, milestone and other revenue
License, milestone and other revenue includes the recognition of payments received in connection with license agreements as well as revenue generated by subscription
and service-based fees.
Cost of revenues
We began to recognize cost of product revenues after the initial product launch of VTAMA in May 2022. Cost of product revenues includes the cost of producing and distributing inventories related
to product revenue during the respective period, including manufacturing, freight, and indirect overhead costs. Additionally, milestone payments made in connection with regulatory approvals and sales-based milestones are capitalized and amortized
to cost of revenue over the remaining useful life of the asset. Our cost of revenues also relates to subscription and service-based revenue recognized for the use of technology developed and consists primarily of employee, hosting, and
third-party data costs.
Research and development expenses
Research and development expenses consist mainly of costs incurred in connection with the discovery and development of our product candidates. Research and development expenses primarily include
the following:
|
• |
Program-specific costs, including direct third-party costs, which include expenses incurred under agreements with contract research organizations (“CROs”) and contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”),
manufacturing costs in connection with producing materials for use in conducting nonclinical and clinical studies, the cost of consultants who assist with the development of our product candidates on a program-specific basis, investigator
grants, sponsored research, and any other third-party expenses directly attributable to the development of our product candidates.
|
|
• |
Unallocated internal costs, including:
|
|
◦ |
employee-related expenses, such as salaries, share-based compensation, and benefits, for research and development personnel; and
|
|
◦ |
other expenses that are not allocated to a specific program.
|
Research and development activities will continue to be central to our business model. We anticipate that our research and development expenses will increase for the foreseeable future as we
advance our product candidates and our recently in-licensed assets through preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as acquire or discover new product candidates. We expect higher employee-related expenses, including share-based
compensation expenses, as well as higher consulting costs as we hire additional resources to support increasing development activity.
The duration, costs and timing of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:
|
• |
the scope, rate of progress, expense and results of our preclinical development activities, any future clinical trials of our product candidates, and other research and development activities that we may
conduct;
|
|
• |
the number and scope of preclinical and clinical programs we decide to pursue;
|
|
• |
the uncertainties in clinical trial design and patient enrollment or drop out or discontinuation rates;
|
|
• |
the number of doses that patients receive;
|
|
• |
the countries in which the trials are conducted;
|
|
• |
our ability to secure and leverage adequate CRO support for the conduct of clinical trials;
|
|
•
|
our ability to establish an appropriate safety and efficacy profile for our product candidates;
|
|
•
|
the timing, receipt and terms of any approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;
|
|
•
|
the potential additional safety monitoring or other studies requested by regulatory agencies;
|
|
•
|
the significant and changing government regulation and regulatory guidance;
|
|
•
|
our ability to establish clinical and commercial manufacturing capabilities, or make arrangements with third-party manufacturers in order to ensure that we or our third-party manufacturers are able to
make product successfully;
|
|
•
|
the impact of any business interruptions to our operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic or other epidemics; and
|
|
•
|
our ability to maintain a continued acceptable safety profile of our product candidates following approval of our product candidates.
|
The successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain, and we cannot reasonably estimate the costs that will be necessary to complete the remainder of the development of our
product candidates. In addition, the probability of success for our product candidates will depend on numerous factors, including competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability.
Acquired in-process research and development expenses
Acquired in-process research and development (“IPR&D”) expenses include consideration for the purchase of IPR&D through asset acquisitions and license agreements as well as payments made
in connection with asset acquisitions and license agreements upon the achievement of development milestones.
Consideration for the purchase of IPR&D through asset acquisitions and license agreements may include cash upfront payments, shares and other liability instruments issued, and the fair value
of future contingent consideration payments.
Selling, general and administrative expenses
Selling, general and administrative (“SG&A”) expenses consist primarily of employee-related expenses, such as salaries, share-based compensation, sales incentive compensation, and benefits,
for employees engaged in SG&A activities. SG&A employees include those responsible for the identification and acquisition or in-license of new drug candidates as well as for managing Vant operations and facilitating the use of our
platform and technologies at the Vants. SG&A expenses also consist of marketing programs, advertising, legal and accounting fees, consulting services, and other operating costs relating to corporate matters and daily operations.
We expect SG&A expenses to increase in future periods as we continue to expand our sales and marketing infrastructure and general administrative functions. These increases will likely include
salaries, sales incentive compensation, share-based compensation and travel expenses associated with our sales force, which began promoting VTAMA in the U.S. following approval by the FDA in May 2022, as well as expected costs associated with the
further build out of our commercial operations functions. We anticipate these expenses to further increase if any of our other current or future product candidates receives regulatory approval in the U.S. or another jurisdiction.
Gain on sale of Telavant net assets
Gain on sale of Telavant net assets represents the gain resulting from the sale of our entire equity interest in our majority-owned subsidiary, Telavant Holdings, Inc. (“Telavant”), to Roche
Holdings, Inc. (“Roche”) in December 2023 (the “Roche Transaction”). Prior to the Roche Transaction, we held 75% of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock and preferred stock of Telavant, and Pfizer Inc. owned the remaining 25%, in
each case on an as-converted basis. At closing, we received approximately $5.2 billion in cash. We are also eligible to receive an additional one-time milestone payment of approximately $110 million if the milestone payment condition is
satisfied. Refer to Note 6, “Recent Transactions” of our financial statements for further information regarding the Roche Transaction.
Change in fair value of investments
Change in fair value of investments primarily includes the unrealized loss on equity investments in publicly-traded companies, including Arbutus Biopharma Corporation (“Arbutus”), as well as our
equity investment in Heracles Parent, L.L.C. (“Datavant”). We have elected the fair value option to account for these investments.
Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments
Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments primarily includes the loss relating to the measurement and recognition of fair value on a recurring basis of certain liabilities, including
debt issued by a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dermavant Sciences Ltd. (“Dermavant”) to NovaQuest Co-Investment Fund VIII, L.P. (the “NovaQuest Facility”), and other liability instruments, including warrant liabilities, prior to their redemption,
and earn-out share liabilities issued in connection with our business combination (the “Business Combination”) with Montes Archimedes Acquisition Corp. (“MAAC”), a special purpose acquisition company. Refer to Note 15, “Earn-Out Shares, Public
Warrants and Private Placement Warrants” of our financial statements for further information regarding the redemption of our warrants.
Gain on deconsolidation of subsidiaries
Gain on deconsolidation of subsidiaries resulted from the determination that we no longer had a controlling financial interest in certain subsidiaries.
Interest income
Interest income consists of interest earned on our cash equivalents.
Interest expense
Interest expense results from interest accrued on long-term debt and the amortization of debt discount and issuance costs.
Income tax expense
Income tax expense is recorded for the jurisdictions in which we do business. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences
between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and the respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which
those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date. A valuation allowance is
recorded when, after consideration of all positive and negative evidence, it is not more likely than not that our deferred tax assets will be realizable. When uncertain tax positions exist, we recognize the tax benefit of tax positions to the
extent that the benefit will more likely than not be realized. The determination as to whether the tax benefit will more likely than not be realized is based upon the technical merits of the tax position as well as consideration of the available
facts and circumstances.
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests consists of the portion of net loss of those consolidated entities that is not allocated to us. Changes in the amount of net loss attributable to
noncontrolling interests are directly impacted by the net loss of our consolidated entities and changes in ownership percentages.
Results of Operations
Comparison of the years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023
The following table sets forth our results of operations for the years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023:
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product revenue, net
|
|
$
|
75,057
|
|
|
$
|
28,011
|
|
|
$
|
47,046
|
|
License, milestone and other revenue
|
|
|
49,738
|
|
|
|
33,269
|
|
|
|
16,469
|
|
Revenue, net
|
|
|
124,795
|
|
|
|
61,280
|
|
|
$
|
63,515
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
|
15,560
|
|
|
|
13,128
|
|
|
|
2,432
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
501,736
|
|
|
|
525,215
|
|
|
|
(23,479
|
)
|
Acquired in-process research and development
|
|
|
26,450
|
|
|
|
97,749
|
|
|
|
(71,299
|
)
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
|
687,443
|
|
|
|
600,506
|
|
|
|
86,937
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
1,231,189
|
|
|
|
1,236,598
|
|
|
|
(5,409
|
)
|
Gain on sale of Telavant net assets
|
|
|
5,348,410
|
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
5,348,410
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
4,242,016
|
|
|
|
(1,175,318
|
)
|
|
|
5,417,334
|
|
Change in fair value of investments
|
|
|
47,973
|
|
|
|
20,815
|
|
|
|
27,158
|
|
Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments
|
|
|
78,943
|
|
|
|
78,001
|
|
|
|
942
|
|
Gain on deconsolidation of subsidiaries
|
|
|
(32,772
|
)
|
|
|
(29,276
|
)
|
|
|
(3,496
|
)
|
Interest income
|
|
|
(146,425
|
)
|
|
|
(32,184
|
)
|
|
|
(114,241
|
)
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
34,778
|
|
|
|
27,968
|
|
|
|
6,810
|
|
Other expense (income), net
|
|
|
6,089
|
|
|
|
(15,808
|
)
|
|
|
21,897
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
|
|
|
4,253,430
|
|
|
|
(1,224,834
|
)
|
|
|
5,478,264
|
|
Income tax expense
|
|
|
22,224
|
|
|
|
5,190
|
|
|
|
17,034
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations, net of tax
|
|
|
4,231,206
|
|
|
|
(1,230,024
|
)
|
|
|
5,461,230
|
|
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
|
—
|
|
|
|
114,561
|
|
|
|
(114,561
|
)
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
4,231,206
|
|
|
|
(1,115,463
|
)
|
|
|
5,346,669
|
|
Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interests
|
|
|
(117,720
|
)
|
|
|
(106,433
|
)
|
|
|
(11,287
|
)
|
Net income (loss) attributable to Roivant Sciences Ltd.
|
|
$
|
4,348,926
|
|
|
$
|
(1,009,030
|
)
|
|
$
|
5,357,956
|
|
Variance analysis for years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023
Product revenue, net
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Product revenue, net
|
|
$
|
75,057
|
|
|
$
|
28,011
|
|
|
$
|
47,046
|
|
Product revenue, net increased by $47.0 million to $75.1 million for the year ended March 31, 2024, compared to $28.0 million for the year ended March 31, 2023, primarily due to
higher units sold. Product revenue, net consists of net product revenues from VTAMA sales, following the approval of VTAMA for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in adult patients by the FDA in May 2022.
License, milestone and other revenue
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
License, milestone and other revenue
|
|
$
|
49,738
|
|
|
$
|
33,269
|
|
|
$
|
16,469
|
|
License, milestone and other revenue increased by $16.5 million to $49.7 million for the year ended March 31, 2024, compared to $33.3 million for the year ended March 31, 2023.
The increase was primarily driven by $15.0 million of revenue relating to milestone income at Dermavant pursuant to a collaboration and license agreement with Japan Tobacco Inc. during the year ended March 31,
2024.
Cost of revenues
For the years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, our cost of revenues consisted of the following:
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Cost of product and other revenues
|
|
$
|
5,928
|
|
|
$
|
5,660
|
|
|
$
|
268
|
|
Amortization of intangible assets
|
|
|
9,632
|
|
|
|
7,468
|
|
|
|
2,164
|
|
Cost of revenues
|
|
$
|
15,560
|
|
|
$
|
13,128
|
|
|
$
|
2,432
|
|
Cost of revenues increased by $2.4 million to $15.6 million for the year ended March 31, 2024, compared to $13.1 million for the year ended March 31, 2023. During the year ended March 31,
2024 and 2023, cost of revenues included $3.4 million and $1.8 million, respectively, of costs relating to VTAMA sales. Cost of revenues additionally included amortization expense recognized in
connection with milestones capitalized following the FDA approval of VTAMA in May 2022.
Research and development expenses
For the years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, our research and development expenses consisted of the
following:
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023(1)
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Program-specific costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Batoclimab(1)
|
|
$
|
74,265
|
|
|
$
|
78,477
|
|
|
$
|
(4,212
|
)
|
IMVT-1402(1)
|
|
|
43,102
|
|
|
|
10,270
|
|
|
|
32,832
|
|
Brepocitinib
|
|
|
38,563
|
|
|
|
38,627
|
|
|
|
(64
|
)
|
RVT-3101
|
|
|
35,129
|
|
|
|
7,559
|
|
|
|
27,570
|
|
Tapinarof
|
|
|
34,256
|
|
|
|
45,201
|
|
|
|
(10,945
|
)
|
Namilumab
|
|
|
13,236
|
|
|
|
11,757
|
|
|
|
1,479
|
|
RVT-2001
|
|
|
10,132
|
|
|
|
16,075
|
|
|
|
(5,943
|
)
|
Other development and discovery programs
|
|
|
39,767
|
|
|
|
122,877
|
|
|
|
(83,110
|
)
|
Total program-specific costs
|
|
|
288,450
|
|
|
|
330,843
|
|
|
|
(42,393
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unallocated internal costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
34,595
|
|
|
|
30,914
|
|
|
|
3,681
|
|
Personnel-related expenses
|
|
|
136,425
|
|
|
|
131,908
|
|
|
|
4,517
|
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
42,266
|
|
|
|
31,550
|
|
|
|
10,716
|
|
Total research and development expenses
|
|
$
|
501,736
|
|
|
$
|
525,215
|
|
|
$
|
(23,479
|
)
|
(1)
|
Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation.
|
Research and development expenses decreased by $23.5 million to $501.7 million for the year ended March 31, 2024, compared to $525.2 million for the year ended March 31, 2023, primarily due to a decrease in
program-specific costs of $42.4 million, partially offset by increases in other expenses of $10.7 million, personnel-related expenses of $4.5 million, and share-based compensation of $3.7 million.
The decrease of $42.4 million in program-specific costs was primarily driven by a decrease of $83.1 million
in other development and discovery program expense, which in part resulted from the deconsolidation of Proteovant Sciences, Inc. (“Proteovant”) in August 2023 along with the reprioritization of certain programs and drug discovery efforts. This
decrease was partially offset by increases of $32.8 million relating to IMVT-1402 and $27.6 million relating to RVT-3101, which was acquired in November 2022.
The rights to further develop and manufacture RVT-3101 were sold to Roche in December 2023.
Acquired in-process research and development expenses
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Consideration for the purchase of IPR&D
|
|
$
|
13,950
|
|
|
$
|
87,749
|
|
|
$
|
(73,799
|
)
|
Development milestone payments
|
|
|
12,500
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
2,500
|
|
Total acquired in-process research and development expenses
|
|
$
|
26,450
|
|
|
$
|
97,749
|
|
|
$
|
(71,299
|
)
|
Acquired in-process research and development expenses decreased by $71.3 million to $26.5 million for the
year ended March 31, 2024, compared to $97.7 million for the year ended March 31, 2023. The decrease was primarily
due to higher consideration for the purchase of IPR&D during the year ended March 31, 2023 as a result of consideration for the purchase of IPR&D of $87.7 million relating to the acquisition of
RVT-3101 in November 2022 and the achievement of a development milestone relating to batoclimab, which resulted in a one-time milestone expense of $10.0 million. Acquired in-process research and development expenses for the year ended March 31, 2024 was driven by $14.0 million of consideration for the purchase of IPR&D relating to an asset acquisition completed by a newly-formed subsidiary and $12.5 million relating to the achievement
of development and regulatory milestones for batoclimab.
Selling, general and administrative expenses
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Selling, general and administrative
|
|
$
|
687,443
|
|
|
$
|
600,506
|
|
|
$
|
86,937
|
|
Selling, general and administrative expenses increased by $86.9 million to $687.4 million for the year ended
March 31, 2024, compared to $600.5 million for the year ended March 31, 2023. The increase was primarily due to an
increase in selling, general and administrative expenses of $55.7 million at Dermavant as a result of the progression of the commercial launch of VTAMA and an increase in personnel-related expenses of $25.1 million, primarily as a result of a
special one-time cash retention bonus award granted to employees.
Gain on sale of Telavant net assets
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Gain on sale of Telavant net assets
|
|
$
|
5,348,410
|
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
5,348,410
|
|
Gain on sale of Telavant net assets was approximately $5.3 billion for the year ended March 31, 2024 and
resulted from the sale of our entire equity interest in Telavant to Roche in December 2023. At closing, we received approximately $5.2 billion in cash for our pro rata portion of the consideration. Additionally, we derecognized the carrying
amount of noncontrolling interest in Telavant of $87.5 million and transferred net liabilities of $26.5 million. This resulted in a gain of approximately $5.3 billion. Refer to Note 6, “Recent
Transactions” of our audited financial statements for further information regarding the Roche Transaction.
Change in fair value of investments
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Change in fair value of investments
|
|
$
|
47,973
|
|
|
$
|
20,815
|
|
|
$
|
27,158
|
|
Change in fair value of investments were unrealized losses of $48.0 million and $20.8 million for the years
ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. The change of $27.2 million was primarily driven by changes in the public share prices of our equity investments,
including Arbutus, as well as the change in fair value of our investment in Datavant.
Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments
|
|
$
|
78,943
|
|
|
$
|
78,001
|
|
|
$
|
942
|
|
Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments were losses of $78.9 million and $78.0 million for the
years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively. Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments for the year ended March
31, 2024 primarily consisted of a loss of $46.1 million relating to the warrant and earn-out share liabilities issued as part of the Business Combination and a loss of $32.1 million relating to the NovaQuest Facility, which was largely
due to the passage of time and increased probabilities of success as a result of advancement in the stage of development of the product candidate. Change in fair value of debt and liability instruments for the year ended March 31, 2023 primarily consisted of a loss of $59.6 million relating to the NovaQuest facility, which was primarily due to the impact of VTAMA approval in psoriasis, and a loss of $24.1 million relating to the warrant
and earn-out share liabilities issued as part of the Business Combination.
Gain on deconsolidation of subsidiaries
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Gain on deconsolidation of subsidiaries
|
|
$
|
(32,772
|
)
|
|
$
|
(29,276
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,496
|
)
|
Gain on deconsolidation of subsidiaries was $32.8 million for the year ended March 31, 2024 and resulted from
the deconsolidation of certain subsidiaries, including VantAI Holdings, Inc. (“VantAI”) in July 2023 and Proteovant in August 2023.
Gain on deconsolidation of subsidiaries was $29.3 million for the year ended March 31, 2023 and resulted from
the deconsolidation of certain subsidiaries in November 2022 and July 2022.
Interest income
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Interest income
|
|
$
|
(146,425
|
)
|
|
$
|
(32,184
|
)
|
|
$
|
(114,241
|
)
|
Interest income increased by $114.2 million to $146.4 million for the year ended March 31, 2024, compared to $32.2 million for the year ended March 31, 2023. This increase is primarily due to higher cash balances in our
interest-bearing cash accounts as well as higher interest rates.
Interest expense
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
$
|
34,778
|
|
|
$
|
27,968
|
|
|
$
|
6,810
|
|
Interest expense increased by $6.8 million to $34.8 million for the year ended March 31, 2024, compared to $28.0 million for the year ended March 31, 2023. The increase primarily resulted from Dermavant’s revenue interest
purchase and sale agreement (the “RIPSA”), pursuant to which funding of $160.0 million was received in June 2022 following the approval of VTAMA by the FDA in May 2022.
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
|
$
|
114,561
|
|
|
$
|
(114,561
|
)
|
Income from discontinued operations, net of tax was $114.6 million for the year ended March 31, 2023 and
resulted from the gain on sale of common shares of Myovant Sciences Ltd. (the “Myovant Top-Up Shares”) after Sumitovant Biopharma Ltd.’s (“Sumitovant”) acquisition of Myovant Sciences Ltd. (“Myovant”) in March 2023. We were entitled to the
Myovant Top-Up Shares pursuant to the December 2019 transaction with Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. (the “Sumitomo Transaction”) that included, among other things, the transfer of our ownership interest in five Vants to Sumitovant. The Sumitomo
Transaction was presented as discontinued operations during the year ending March 31, 2020, and the right to receive the Myovant Top-Up Shares was treated as a contingent consideration upon a sale of the business and accounted for as a gain
contingency. Refer to Note 9, “Discontinued Operations” of our audited financial statements for additional information.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
For the years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023, we had income from continuing operations of approximately $4.2 billion and incurred a loss from continuing operations of approximately $1.2 billion, respectively. As of March 31, 2024,
we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $6.5 billion and our retained earnings was approximately $576.2 million. Through our subsidiary Dermavant, we launched our first commercial product, VTAMA, following approval by the FDA in May
2022. We began generating product revenue, net from sales of VTAMA in the U.S. in May 2022. We also have generated revenue through license agreements as well as from subscription and service-based fees.
Our short-term and long-term liquidity requirements as of March 31, 2024 included:
|
• |
contractual payments related to our long-term debt (see Note 8, “Long-Term Debt” and Note 18, “Subsequent Events” of our audited
financial statements);
|
|
• |
obligations under our leases (see Note 13, “Leases” of our audited financial statements);
|
|
• |
certain commitments to Samsung Biologics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) pursuant to a Product Service Agreement entered between Immunovant and Samsung by which Samsung will manufacture and
supply Immunovant with batoclimab drug substance for commercial sale and perform other manufacturing-related services with respect to batoclimab. Immunovant had the right to terminate the PSA with 30 days’ written notice to Samsung,
exercisable no later than January 2024, in the event Immunovant decided to stop all development of, and all attempts to obtain regulatory approval for, batoclimab; subject to payment to Samsung of non-cancelable service fees and costs
incurred by Samsung for all batches of batoclimab scheduled to be manufactured during the two-year period following such termination. Because efforts to develop and obtain regulatory approval for batoclimab remain ongoing, Immunovant did
not exercise that early termination right and it has lapsed. As a result, Immunovant has an additional minimum obligation to purchase additional batches of batoclimab in the four-year period of 2026 through 2029. As of March 31, 2024, the
remaining minimum purchase commitment related to this agreement was estimated to be approximately $46.2 million; and
|
|
• |
certain commitments to GSK pursuant to a commercial supply agreement entered between Dermavant and GSK. In conjunction with Dermavant’s entry into the GSK Agreement in 2018, Dermavant entered into a
clinical supply agreement pursuant to which GSK would provide a supply of tapinarof and clinical product at an agreed upon price during our clinical trials. In April 2019, Dermavant entered into a commercial supply agreement with GSK to
continue to provide certain quantities of tapinarof and commercial product at agreed upon minimum quantities and prices. The commercial supply agreement commenced in April 2022 upon completion of certain quality and regulatory conditions.
In July 2022, Dermavant and GSK amended the terms of the clinical supply and commercial supply agreements which released GSK of certain commitments to supply tapinarof and released Dermavant of certain commitments to purchase tapinarof in
exchange for a supplementary fee. Other supply and purchase commitments under the agreements remain in effect. In addition, Dermavant and Thermo Fisher Scientific (“TFS”) entered into a Commercial Manufacturing and Supply Agreement for
which TFS agreed to provide a supply of tapinarof to Dermavant at an agreed upon price. The agreements discussed above require Dermavant to purchase certain quantities of inventory over a period of five years. The minimum purchase
commitment related to these agreements was estimated to be approximately $33.3 million.
|
The above purchase commitments do not represent all of our anticipated purchases, but instead represent only the contractually obligated minimum purchases or firm commitments of non-cancelable
minimum amounts.
Additionally, we have certain payment obligations under various asset acquisition and license agreements. Under these agreements we are required to make milestone payments upon successful
completion and achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones. The payment obligations under the asset acquisition and license agreements are contingent upon future events, such as our achievement of specified
development, regulatory and commercial milestones, and the amount, timing, and likelihood of such payments are not known. We will also be required to make milestone payments and royalty payments in connection with the sale of products developed
under these agreements.
Potential material future milestone payments as of March 31, 2024 pursuant to certain key asset acquisition and license
agreements are as follows:
|
•
|
VTAMA/tapinarof (Dermavant):
up to CAD$75.0 million in remaining commercial milestones to Welichem Biotech Inc., with CAD$35.0 million payable upon VTAMA first U.S. commercial sale for atopic dermatitis and the remainder payable as first commercial sales are
achieved in various countries outside of the U.S. Additional milestones are owed to NovaQuest pursuant to the NovaQuest Agreement. Refer to Note 8, “Long-Term Debt” and Note 18, "Subsequent Events" of our audited financials for
further information.
|
|
•
|
Anti-FcRn franchise
(Immunovant): up to a maximum of $420.0 million to HanAll Biopharma Co., Ltd. upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and sales milestone events.
|
|
•
|
Brepocitinib (Priovant
Therapeutics, Inc.): mid tens-of-millions sales milestone payment to Pfizer if aggregate net sales in a given year exceed a mid-hundred-of-millions amount.
|
|
•
|
Namilumab (Kinevant Ltd.):
up to approximately $40 million to the prior shareholders of Izana Biosciences Limited upon the achievement of certain milestones.
|
Royalties are also due on net sales pursuant to these agreements. The Company has further commitments not reflected above
relating to other asset acquisition and license agreements entered and expects to enter into additional asset acquisition and license agreements in the future, which may require upfront payments and long-term commitments of capital resources.
We enter into agreements in the normal course of business with CROs and other vendors for clinical trials and with vendors for preclinical studies and other services and products for operating
purposes, which are generally cancelable upon written notice.
Our board of directors has authorized a common share repurchase program, allowing for repurchases of common shares in an aggregate amount of up to $1.5 billion (excluding fees and expenses). The
repurchase program is funded by available cash and cash equivalents on hand and does not have an expiration date. Pursuant to the share repurchase program, on April 2, 2024, we entered into a share repurchase agreement with Sumitomo to repurchase
all 71,251,083 common shares held by Sumitomo at a purchase price per share of $9.10, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $648.4 million. The repurchase transaction with Sumitomo was completed on April 2, 2024.
Our operations to date have been financed primarily through the sale of equity securities, sale of subsidiary interests, debt financings and revenue generated from licensing and collaboration
arrangements.
RSL Equity Financing Transactions
Since inception, we have completed multiple equity financing transactions, including the following:
In December 2019, together with Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. (“Sumitomo”), we completed the transactions contemplated by the transaction agreement by and between us and Sumitomo, dated as of October
31, 2019. In connection with the Sumitomo Transaction, we raised net proceeds of approximately $999.2 million due to the sale of our common shares to Sumitomo.
In September 2021, we completed our Business Combination with MAAC, a special purpose acquisition company, as well as entered into subscription agreements with certain investors, whereby we
issued 22,000,000 of our common shares at $10.00 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $220.0 million (the “PIPE Financing”). In connection with the Business Combination and PIPE Financing, we received approximately $213.4 million in cash
at closing.
In September 2022, we entered into a sales agreement (the “Sales Agreement”) with Cowen and Company, LLC (“Cowen”) to sell our common shares having an aggregate offering price of up to $400.0
million from time to time through an “at-the-market” equity offering program under which Cowen acts as our agent (the “ATM Facility”). As of March 31, 2024, we had $400.0 million of remaining capacity available under the ATM Facility.
In November 2022, we completed an underwritten primary and secondary public offering of 30,000,000 of our common shares at a price to the public of $5.00 per share. Of these common shares,
20,000,000 were sold by us and 10,000,000 were sold by certain selling shareholders. Net proceeds to us were approximately $94.7 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. We did not receive any proceeds
from the sale of common shares by the selling shareholders in the offering.
In February 2023, we completed an underwritten public offering of 30,666,665 of our common shares (including 3,999,999 common shares issued and sold upon the full exercise of the underwriters’
option to purchase additional shares) at a price to the public of $7.50 per share. Net proceeds to us were approximately $216.9 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.
In September 2023, we entered into common share purchase and sale agreements with certain institutional investors, pursuant to which we sold an aggregate
of 19,600,685 of our common shares at a purchase price of $10.21 per share. Net proceeds to us were approximately $199.8 million after deducting offering expenses.
Sumitomo Transaction
In December 2019, we closed the Sumitomo Transaction, including the transfer of our ownership interest in five Vants – Myovant, Urovant Sciences Ltd., Enzyvant Therapeutics Ltd., Altavant
Sciences Ltd., and Spirovant Sciences Ltd. – to Sumitovant, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sumitomo. In addition, in connection with the Sumitomo Transaction, we (i) granted Sumitomo options to purchase all, or in the case of Dermavant, 75%, of our
ownership interests in six other subsidiaries and (ii) provided Sumitomo and Sumitovant with certain rights over and access to our proprietary technology platforms, DrugOme and Digital Innovation. In exchange for these components of the Sumitomo
Transaction, we received approximately $1.9 billion in cash, which was in addition to the approximately $999.2 million from the sale of our common shares to Sumitomo as discussed above.
In June 2021, we completed a transaction with Sumitomo pursuant to which Sumitomo terminated its existing options to acquire our equity interests in certain of our subsidiaries.
In October 2022, Myovant entered into an agreement with Sumitovant, its majority shareholder, under which Sumitovant would acquire the remaining shares of Myovant not already owned by Sumitovant
at a price of $27.00 per share in a cash transaction (the “Myovant Transaction”). The acquisition of Myovant by Sumitovant was completed in March 2023. In connection with the closing of the Myovant Transaction, we received approximately $114.6
million in March 2023 for the sale of the Myovant Top-Up Shares. Refer to Note 9, “Discontinued Operations” of our audited financial statements for additional information.
Consolidated Vant Equity Financing Transactions
Since inception, we have completed multiple Vant equity financing transactions, including the following:
Immunovant
In December 2019, Immunovant raised $111.0 million (including $5.1 million related to common shares purchased by us) through a business combination with Health Sciences Acquisition Corporation, a
special purpose acquisition company.
During the years ended March 31, 2021 and 2020, Immunovant issued shares of common stock for an aggregate net proceeds of $384.9 million (including an aggregate of $27.5 million of shares of
common stock purchased by us) in private financings, underwritten public offerings, and warrant exercises.
In October 2022, Immunovant completed an underwritten public offering of 12,500,000 shares of its common stock (including 416,667 shares of common stock purchased by us) at a price to the public
of $6.00 per share, for net proceeds to Immunovant of approximately $70.2 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses.
In October 2023, Immunovant completed an underwritten public offering of 8,475,500 shares of its common stock (including 1,526,316 shares of common stock purchased by us on the same terms as
other investors in the offering and the full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase 1,105,500 additional shares of common stock) at a price to the public of $38.00 per share. Concurrent with the public offering, we purchased 4,473,684
shares of Immunovant’s common stock in a private placement exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, at the same price per share as investors in the public offering of $38.00 per share. The net proceeds
to Immunovant were approximately $466.7 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, placement agent fees and offering expenses.
Consolidated Vant Debt Financings
Since inception, we have completed multiple Vant debt financings, including the following:
Dermavant
In May 2019, Dermavant entered into a loan and security agreement (the “Hercules Loan Agreement”) with Hercules, pursuant to which Dermavant borrowed an aggregate of $20.0 million. In May 2021,
all amounts outstanding under the Hercules Loan Agreement were repaid using the proceeds from the $40.0 million senior secured credit facility (the "Credit Facility") entered into by Dermavant with XYQ Luxco S.A.R.L (“XYQ Luxco”), as lender, and
U.S. Bank National Association, as collateral agent, in May 2021, and Dermavant terminated the Hercules Loan Agreement.
Following the approval of VTAMA by the FDA in May 2022, Dermavant received $160.0 million in June 2022 pursuant to the terms of the RIPSA entered with XYQ Luxco, NovaQuest Co-Investment Fund
XVII, L.P., an affiliate of NovaQuest Capital Management, LLC, and MAM Tapir Lender, LLC, an affiliate of Marathon Asset Management, L.P., together with U.S. Bank National Association, as collateral agent. Under the terms of the RIPSA, Dermavant
is obligated to pay royalties based on a capped single-digit revenue interest in net sales of tapinarof for all dermatological indications in the U.S., up to a cap of $344.0 million, in exchange for the $160.0 million in committed funding to be
paid to Dermavant, conditioned on the approval of tapinarof by the FDA, which was achieved in May 2022. Dermavant used the RIPSA proceeds primarily for the milestone obligations to GSK, which was achieved upon FDA approval, and Welichem Biotech
Inc., which was achieved upon the first sale of VTAMA.
On May 24, 2024, Dermavant entered into amendments to (i) the NovaQuest Agreement, (ii) the Credit Facility, and (iii)
the RIPSA. Refer to Note 18, “Subsequent Events” of our audited consolidated financial statements for details regarding the amendments.
Other
Datavant
In July 2021, we received approximately $320 million in cash as a result of the Datavant Merger.
Proteovant
In August 2023, we completed a transaction with SK Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (“SK Bio”), a subsidiary of SK, Inc., pursuant to which SK Bio purchased all of our shares in Proteovant in
exchange for $47.5 million.
Telavant
In December 2023, we completed the sale of our entire equity interest in our majority-owned subsidiary, Telavant, to Roche. The Roche Transaction was made pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement
dated October 22, 2023 among us, Telavant, Pfizer Inc. (“Pfizer”), and Roche. Telavant was jointly formed by us and Pfizer in November 2022 to develop and commercialize RVT-3101, an anti-TL1A antibody in development for ulcerative colitis (“UC”)
and Crohn’s disease, in the U.S. and Japan. Prior to the Roche Transaction, we held 75% of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock and preferred stock of Telavant, and Pfizer owned the remaining 25%, in each case on an as-converted
basis.
Pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, Roche acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of Telavant in exchange for approximately $7.1 billion in cash at the closing of
the Roche Transaction and a one-time milestone payment of $150 million in cash payable upon the initiation of a Phase 3 trial in UC. The $7.1 billion in closing consideration was paid to all of Telavant’s equity holders, including holders of
restricted stock units, on a pro rata basis relative to their ownership of Telavant prior to the closing of the Roche Transaction, and this same treatment will be applied to the one-time milestone payment. We received an upfront payment of
approximately $5.2 billion in cash as our pro rata portion of the consideration upon closing of the Roche Transaction. Additionally, we are eligible to receive approximately $110 million for our pro rata portion of the one-time milestone payment
if the milestone payment condition is satisfied.
Funding Requirements
We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance the discovery efforts, preclinical activities, clinical trials and potential
commercialization of our product candidates. Additionally, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses with respect to VTAMA. Our operating results, including our net losses, may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and
year-to-year, depending on the timing of our planned clinical trials, our expenditures on other research and development activities and our commercialization efforts. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially as we:
|
• |
fund preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates, which we are pursuing or may choose to pursue in the future;
|
|
• |
fund the manufacturing of drug substance and drug product of our product candidates in development;
|
|
• |
seek to identify, acquire, develop and commercialize additional product candidates;
|
|
• |
invest in activities related to the discovery of novel drugs and advancement of our internal programs;
|
|
• |
integrate acquired technologies into a comprehensive regulatory and product development strategy;
|
|
• |
maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio;
|
|
• |
hire scientific, clinical, quality control and administrative personnel;
|
|
• |
add operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our drug development efforts;
|
|
• |
achieve milestones under our agreements with third parties that will require us to make substantial payments to those parties;
|
|
• |
seek regulatory approvals for any product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;
|
|
• |
build out our sales, marketing and distribution infrastructure and scale up external manufacturing capabilities to commercialize VTAMA and any drug candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval;
and
|
|
• |
operate as a public company.
|
In the future, we may require significant additional capital to continue our operations, pursue business opportunities or strategic transactions, or respond to challenges, competition or
unforeseen circumstances. Until such time, if ever, that we can generate substantial revenues, we may finance future cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, strategic alliances and license and development agreements
or other collaborations at Roivant and the Vants. To the extent that we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities at Roivant or the Vants, our existing shareholders’ ownership, or our ownership in the Vants, may experience substantial
dilution, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that could harm the rights of our shareholders. Additionally, any agreements for future debt or preferred equity financings, if available, may involve
covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing,
distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our products and product candidates, future revenue streams, research programs or technologies or grant licenses on terms that may not be
favorable to us. The foregoing restrictions associated with potential sources of additional capital may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital or to pursue business opportunities, including potential acquisitions.
If adequate funds are not available to us, we may be required to forego potential in-licensing or acquisition opportunities, delay, limit or terminate one or more development or discovery
programs, scale back marketing efforts for our current and future products or be unable to expand operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities, which could materially affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results
of operations.
Finally, as part of our ongoing business strategy we regularly evaluate new acquisition and in-licensing opportunities as well as our capital structure. We may from time to time use our existing
cash to fund such opportunities or to retire outstanding debt obligations or to return capital to shareholders though share repurchases or the issuance of cash dividends on our common shares to optimize our capital structure. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry—We may engage in strategic transactions that could impact our liquidity, increase our expenses and present significant distractions to our management” for more
information.
Cash Flows
The following table sets forth a summary of our cash flows for the years ended March 31, 2024 and 2023:
|
|
Years Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2024
|
|
|
2023
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities
|
|
$
|
(765,268
|
)
|
|
$
|
(843,393
|
)
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
$
|
5,203,623
|
|
|
$
|
(44,269
|
)
|
Net cash provided by financing activities
|
|
$
|
419,364
|
|
|
$
|
499,462
|
|
Operating Activities
Cash flow from operating activities represents the cash receipts and disbursements related to all of our activities other than investing and financing activities. Cash flow from operating
activities is derived from adjusting our net loss for non-cash items and changes in working capital.
For the year ended March 31, 2024, cash used in operating activities decreased by $78.1 million to $765.3 million compared to the year ended March 31, 2023 due
to greater cash requirements to fund operations during the year ended March 31, 2023.
Investing Activities
Cash flow from investing activities includes proceeds from sale of Telavant net assets, milestone payments, cash decreases upon deconsolidation of subsidiaries, proceeds from sale of subsidiary
interests and other equity interests, and purchase of property and equipment.
For the year ended March 31, 2024, cash flow from investing activities changed by $5.2 billion to net cash
provided by investing activities of $5.2 billion from net cash used in investing activities of $44.3 million for the year ended March 31, 2023. This change in cash flow from investing activities is primarily due to proceeds received upon closing of the Roche Transaction during the year ended March 31, 2024.
Financing Activities
For the year ended March 31, 2024, cash provided by financing activities decreased by $80.1 million to $419.4 million compared to the year ended March 31, 2023. During the year ended March 31, 2024, net proceeds were
primarily generated by the issuance of common shares of our majority-owned subsidiary Immunovant as well as the issuance of our common shares pursuant to purchase and sale agreements entered with certain institutional investors. During the year
ended March 31, 2023, proceeds were generated by funding pursuant to the terms of the RIPSA following the approval of VTAMA by the FDA in May 2022 as well as net proceeds from the issuance of our common
shares and the common shares of our majority-owned subsidiary Immunovant.
Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates
Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosures of contingencies as
of the dates of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, we evaluate our estimates and judgments on an ongoing basis. We base our estimates on
historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent
from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our judgments and estimates in light of changes in circumstances, facts, or experience. Changes in
estimates and assumptions are reflected in reported results in the period in which they become known.
We define our critical accounting policies as those under U.S. GAAP that require us to make subjective estimates and judgments about matters that are uncertain and are likely to have a material
impact on our financial condition and results of operations, as well as the specific manner in which we apply those principles.
While our significant accounting policies are described in more detail in Note 2, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K, we believe that the following accounting policies are those most critical to the judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our financial statements.
Product Revenue Reserves
We recognize revenue when the customer obtains control of the product, which occurs at a point in time, either upon shipment or delivery to the customer. Revenues from product sales are recorded
at the net sales price, which includes estimates of variable consideration for which reserves are established that result from (a) invoice discounts for prompt payment and specialty distributor and specialty pharmacy service fees, (b) government
and private payer rebates, chargebacks, discounts and fees, (c) performance rebates and administrative fees, (d) product returns and (e) costs of co-pay assistance programs for patients. We establish reserves based on these gross-to-net
adjustments, which are based on amounts earned or to be claimed on the related sale and are classified as reductions of accounts receivable (if the amount is payable to the customer) or accrued expenses and other current liabilities (if the
amount is payable to a party other than a customer). Where appropriate, we utilize the expected value method to determine the appropriate amount for estimates of variable consideration. The estimates of reserves established for variable
consideration reflect current contractual and statutory requirements, our historical experience, specific known market events and trends, industry data and forecasted customer buying and payment patterns. The amount of variable consideration that
is included in the transaction price may be constrained and is included in net product revenues only to the extent that it is probable that a significant reversal in the amount of the cumulative revenue recognized will not occur in a future
period. Actual amounts of consideration ultimately received may differ from our estimates. If actual results vary from our estimates, we adjust these estimates in the period such change in estimate becomes known, which could affect net product
revenue and earnings in the period of the adjustment.
We make significant estimates and judgments that materially affect our recognition of net product revenue. Claims by third-party payors for rebates, chargebacks and discounts may be submitted to
us significantly after the related sales, potentially resulting in adjustments in the period in which the new information becomes known. We will adjust our estimates based on new information, including information regarding actual rebates,
chargebacks and discounts for our products, as it becomes available.
The following table provides a summary of activity with respect to our sales allowances and accruals (in thousands):
|
|
March 31, 2024
|
|
|
March 31, 2023
|
|
Sales return, rebate, and discounts balances, beginning of year
|
|
$
|
(20,794
|
)
|
|
$
|
—
|
|
Reduction of gross sales
|
|
|
(207,372
|
)
|
|
|
(129,717
|
)
|
Cash payments
|
|
|
199,151
|
|
|
|
108,923
|
|
Sales return, rebate and discounts balances, end of year
|
|
$
|
(29,015
|
)
|
|
$
|
(20,794
|
)
|
Accrued Research and Development Expenses, Including Clinical Trial Accruals
As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued research and development expenses. We record accruals for estimated costs of
research and development activities, including preclinical studies, clinical trials, and contract manufacturing, conducted by third-party service providers. Our process for determining such estimates includes reviewing open contracts, vendor
agreements, and purchase orders; communicating with our internal personnel and external service providers to understand the progress or stage of completion of services performed on our behalf; and estimating the associated costs for these
services when we have not yet been invoiced. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time.
We recognize expenses related to clinical trials based on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contracts with multiple CROs that conduct and manage clinical
trials on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation and vary from contract to contract. This may result in uneven payment flows. There may be instances in which payments made to our vendors will exceed the
level of services provided and result in a prepayment of the clinical expense. Payments under some of these contracts depend on various factors, including the successful enrollment of patients and the completion of clinical trial milestones. The
majority of our service providers invoice us in arrears based on a pre-determined schedule or when contractual milestones are met. In making these estimates, we consider various factors, including status and timing of services performed, the
number of patients enrolled, and the rate of patient enrollment. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, the accrual or prepaid expense is adjusted accordingly.
Other examples of estimated accrued research and development expenses include fees paid to:
|
a. |
investigative sites in connection with clinical trials;
|
|
b. |
vendors in connection with preclinical and clinical development activities; and
|
|
c. |
CMOs in connection with the production of product and clinical trial materials.
|
Although we do not expect our estimates to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status
and timing of services performed may vary and may result in reporting amounts that are too high or too low in any particular period. To date, we have not experienced significant changes in our estimates of accrued research and development
expenses after a reporting period.
Valuation of Investment in Datavant
We hold an equity method investment in Datavant, which is a privately-held company. We do not consolidate Datavant as we do not have a controlling financial interest. Our investment in Datavant
is subject to the equity method of accounting, and we have elected the fair value option to continuously remeasure the investment to fair value each reporting period with changes in fair value reflected
in earnings. We have engaged an independent valuation specialist to determine the fair value as of each reporting date.
The fair value of our investment in Datavant uses significant unobservable inputs and is therefore classified as a Level 3 financial instrument. The estimate of fair value for this investment was
determined using the income approach and implementation of the option pricing method (“OPM”). The OPM allows for the allocation of a company’s equity value among the various equity capital owners (preferred and common
shareholders). The OPM uses the preferred shareholders’ liquidation preferences, participation rights, dividend policy, and conversion rights to determine how proceeds from a liquidity event shall be distributed among the various ownership
classes at a future date.
Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements
We did not adopt any material accounting pronouncements during the year ended March 31, 2024.
ITEM 7A. |
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
|
Under SEC rules and regulations, we are not required to provide the information required by this item in this report because we are eligible to use the scaled disclosure requirements applicable
to a “smaller reporting company.”