ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
RISKS RELATED TO OUR FINANCIAL POSITION AND OUR CAPITAL RESOURCES
We will likely need additional capital to fund our operations. If we are unable to obtain sufficient capital, we will need to curtail and reduce our operations and costs and modify our business strategy.
Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of capital stock, proceeds from term loan agreements, the receipt of license fees, milestone payments, research and development funding and royalty payments from our collaboration partners, and product sales. In 2019, we commenced the U.S. launch of our first two commercial products, YUTIQ and DEXYCU, and we are developing EYP-1901 as a potential six-month sustained delivery treatment for wet AMD and NPDR. However, we have no expectation of revenues from our research and development programs, including EYP-1901, prior to the successful completion of clinical trials for such programs. Therefore, we have no sufficient historical evidence to assert that it is probable that we will receive sufficient revenues from our product sales to fund operations. As of December 31, 2022, our cash, cash equivalents, and investments in marketable securities totaled $144.6 million. We believe that our cash, cash equivalents and investments in marketable securities, combined with anticipated net cash inflows from net product sales will fund our operating plan into the second half of 2024, under current expectations regarding the timing and outcomes of our Phase 2 clinical trials for EYP-1901 for the treatment of wet AMD and NPDR. Due to the difficulty and uncertainty associated with the design and implementation of clinical trials, we will continue to assess our cash, cash equivalents, results from investments in marketable securities and future funding requirements. However, there is no assurance that additional funding will be achieved and that we will succeed in our future operations. Actual cash requirements could differ from our projections due to many factors, including the continued effect of the Pandemic on our business and the medical community, the timing and results of our Phase 2 clinical trials for EYP-1901, additional investments in research and development programs, the success of commercialization for YUTIQ, the loss of pass-through related separate payment for DEXYCU, the actual costs of these commercialization efforts, the costs associated with the ongoing efforts associated with responding to the subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking production of documents related to sales, marketing and promotional practices, including as pertain to DEXYCU (DOJ Investigation), higher interest rates, inflation, supply shortages, competing technological and market developments and the costs of any strategic acquisitions and/or development of complementary business opportunities.
If we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we will need to curtail and reduce our operations and costs, and modify our business strategy, which may require us to, among other things:
•
significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the commercialization or development of one or more of our products or product candidates or one or more of our other research and development initiatives;
33
•
seek partners or collaborators for one or more of our products or product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available;
•
sell or license on unfavorable terms our rights to one or more of our technologies, products or product candidates that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves; and/or
•
seek to sell our company at an earlier stage than would otherwise be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available.
We have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future.
We have incurred significant losses since our inception, have not generated significant revenue from commercial sales of our products and are not profitable. Investment in drug development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront operating expenses and significant risk that a product candidate will fail to successfully complete clinical trials, gain regulatory approval or become commercially viable. We continue to incur significant operating expenses due primarily to investments in clinical trials, sales and marketing infrastructure, research and development, and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. For the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, we had losses from operations of $99.6 million and $55.3 million, respectively, and net losses of $102.3 million and $58.4 million, respectively, and we had a total accumulated deficit of $671.4 million at December 31, 2022.
We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will continue to be significant if, and as, we:
•
continue the research and pre-clinical and clinical development of our product candidates, including EYP-1901 and YUTIQ;
•
initiate additional pre-clinical studies, clinical trials or other studies or trials for EYP-1901 and our other product candidates;
•
continue to sustain and enhance an effective commercial infrastructure and enter into, and maintain new agreements for the commercialization of YUTIQ;
•
continue efforts to commercialize DEXYCU internationally;
•
add additional operational, financial and management information systems and personnel, including personnel to support our development and commercialization efforts;
•
continue to perform tasks associated with the ongoing DOJ Investigation;
•
hire additional commercial, clinical, manufacturing and scientific personnel and engage third party commercial, clinical and manufacturing organizations;
•
further develop the manufacturing process for our product candidates;
•
change or add additional manufacturers or suppliers;
•
seek regulatory approvals for our product candidates that successfully complete clinical trials;
•
seek to identify and validate additional product candidates;
•
acquire or in-license other products, product candidates and technologies;
•
maintain, protect and expand our intellectual property portfolio;
•
create additional infrastructure to support our product development and planned future commercial sale efforts; and
•
experience any delays or encounter issues with any of the above.
We may never achieve profitability from future operations.
Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with strategic collaboration partners, to successfully commercialize our current products and complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory approvals necessary for, the manufacture and commercialization of our product candidates, including EYP-1901. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and commercializing products that generate significant revenue. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing pre-clinical testing and clinical trials of our product candidates, discovering additional product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we or our licensees may obtain regulatory approval, satisfying any post-marketing requirements and obtaining reimbursement for our products from private insurance or government payors. We do not know the extent to which YUTIQ or DEXYCU, or any of our product candidates, including EYP-1901, if approved, will generate significant revenue for us, if at all. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenues significant enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development and commercialization, we are unable to accurately project when or if we will be able to achieve profitability from operations. Even if we do so, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify
34
our product offerings or even continue our operations. Our ability to generate revenue from our current or future products and product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:
•
our ability to successfully complete development activities, including the necessary clinical trials, with respect to EYP-1901 and our other product candidates;
•
our ability to continue to sustain and enhance an effective commercial infrastructure and enter into, and maintain, new agreements for the commercialization of YUTIQ;
•
our ability to complete and submit applications to, and obtain regulatory approval from, foreign regulatory authorities, if we choose to commercialize YUTIQ and DEXYCU in additional unpartnered jurisdictions outside the U.S.;
•
the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval;
•
our ability to further develop our commercial organization capable of sales, marketing and distribution for YUTIQ and any of our other product candidates for which we may obtain marketing approval;
•
our ability to enter into and maintain commercially reasonable agreements with manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors and other third parties in our supply chain;
•
our success in establishing a commercially viable price for our products;
•
our ability to manufacture commercial quantities of our products at acceptable cost levels; and
•
our ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third parties, including government payors.
We received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking production of documents related to sales, marketing and promotional practices, including as pertain to DEXYCU®. If the DOJ commences an action against us, the action could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, we have expended and expect to continue to expend significant financial and managerial resources responding to the DOJ subpoena, which could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
In August 2022, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts seeking production of documents related to sales, marketing and promotional practices, including as pertain to DEXYCU®. We are cooperating fully with the government in connection with this matter. We cannot predict the outcome of the DOJ Investigation, and there can be no assurance that the DOJ will not commence an action against us, or as to what the ultimate outcome of any such DOJ Investigation might be. Under applicable law, the DOJ has the ability to impose sanctions on companies which are found to have violated the provisions of applicable laws, including, civil monetary penalties and other remedies. The resolution of any such enforcement action, should there be one, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We have expended and expect to continue to expend significant financial and managerial resources responding to the DOJ subpoena, which could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The ongoing novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had, and may continue to have, a material and adverse impact on our business.
The ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic (the Pandemic) has had a material and adverse impact on the Company’s business pursuant to a reduction in physician office visits impacting YUTIQ, specifically in early 2022. Going forward, the duration and full extent to which the Pandemic impacts the Company’s business, revenues, financial condition and cash flows depend on future developments that are highly uncertain, subject to change and are difficult to predict, including new information that may emerge concerning the Pandemic, and may cause intermittent or prolonged periods of reduced patient services at the Company’s customers’ facilities, which may negatively affect customer demand. The Company’s revenues, financial condition and cash flows may be adversely affected in the future as well. The Company is continuously monitoring the Pandemic and its potential effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Although the U.S. government has announced its intention to terminate the public health crisis associated with the Pandemic as of May 2023, there remains an uncertainty about the potential future impact of the Pandemic on the Company’s business. This uncertainty could have an impact in future periods on certain estimates used in the preparation of the Company’s periodic financial results, including reserves for variable consideration related to product sales, realizability of certain receivables and assessment for excess or obsolete inventory. Uncertainty around the extent and length of time of the Pandemic, and any future related financial impact cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.
While we cannot presently predict the future scope and severity of current or any potential business shutdowns or disruptions related to COVID-19, if we or any of the third parties with whom we engage, including the suppliers, manufacturers and other third parties in our global supply chain, clinical trial sites, clinical research organizations, patients who may be candidates for clinical trials, regulators, surgeons, ASCs, potential business development partners and other third parties with whom we conduct business, were to experience prolonged shutdowns or other business disruptions, including the imposition of restrictions on the export or import of our key supplies from countries outside of the United States, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines
35
presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted. Further, any sustained disruption in the capital markets from the Pandemic could negatively impact our ability to raise capital.
To the extent the Pandemic continues to adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, it may also heighten many of the other risks described herein as well as in any amendment or update to our risk factors reflected in subsequent filings with the SEC.
The ultimate impact of the Pandemic on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows is dependent on future developments, which are still highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, including the duration of the Pandemic, as well as the timing and phasing of business reopening, including the full resumption of the performance of elective surgical procedures such as cataract surgeries.
We will need to raise additional capital in the future, which may not be available on favorable terms and may be dilutive to stockholders or impose operational restrictions.
We will need to raise additional capital in the future to help fund the development and commercialization of EYP-1901 and our other product candidates, if approved, and the continued commercialization of YUTIQ. The amount of additional capital we will require will be influenced by many factors, including, but not limited to:
•
our clinical development plans for EYP-1901 for the treatment of wet AMD, NPDR, and DME and our other product candidates;
•
the outcome, timing and cost of the regulatory approval process for EYP-1901 and our other product candidates, including the potential for the FDA to require that we perform more studies and clinical trials than those we currently expect;
•
product revenues received and cash flow generated from sales of YUTIQ;
•
whether and to what extent we internally fund, whether and when we initiate, and how we conduct other product development programs;
•
whether and when we are able to enter into strategic arrangements for our products or product candidates and the nature of those arrangements;
•
the costs involved in preparing, filing, and prosecuting patent applications, and maintaining, and enforcing our intellectual property rights;
•
changes in our operating plan, resulting in increases or decreases in our need for capital;
•
our views on the availability, timing and desirability of raising capital; and
•
the costs of operating as a public company.
We do not know if additional capital will be available to us when needed or on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. Collaboration, licensing or other commercial agreements may not be available on favorable terms, or at all. If we seek to sell our equity securities under our at-the-market (ATM) program or in another offering, we do not know whether and to what extent we will be able to do so, or on what terms. Further, the rules and regulations of the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, (Nasdaq), require us to obtain stockholder approval for sales of our equity securities under certain circumstances, which could delay or prevent us from raising additional capital from such sales. Also, the state of the economy and financial and credit markets at the time or times we seek any additional financing may make it more difficult or more expensive to obtain. If available, additional equity financing may be dilutive to stockholders, debt financing may involve restrictive covenants or other unfavorable terms and dilute our existing stockholders’ equity, and funding through collaboration, licensing or other commercial agreements may be on unfavorable terms, including requiring us to relinquish rights to certain of our technologies or products. If adequate financing is not available if and when needed, we may delay, reduce the scope of, or eliminate research or development programs, postpone or cancel the pursuit of product candidates such as EYP-1901, including pre-clinical and clinical trials and new business opportunities, independent U.S. commercialization of YUTIQ, or other new products, if any, reduce staff and operating costs, or otherwise significantly curtail our operations to reduce our cash requirements and extend our capital.
We must maintain compliance with the terms of our Credit Facilities or receive a waiver for any non-compliance. Our failure to comply with the covenants or other terms of the Credit Facilities, including as a result of events beyond our control, could result in a default under the SVB Loan Agreement that would materially and adversely affect the ongoing viability of our business.
On March 9, 2022 (the SVB Closing Date), we entered into a loan and security agreement (the SVB Loan Agreement) among us, as borrower, and Silicon Valley Bank, as lender (SVB), providing for (i) a senior secured term loan facility of $30 million (the Term Facility) and (ii) a senior secured revolving credit facility of up to $15.0 million (the Revolving Facility and together with the Term Facility, the Credit Facilities). The maximum amount available for borrowing at any time under the Revolving Facility is limited to a borrowing base valuation of our eligible accounts receivable. On the SVB Closing Date, $30 million of the Term Facility and approximately $11.5 million of the Revolving Facility, were advanced, to pay off the CRG Loan, including the accrued interests
36
through this date. We utilized the proceeds from the Credit Facilities, together with cash on hand, for the repayment in full of all outstanding obligations under our term loan agreement (the CRG Credit Agreement) with CRG Servicing LLC (CRG).
The loans under the Credit Facilities are due and payable on January 1, 2027 (the Maturity Date). The Credit Facilities bear interest that is payable monthly in arrears at a per annum rate (subject to increase during an event of default) equal to (i) with respect to the Term Facility, the greater of (x) the Wall Street Journal prime rate plus 2.25% and (y) 5.50% and (ii) with respect to the Revolving Facility, the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate. An unused commitment fee of 0.25% per annum applies to unutilized borrowing capacity under the Revolving Facility. Commencing on February 1, 2024, we are required to repay the principal of the Term Facility in 36 consecutive equal monthly installments. At maturity or if earlier prepaid, we will also be required to pay an exit fee equal to 2.00% of the aggregate principal amount of the Term Facility.
We may make a voluntary prepayment of the Term Facility, in whole but not in part, at any time. Subject to certain exceptions, we are also required to make mandatory prepayments of outstanding loans under the Credit Facilities with the proceeds of asset sales and insurance proceeds, which amounts in the case of the Revolving Facility, subject to the conditions set forth in the SVB Loan Agreement, may be re-borrowed. All voluntary and mandatory prepayments of the Term Facility are subject to the payment of prepayment premiums as follows: (i) if prepayment occurs on or prior to the first anniversary of the SVB Closing Date, an amount equal to 3.0% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid, (ii) if prepayment occurs after the first anniversary of the SVB Closing Date and on or prior to the second anniversary of the SVB Closing Date, 2.0% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid, (iii) if prepayment occurs after the second anniversary of the SVB Closing Date and on or prior to the third anniversary of the SVB Closing Date, 1.0% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid and (iv) if prepayment occurs after the third anniversary of the SVB Closing Date but prior to the Maturity Date, an amount equal to 0.50% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid. The prepayment of the Term Facility in full is also subject to the payment of an exit fee of $600,000. We may voluntarily terminate the Revolving Facility at any time, subject to the payment of a termination fee as follows: (i) if such termination occurs on or prior to the first anniversary of the Closing Date, an amount equal to 3.0% of the Revolving Facility and (ii) if such termination occurs after the first anniversary of the Closing Date, 1.0% of the Revolving Facility.
Certain of our future subsidiaries will be required to become co-borrowers under the SVB Loan Agreement or guarantee the obligations of ours under the SVB Loan Agreement. Our obligations under the SVB Loan Agreement and the guarantee of such obligations are secured by a pledge of substantially all of our and such subsidiaries’ assets, excluding intellectual property.
The SVB Loan Agreement contains affirmative and negative covenants customary for financings of this type, including limitations on our and our subsidiaries’ abilities, among other things, to incur additional debt, grant or permit additional liens, make investments and acquisitions, merge or consolidate with others, dispose of assets, pay dividends and distributions, enter into affiliate transactions and change our line of business, in each case, subject to certain exceptions. On March 7, 2023, the Company and SVB entered into an amendment to the SVB Loan Agreement, modifying the quarterly financial covenants of the agreement. Pursuant to the amendment, commencing upon December 31, 2022, the Company is required to maintain, at all times, unrestricted and unencumbered cash and cash equivalents in an amount equal to the greater of (i) $50,000,000 and (ii) the Company’s six-month Cash Burn (as defined in the SVB Loan Agreement).
If we do not maintain compliance with the continuing covenants and other terms and conditions of the Credit Facilities or secure a waiver for any non-compliance, then SVB may choose to declare an event of default and require that we immediately repay all amounts outstanding, plus penalties and interest, including an exit fee, any termination fees and any prepayment fees, and foreclose on the collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness. Such repayment would have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
In addition, the repayment of all unpaid principal and accrued interest under the Credit Facilities may be accelerated upon consummation of a specified change of control transaction or the occurrence of certain other events of default (as specified in the SVB Loan Agreement), including, among other things:
•
our default in a payment obligation under the SVB Loan Agreement;
•
our default under any of our agreements (i) evidencing indebtedness in an aggregate principal amount in excess of $250,000 or (ii) that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our and our subsidiaries’ business or operations;
•
our breach of certain affirmative covenants and the negative covenants or, subject to specified cure periods, other terms of the SVB Loan Agreement;
•
a material impairment in the perfection or priority of SVB’s security interest in the collateral;
•
the occurrence of a material adverse effect (as specified in the SVB Loan Agreement);
•
certain specified insolvency and bankruptcy-related events; and
37
•
certain specified events relating to governmental approvals.
Subject to any applicable cure period set forth in the SVB Loan Agreement, upon the occurrence of an event of default, SVB may accelerate all or any amounts outstanding with respect to the Credit Facilities (principal, accrued interest, exit fee, any termination fees and any prepayment fees). Our assets or cash flow may not be sufficient to fully repay our obligations under the SVB Loan Agreement if the obligations thereunder are accelerated upon an event of default. Further, if we are unable to repay, refinance or restructure our obligations under the SVB Loan Agreement, SVB could proceed to protect and enforce their rights under the SVB Loan Agreement by exercising such remedies as are available to SVB thereunder and in respect thereof under applicable law, either by suit in equity or by action at law, or both, whether for specific performance of any covenant or other agreement contained in the SVB Loan Agreement or in aid of the exercise of any power granted in the SVB Loan Agreement. The foregoing would materially and adversely affect the ongoing viability of our business.
Our Loan Agreement contains restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business.
The SVB Loan Agreement contains various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions without SVB’s prior consent. These covenants limit our ability to, among other things:
•
sell, transfer, lease or dispose of our assets;
•
create, incur or assume additional indebtedness;
•
encumber or permit liens on certain of our assets;
•
make restricted payments, including paying dividends on, repurchasing or making distributions with respect to, our common stock;
•
make specified investments (including loans and advances) and acquisitions;
•
consolidate, merge, sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of our assets;
•
enter into certain transactions with our affiliates;
•
permit our cash held in deposit accounts with SVB to be less than the lesser of (i) 100.0% of our consolidated cash, including our subsidiaries’ and affiliates’ cash, and (ii) 110.0% of all outstanding obligations owing under the SVB Loan Agreement; and
•
permit our liquidity to fall below certain agreed levels.
The covenants in our Loan Agreement may limit our ability to take certain actions that may be in our long-term best interests. In the event that we breach one or more covenants, SVB may choose to declare an event of default and require that we immediately repay all amounts outstanding, plus penalties and interest, including the exit fee, any termination fees and any prepayment fees, terminate their commitments to extend further credit and foreclose on the collateral granted to them to secure such indebtedness. Such repayment could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition.
Certain potential payments to the Lenders could impede a sale of our company.
Subject to certain exceptions, we are also required to make mandatory prepayments of outstanding loans under the Credit Facilities with the proceeds of assets sales and insurance proceeds, which amounts in the case of the Revolving Facility, subject to the conditions set forth in the Loan Agreement, may re-borrowed.
All voluntary and mandatory prepayments of the Term Facility are subject to the payment of prepayment premiums as follows: (i) if prepayment occurs on or prior to the first anniversary of the SVB Closing Date, an amount equal to 3.0% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid, (ii) if prepayment occurs after the first anniversary of the SVB Closing Date and on or prior to the second anniversary of the SVB Closing Date, 2.0% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid, (iii) if prepayment occurs after the second anniversary of the SVB Closing Date and on or prior to the third anniversary of the SVB Closing Date, 1.0% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid and (iii) if prepayment occurs after the third anniversary of the SVB Closing Date but prior to the Maturity Date, an amount equal to 0.50% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Term Facility being prepaid. The prepayment of the Term Facility in full is also subject to the payment of an exit fee of $600,000. We may voluntarily terminate the Revolving Facility at any time, subject to the payment of a termination fee as follows: (i) if such termination occurs on or prior to the first anniversary of the Closing Date, an amount equal to 3.0% of the Revolving Facility and (ii) if such termination occurs after the first anniversary of the Closing Date, 1.0% of the Revolving Facility.
These provisions may make it more costly for a potential acquirer to engage in a business combination transaction with us. Provisions that have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a change in control could discourage a third party from attempting to acquire us, limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our common stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.
38
To service our indebtedness, we will require a significant amount of cash and our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control.
Our ability to make cash payments on our indebtedness will depend on our ability to generate significant operating cash flow in the future. This ability is, to a significant extent, subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors, that will be beyond our control. In addition, our business may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations to enable us to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs. In any such circumstance, we may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness, on or before maturity. We may not be able to refinance any indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we cannot service our indebtedness, we may have to take actions such as selling assets, seeking additional equity or reducing or delaying capital expenditures, strategic acquisitions and investments. Any such action, if necessary, may not be effected on commercially reasonable terms or at all. The instruments governing our indebtedness may restrict our ability to sell assets and our use of the proceeds from such sales.
Our profitability will be impacted by our obligations to make royalty and milestone payments to the former securityholders of Icon Bioscience, Inc. and other third-party collaborators.
In connection with our acquisition of Icon Bioscience, Inc. (Icon) in March 2018 (the Icon Acquisition), we are obligated to pay certain post-closing contingent cash payments upon the achievement of specified milestones and based upon certain net sales and partnering revenue standards, in each case subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, dated March 28, 2018 (the Merger Agreement). These future obligations include (i) sales milestone payments totaling up to $95.0 million, beginning no earlier than three years after the October 1, 2018 effective date of the pass-through reimbursement code approved by CMS, upon the achievement of certain sales thresholds and subject to certain CMS reimbursement conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (ii) quarterly earn-out payments equal to 12% on net sales of DEXYCU, which earn-out payments will increase to 16% of net sales of DEXYCU in a given year beginning in the calendar quarter for a given year to the extent aggregate annual consideration of DEXYCU exceeds $200.0 million in such year, (iii) quarterly earn-out payments equal to 20% of partnering revenue received by us for DEXYCU outside of the U.S., and (iv) single-digit percentage quarterly earn-out payments with respect to net sales and/or partnering income, if any, resulting from future clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization of any other product candidates we might develop utilizing the Verisome technology acquired in the Icon Acquisition. For the year ended December 31, 2022, we accrued DEXYCU product revenue-based royalty expense of $1.6 million. Our profitability with respect to DEXYCU is impacted by our obligations to make payments to the former securityholders of Icon. Our obligations to the former securityholders of Icon and other third-party collaborators could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations if we are unable to manage our operating costs and expenses at profitable levels. Going forward, we anticipate payments to ICON to be inconsequential pursuant to the CY 2023 Medicare Hospital OPPS and ASC Payment System Final Rule, which was issued November 1, 2022, terminating pass-through related separate payment for certain drugs, including DEXYCU, beyond its current expiration date of December 31, 2022.
Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and other tax attributes may be limited.
As of December 31, 2022, including pre-acquisition amounts related to Icon, we had U.S. net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards of approximately $321.6 million for U.S. federal income tax and approximately $264.2 million for state income tax purposes available to offset future taxable income, and U.S. federal and state research and development tax credits of approximately $7.2 million, prior to consideration of annual limitations that may be imposed under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Section 382). Our U.S. NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2023 if not utilized.
Our U.S. NOL and tax credit carryforwards could expire unused and be unavailable to offset future income tax liabilities. Under Section 382, and corresponding provisions of U.S. state law, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50% change, by value, in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change U.S. NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research and development tax credits, to offset its post-change income may be limited. The latest analysis performed under Section 382, performed through September 30, 2018, confirmed that the exercise of certain warrants in late September 2018 resulted in a greater than 50% cumulative ownership change, which will cause annual limitations on the use of our then existing NOL balances and other pre-change tax attributes. As a result, if we earn net taxable income in future periods, our ability to use our pre-change U.S. NOL carryforwards to offset U.S. federal taxable income will be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liabilities to us.
In addition, we may experience additional ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, including through completed or contemplated financings, some of which may be outside of our control. If we determine that a future ownership change has occurred and our ability to use our historical net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards is materially limited, it would harm our future operating results by effectively increasing our future tax obligations.
39
RISKS RELATED TO THE REGULATORY APPROVAL AND CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT OF OUR PRODUCT CANDIDATES
The outcomes of clinical trials are uncertain, and delays in the completion of or the termination of any clinical trial of EYP-1901 or our other product candidates could harm our business, financial condition and prospects.
Our research and development program for our lead product candidate, EYP-1901, and certain of our other product candidates, are still in development. We must demonstrate EYP-1901’s and our other product candidates’ safety and efficacy in humans through extensive clinical testing. Such testing is expensive and time-consuming and requires specialized knowledge and expertise.
Clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. The clinical trial process is also time-consuming, and the outcome is not certain. We estimate that clinical trials of our product candidates will take multiple years to complete. Failure can occur at any stage of a clinical trial, and we could encounter problems that cause us to abandon or repeat clinical trials. The commencement and completion of clinical trials may be delayed or precluded by a number of factors, including:
•
decisions not to pursue development of product candidates due to pre-clinical or clinical trial results or market factors;
•
lack of sufficient funding;
•
delays or inability to attract clinical investigators for trials;
•
clinical sites dropping out of a clinical trial;
•
time required to add new clinical sites;
•
any orders from local, state or federal governments or clinical trial site policies resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic that determine essential and non-essential functions and staff, which may impact the ability of site staff to conduct assessments, or result in delays to the conduct of the assessments, as part of our clinical trial protocols, or the ability to enter assessment results into clinical trial databases in a timely manner;
•
delays or inability to recruit patients in sufficient numbers or at the expected rate;
•
decisions by licensees not to exercise options for products or not to pursue or promote products licensed to them;
•
adverse side effects;
•
failure of trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy;
•
failure to reach agreement with the FDA or other regulatory agency requirements for clinical trial design or scope of the development program;
•
patients’ delays or failure to complete participation in a clinical trial or inability to follow patients adequately after treatment;
•
changes in the design or manufacture of a product candidate;
•
failures by, changes in our (or our licensees’) relationship with, or other issues at, CROs, vendors and investigators responsible for pre-clinical testing and clinical trials;
•
imposition of a clinical hold following an inspection of our clinical trial operations or trial sites by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities;
•
delays or failures in obtaining required IRB approval;
•
inability to obtain supplies and/or to manufacture sufficient quantities of materials for use in clinical trials;
•
stability issues with clinical materials;
•
failure to comply with GLP, GCP, cGMP or similar foreign regulatory requirements that affect the conduct of pre-clinical and clinical studies and the manufacturing of product candidates;
•
requests by regulatory authorities for additional data or clinical trials;
•
governmental or regulatory agency assessments of pre-clinical or clinical testing that differ from our (or our licensees’) interpretations or conclusions;
•
governmental or regulatory delays, or changes in approval policies or regulations; and
•
developments, clinical trial results and other factors with respect to competitive products and treatments.
We, the FDA, other regulatory authorities outside the United States, or an IRB may suspend a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including if it appears that the clinical trial is exposing participants to unacceptable health risks or if the FDA or one or more other regulatory authorities outside the United States find deficiencies in our IND or similar application outside the United States or the conduct of the trial. If we experience delays in the completion of, or the termination of, any clinical trial of any of our product candidates, including EYP-1901, the commercial prospects of such product candidate will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenues from such product candidate will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process, and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash
40
flows and prospects significantly. 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.
Clinical trial results may fail to support continued clinical investigations and/or approval of EYP-1901 or our other product candidates.
Even if our clinical trials are successfully completed as planned, the results may not support approval of EYP-1901 or our other product candidates under the laws and regulations of the FDA or other regulatory authorities outside the United States. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our product candidates are both safe and effective for their intended uses. Pre-clinical and clinical data and analyses are often able to be interpreted in different ways. Even if we view our results favorably, if a regulatory authority has a different view, we may still fail to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates. This, in turn, would significantly adversely affect our business prospects.
We may expend significant resources to pursue our lead product candidate, EYP-1901 for the potential treatment of wet AMD, NPDR and DME and fail to capitalize on the potential of EYP-1901, or our other product candidates, for the potential treatment of other indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.
Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates for specific indications. Specifically, with regard to EYP-1901, we initially focused our efforts on the treatment of wet AMD, but have since expanded our efforts to include the treatment of NPDR and DME. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with EYP-1901 or other product candidates for the treatment of other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. Furthermore, until such time as we are able to build a broader product candidate pipeline, if ever, any adverse developments with respect to our leading product candidate, EYP-1901, would have a more significant adverse effect on our overall business than if we maintained a broader portfolio of product candidates.
We have historically based our research and development efforts primarily on our proprietary technologies for the treatment of chronic eye diseases. As a result of pursuing the development of product candidates using our proprietary technologies, we may fail to develop product candidates or address indications based on other scientific approaches that may offer greater commercial potential or for which there is a greater likelihood of success. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. These research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield product candidates for clinical development.
Initial results from a clinical trial do not ensure that the trial will be successful and success in early stage clinical trials does not ensure success in later-stage clinical trials.
Results from pre-clinical testing, early clinical trials, prior clinical trials, investigator-sponsored studies and other data and information often do not accurately predict final pivotal clinical trial results. EYP-1901 relies on vorolanib as its active pharmaceutical agent. Vorolanib is a small molecule TKI that has been previously studied by Tyrogenex in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials as an orally delivered therapy for the treatment of wet AMD. The Phase 2 clinical trial was discontinued due to systemic toxicity. There can be no assurance that such systemic toxicities will not occur in our clinical trial for EYP-1901. In addition, data from one pivotal clinical trial may not be predictive of the results of other pivotal clinical trials for the same product candidate, even if the trial designs are the same or similar. Data obtained from pre-clinical studies and clinical trials are susceptible to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Adverse side effects may be observed in clinical trials that delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval, and even after a product candidate has received marketing approval, the emergence of adverse side effects in more widespread clinical practice may cause the product’s regulatory approval to be limited or even rescinded. Additional trials necessary for approval may not be undertaken or may ultimately fail to establish the safety and efficacy of our product candidates.
In addition, while the clinical trials of our product candidates, including our lead product candidate, EYP-1901, are designed based on the available relevant information, in view of the uncertainties inherent in drug development, such clinical trials may not be designed with a focus on indications, patient populations, dosing regimens, safety or efficacy parameters or other variables that will provide the necessary safety and efficacy data to support regulatory approval to commercialize the product. In addition, the methods we select to assess particular safety or efficacy parameters may not yield statistically significant results regarding our product candidates’ effects on patients. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates are promising, these data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities. Pre-clinical and clinical data can be interpreted in different ways. Accordingly, the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities could interpret these data in different ways from us or our partners, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval.
41
We face risks related to health epidemics and outbreaks, including the Pandemic, which could significantly disrupt our preclinical studies and clinical trials.
We started conducting Phase 2 clinical trials for EYP-1901 in multiple jurisdictions within the U.S. in 2022. Enrollment of patients in these clinical trials and future clinical trials in these regions may be delayed due to the outbreak of the Pandemic. In addition, we rely on independent clinical investigators, contract research organizations and other third-party service providers to assist us in managing, monitoring and otherwise carrying out our preclinical studies and clinical trials, and outbreaks may affect their ability to devote sufficient time and resources to our programs. As a result, the expected timeline for data readouts of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and certain regulatory filings may be negatively impacted, which would adversely affect our business.
We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials, which could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates.
Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates, including EYP-1901, is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates. If patients are unwilling to participate in our trials because of the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on travel or healthcare institution policies, negative publicity from adverse events in the biotechnology industries, public perception of vaccine safety issues or for other reasons, including competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed. These delays could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product development, delays in testing the effectiveness of our technology or termination of the clinical trials altogether.
We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve diversity in a clinical trial, or complete our clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment is affected by a variety of factors including, among others:
•
severity of the disease under investigation;
•
design of the trial protocol and size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints;
•
size of the patient population;
•
eligibility criteria for the trial in question;
•
perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate being tested;
•
willingness or availability of patients to participate in our clinical trials (including due to the COVID-19 pandemic);
•
proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients;
•
our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience, and adequate research staffing to support multiple, concurrent clinical trials;
•
availability of competing vaccines and/or therapies and related clinical trials;
•
efforts to facilitate timely enrollment in clinical trials;
•
our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents;
•
the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before completion;
•
patient referral practices of physicians; and
•
ability to monitor patients adequately during and after treatment.
We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we cannot enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by regulatory agencies.
Even if we enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to initiate our clinical trials, we may be unable to maintain participation of these patients throughout the course of the clinical trial as required by the clinical trial protocol, in which event we may be unable to use the research results from those patients. If we have difficulty enrolling and maintaining the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business.
We are largely dependent on the clinical and future commercial success of our lead product candidate, EYP-1901.
Our ability to generate revenues and become profitable will depend in large part on the future commercial success of our lead product candidate, EYP-1901, if it is approved for marketing. If EYP-1901 or any other product that we commercialize in the future does not gain an adequate level of acceptance among physicians, patients and third parties, we may not generate significant product
42
revenues or become profitable. Market acceptance by physicians, patients and third party payors of EYP-1901 or other products we may commercialize in the future will depend on a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control, including:
•
their efficacy, safety and other potential advantages in relation to alternative treatments;
•
their relative convenience and ease of administration;
•
the availability of adequate coverage or reimbursement by third parties, such as insurance companies and other healthcare payors, and by government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid;
•
the prevalence and severity of adverse events;
•
their cost of treatment in relation to alternative treatments, including generic products;
•
the extent and strength of our third party manufacturer and supplier support;
•
the extent and strength of marketing and distribution support;
•
the limitations or warnings contained in a product’s approved labeling; and
•
distribution and use restrictions imposed by the FDA or other regulatory authorities outside the United States.
For example, even if EYP-1901 gains approval by the FDA, physicians and patients may not immediately be receptive to it and may be slow to adopt it. If EYP-1901 does not achieve an adequate level of acceptance among physicians, patients and third party payors, we may not generate meaningful revenues from EYP-1901 and we may not become profitable.
RISKS RELATED TO THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF OUR PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT CANDIDATES
Our current business strategy relies in part on our ability to successfully commercialize our approved products; however, the products may not achieve market acceptance or be commercially successful.
Our ability to continue to successfully commercialize our approved products is important to the execution of our business strategy. Such products may not achieve broad market acceptance among retinal specialists and other doctors, patients, government health administration authorities and other third-party payors, and may not continue to be commercially successful in the U.S. The degree of market acceptance and commercial success of our approved products will depend on a number of factors, including the following:
•
the acceptance of our products by patients and the medical community and the availability, perceived advantages and relative cost, safety and efficacy of alternative and competing treatments;
•
our ability to obtain reimbursement for our products from third party payors at levels sufficient to support commercial success;
•
the cost effectiveness of our products;
•
the effectiveness of our U.S. commercial efforts for DEXYCU after the termination of our Commercial Alliance Agreement with ImprimisRx pursuant to the current lack of a separately payable CPT code (i.e., outside of the cataract payment bundle) for the injection of DEXYCU into the posterior chamber of the anterior segment of the eye;
•
the effectiveness of current and future license and collaboration agreements, including our agreements with Ocumension Therapeutics (Ocumension), Equinox Science, LLC (Equinox) and Betta Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Betta);
•
the effectiveness of our distribution strategies and operations;
•
our ability and the ability of our contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, as applicable, to manufacture commercial supplies of our products, to remain in good standing with regulatory agencies, and to develop, validate and maintain commercially viable manufacturing processes that are, to the extent required, compliant with cGMP regulations;
•
the degree to which the approved labeling supports promotional initiatives for commercial success;
•
a continued acceptable safety profile of our products;
•
results from additional clinical trials of our products or further analysis of clinical data from completed clinical trials of our products by us or our competitors;
•
our ability to enforce our intellectual property rights;
•
our products’ potential advantages over other therapies;
•
our ability to avoid third-party patent interference or patent infringement claims; and
•
maintaining compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
As many of these factors are beyond our control, we cannot assure you that we will ever be able to generate meaningful revenues through product sales. In particular, if governments, private insurers, governmental insurers and other third-party payors do not provide adequate and timely coverage and reimbursement levels for our products or limit the frequency of administration, the market acceptance of our products and product candidates will be limited. Governments, governmental insurers, private insurers and other third-party payors attempt to contain healthcare costs by limiting coverage and the level of reimbursement for products and, accordingly, they may challenge the price and cost-effectiveness of our products or refuse to provide coverage for our products. Any
43
inability on our part to successfully commercialize YUTIQ in the U.S and DEXYCU internationally, and our other product candidates in the U.S. or any foreign territories where they may be approved, or any significant delay in such approvals, could have a material adverse impact on our ability to execute upon our business strategy and our future business prospects.
Our products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives which could harm our business.
The statutes and regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that particular country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more of our products.
Our success also depends in part on the extent to which coverage and reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, determine which medications they will cover and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Third-party payors also may seek additional clinical evidence, beyond the data required to obtain marketing approval, demonstrating clinical benefits and value in specific patient populations, before covering our products for those patients. 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. Coverage and reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. For example, under current Medicare Part B policy, payment to hospital outpatient departments and ASCs for drug and biological products furnished to patients as part of a surgical procedure is typically packaged into the payment for the associated procedure and thus not paid separately. Products granted pass-through status were excluded from this payment packaging policy and receive separate payment from the associated procedure for a period of three years. While DEXYCU had been granted pass-through status and had been receiving separate payment in these settings from Medicare, the CY 2023 Medicare Hospital OPPS and ASC Payment System Final Rule, which was issued November 1, 2022, terminated pass-through related separate payment for certain drugs, including DEXYCU, beyond its current expiration date of December 31, 2022. Effective January 1, 2023, payment for DEXYCU is packaged into the payment for the underlying procedure and no longer reimbursed separately, which will materially decrease our revenues from sales of DEXYCU and correspondingly have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacturing, selling and distribution costs. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the U.S. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products, and our overall financial condition.
We participate in, and have certain price reporting obligations to, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. This program requires us to pay a rebate for each unit of drug reimbursed by Medicaid. The amount of the “basic” portion of the rebate for each product is set by law as the larger of: (i) 23.1% of quarterly average manufacturer price, or AMP, or (ii) the difference between quarterly AMP and the quarterly best price available from us to any commercial or non-governmental customer, or Best Price. AMP must be reported on a monthly and quarterly basis and Best Price is reported on a quarterly basis only. In addition, the rebate also includes the “additional” portion, which adjusts the overall rebate amount upward as an “inflation penalty” when the drug’s latest quarter’s AMP exceeds the drug’s AMP from the first full quarter of sales after launch, adjusted for increases in the Consumer Price Index-Urban. The upward adjustment in the rebate amount per unit is equal to the excess amount of the current AMP over the inflation-adjusted AMP from the
44
first full quarter of sales. The rebate amount is computed each quarter based on our report to CMS of current quarterly AMP and Best Price for our drug. Rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are currently capped at 100 percent of AMP, but that cap is set to be removed, effective January 1, 2024, which could increase our rebate liability. We are required to report revisions to AMP or Best Price within a period not to exceed 12 quarters from the quarter in which the data was originally due. Any such revisions could have the impact of increasing or decreasing our rebate liability for prior quarters, depending on the direction of the revision. The Affordable Care Act made significant changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, and CMS issued a final regulation, which became effective on April 1, 2016, to implement the changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate program under the Affordable Care Act. On December 21, 2020, CMS issued a final regulation that modified existing Medicaid Drug Rebate Program regulations to permit reporting multiple Best Price figures with regard to value based purchasing arrangements (beginning in 2022) and provided definitions for “line extension,” “new formulation,” and related terms with the practical effect of expanding the scope of drugs considered to be line extensions (beginning in 2022). While the regulatory provisions that purported to affect the applicability of the AMP and Best Price exclusions of manufacturer-sponsored patient benefit programs in the context of pharmacy benefit manager “accumulator” programs were invalidated by a court, accumulator and other such programs may continue to negatively affect us in other ways.
Federal law also requires that any manufacturer that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B drug pricing program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These 340B covered entities include, but are not limited to, a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Any changes to the definition of AMP and the Medicaid rebate amount under the Affordable Care Act or other legislation could affect our 340B ceiling price calculations and negatively impact our results of operations.
HRSA issued a final regulation regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities, which became effective on January 1, 2019. It is currently unclear how HRSA will apply its enforcement authority under this regulation. HRSA has also implemented a ceiling price reporting requirement related to the 340B program under which we are required to report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA then publishes that information to covered entities. Moreover, under a final regulation effective January 13, 2021, HRSA newly established an administrative dispute resolution (ADR) process for claims by covered entities that a manufacturer has engaged in overcharging, and by manufacturers that a covered entity violated the prohibitions against diversion or duplicate discounts. Such claims are to be resolved through an ADR panel of government officials rendering a decision that could be appealed only in federal court. An ADR proceeding could subject us to onerous procedural requirements and could result in additional liability. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program to additional covered entities or would require participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.
Federal law also requires that a company that participates in the Medicaid Drug Rebate program report average sales price, or ASP, information each quarter to CMS for certain categories of drugs that are paid under the Medicare Part B program. For calendar quarters effective January 1, 2022, manufacturers are required to report the average sales price for certain drugs under the Medicare program regardless of whether they participate in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. Manufacturers calculate the ASP based on a statutorily defined formula as well as regulations and interpretations of the statute by CMS. CMS uses these submissions to determine payment rates for drugs under Medicare Part B. Starting in 2023, manufacturers must pay refunds to Medicare for single source drugs or biologicals, or biosimilar biological products, reimbursed under Medicare Part B and packaged in single-dose containers or single-use packages, for units of discarded drug reimbursed by Medicare Part B in excess of 10 percent of total allowed charges under Medicare Part B for that drug. Manufacturers that fail to pay refunds could be subject to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount.
Statutory or regulatory changes or CMS guidance could affect the pricing of our approved products, and could negatively affect our results of operations. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the IRA which, among other things, requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate, with respect to Medicare units and subject to a specified cap, the price of a set number of certain high Medicare spend drugs and biologicals per year starting in 2026. Effective January 2023, the IRA established a Medicare Part B inflation rebate scheme, under which, generally speaking, manufacturers will owe rebates if the average sales price of a Part B drug increases faster than the pace of inflation. Failure to timely pay a Part B inflation rebate is subject to a civil monetary penalty. Further, starting October 2022, the IRA established a Medicare Part D inflation rebate scheme, under which, generally speaking, manufacturers will owe additional rebates if the AMP of a Part D drug increases faster than the pace of inflation. Failure to timely pay a Part D inflation rebate is subject to a civil monetary penalty. In addition, manufacturers are currently required to provide a 70% discount on brand name prescription drugs utilized by Medicare Part D beneficiaries when those beneficiaries are in the coverage gap phase of the Part D benefit design. The IRA sunsets the coverage gap discount program starting in 2025 and replaces it
45
with a new manufacturer discount program and makes other reforms to the Part D benefit, which could increase our liability under Part D. These or any other public policy change could impact the market conditions for our products. We further expect continued scrutiny on government price reporting and pricing more generally from Congress, agencies, and other bodies.
In order to be eligible to have our products paid for with federal funds under the Medicaid and Medicare Part B programs and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we must participate in the VA FSS pricing program. Under this program, we would be obligated to make our “innovator” drugs available for procurement on an FSS contract and charge a price to four federal agencies—VA, DoD, Public Health Service and U.S. Coast Guard—that is no higher than the statutory FCP. The FCP is based on the Non-FAMP, which we calculate and report to the VA on a quarterly and annual basis. We do not currently participate in the Tricare Retail Pharmacy program, under which we would need to pay quarterly rebates on utilization of innovator products that are dispensed through the Tricare Retail Pharmacy network to TRICARE beneficiaries. The rebates are calculated as the difference between the annual Non-FAMP and FCP. The requirements under the 340B, FSS, and TRICARE programs will impact gross-to-net revenue for our current products and any product candidates that are commercialized in the future and could adversely affect our business and operating results.
We are shipping YUTIQ directly to physician offices or clinics to be administered to patients. YUTIQ is being shipped to physician offices or clinics primarily through specialty pharmacies and distributors. Most prefer to buy the product directly through our select distributors under a “buy and bill” model. Physicians who may not be willing to purchase our products through a specialty distributor because they do not prefer the buy and bill method may prefer to have another entity called a specialty pharmacy ship them the product at no cost to the physician. The specialty pharmacy bills the health plan for our product directly and then ships the product to the physician such that no costs are incurred by the physician. We have obtained a permanent “J” code for YUTIQ which assists physicians and hospitals in their ability to bill all payer types for the product.
We are shipping DEXYCU to ASCs, or to hospital outpatient surgical centers through specialty pharmacies and distributors. DEXYCU was being reimbursed for Medicare Part B patients in these settings through a transitional pass-through related separate payment when billed under the drug’s “J” code. The Final Rule did not extend pass-through related separate payment for expiring drugs, and therefore, DEXYCU no longer qualifies for separate payment effective January 1, 2023, and is subject to packaged payment rates, which will significantly limit our ability to gain utilization and subsequent revenues. In addition, in anticipation of the Final Rule, as a result of CY 2023 OPPS/ASC Proposed Rule, the Company entered into the Termination Agreement with ImprimisRx on October 7, 2022, pursuant to which ImprimisRx and the Company agreed to terminate the Agreements effective December 31, 2022. Effective January 1, 2023, there is significantly reduced commercial support for DEXYCU.
If we fail to comply with reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions, and fines which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.
Our price reporting and other obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, Medicare Part B, the 340B program, and the VA/FSS program are described in the risk factor entitled “Our products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could harm our business.” Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts. In the case of Medicaid pricing data, if we become aware that our reporting for a prior period was incorrect or has changed as a result of a recalculation of the pricing data, we are obligated to resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data were originally due. Such restatements and recalculations will increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer our products under the 340B program and may require us to offer refunds to covered entities.
We are liable for errors associated with our submission of pricing data. That liability could be significant. In addition to retroactive Medicaid rebates and the potential for issuing 340B program refunds, if we are found to have knowingly submitted false AMP, Best Price, or Non-FAMP information to the government, we may be liable for significant civil monetary penalties per item of false information. If we are found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of our ASP, the Medicare statute provides for significant civil monetary penalties for each misrepresentation for each day in which the misrepresentation was applied. Our failure to submit monthly/quarterly AMP and Best Brice data on a timely basis could result in a significant civil monetary penalty per day for each day the information is late beyond the due date. Such conduct also could be grounds for CMS to terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs. Significant civil monetary penalties also could apply to late submissions of Non-FAMP information. Civil monetary penalties could also be applied if we are found to have charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price or HRSA could terminate our agreement to participate in the 340B program, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for our covered outpatient drugs. Moreover, under a final regulation effective January 13, 2021, HRSA newly established an ADR process that has jurisdiction over claims by covered entities that a manufacturer has engaged in
46
overcharging. An ADR proceeding could subject us to onerous procedural requirements and could result in additional liability. In addition, claims submitted to federally-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, for drugs priced based on incorrect pricing data provided by a manufacturer can implicate the federal civil False Claims Act. Finally, civil monetary penalties could be due if we fail to offer discounts to beneficiaries under the Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. Furthermore, under the refund program for discarded drugs, manufacturers that fail to pay refunds could be subject to civil monetary penalties of 125 percent of the refund amount.
If we overcharge the government in connection with our FSS contract or our anticipated Tricare Agreement, whether due to a misstated FCP or otherwise, we are required to refund the difference to the government. Failure to make necessary disclosures and/or to identify contract overcharges can result in allegations against us under the False Claims Act and other laws and regulations. Unexpected refunds to the government, and responding to a government investigation or enforcement action, would be expensive and time-consuming, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found by CMS or another governmental agency to be incomplete or incorrect.
There has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the U.S. of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At both the federal and state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. One significant example of recent legislative action is the IRA, which was signed into law on August 16, 2022. The IRA contains a negotiation provision that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate, with respect to Medicare units and subject to a specified cap, the price of a set number of high Medicare spend drugs and biologicals per year starting in 2026. Under the drug price negotiation program, a drug may not be subjected to a negotiated price until at least nine years post-approval, and a biologic may not be subjected to a negotiated price until at least 13 years post-licensure. The IRA limits the negotiation eligibility for the 2026, 2027 and 2028 program years and afford limited additional relief for “small biotech drugs” of certain small manufacturers which, among other things, represent a limited portion (as specified in the text) of Medicare program spending. The IRA also penalizes manufacturers of certain Medicare Part B and D drugs for price increases above inflation and makes several changes to the Medicare Part D benefit, including a limit on annual out-of-pocket costs, and a change in manufacturer liability under the program. The complete impact from the IRA is unknown because negotiated prices will not apply for Part D drugs until 2026, and two years later for Part B drugs. In keeping with this timeline, and the recent passage, we cannot predict the implications the IRA provisions will have on our business.
Even though regulatory approvals for YUTIQ and DEXYCU have been obtained in the U.S., we will still face extensive FDA regulatory requirements and may face future regulatory difficulties.
Even though regulatory approvals for YUTIQ and DEXYCU have been obtained in the U.S., the FDA and state regulatory authorities may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of YUTIQ and DEXYCU, or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies or post-marketing surveillance. For example, as part of its approval of DEXYCU for the treatment of postoperative ocular inflammation, the FDA required under the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), that a Phase 3/4 prospective, randomized, active treatment-controlled, parallel-design multicenter trial be conducted to evaluate the safety of DEXYCU for the treatment of inflammation following ocular surgery for childhood cataract. This pediatric study will likely require us to undergo a costly and time-consuming development process. If we do not meet our obligations under the PREA for this pediatric study, the FDA may issue a non-compliance letter and may also consider DEXYCU to be misbranded and subject to potential enforcement action.
We were advised by the FDA to show diligence and enroll at least one patient in the protocolled trial before submitting a new Deferral Extension Request.
We submitted a pediatric study protocol to the FDA as required. We have identified clinical sites and are continuing study start-up activities that have resulted in dosing of a first patient in January 2022. In February 2022, we requested a PREA Deferral Extension because of the unavoidable delays in this program due, among other things, to the Pandemic. The extension was granted by the FDA, extending the study deadline to June 30, 2025.
We are also subject to ongoing FDA requirements governing the labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, safety surveillance, advertising, promotion, record-keeping and reporting of safety and other post-marketing information. The holder of an approved NDA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the NDA. The holder of an approved NDA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved
47
product, product labeling or manufacturing process. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA regulations and may be subject to other potentially applicable federal and state laws. The applicable regulations in countries outside the U.S. grant similar powers to the competent authorities and impose similar obligations on companies.
In addition, manufacturers of drug products and their facilities are subject to payment of substantial user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with cGMP regulations and adherence to commitments made in the NDA. We also need to comply with some of the FDA’s manufacturing regulations for devices with respect to YUTIQ. We and our third-party providers are generally required to maintain compliance with cGMP and other stringent requirements and are subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. Any delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, fill-finish, packaging or storage of our products as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of third parties to pass any regulatory agency inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our products. Significant noncompliance could also result in the imposition of monetary penalties or other civil or criminal sanctions and damage our reputation.
In addition to cGMP, the FDA requires that YUTIQ and DEXYCU manufacturers comply with certain provisions of the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, particularly in light of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Genus Medical Technologies LLC v. FDA. The QSR sets forth the FDA’s manufacturing quality standards for medical devices, and other applicable government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. If we, or a regulatory authority, discover previously unknown problems with YUTIQ or DEXYCU, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with a facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory authority may impose restrictions relative to YUTIQ, DEXYCU or their respective manufacturing facilities, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market, suspension of manufacturing, or other FDA action or other action by foreign regulatory authorities.
If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements for YUTIQ or DEXYCU, a regulatory authority may:
•
issue a warning letter asserting that we are in violation of the law;
•
seek an injunction or impose civil or criminal penalties or monetary fines;
•
suspend, modify or withdraw regulatory approval;
•
suspend any ongoing clinical trials;
•
refuse to approve a pending NDA or a pending application for marketing authorization or supplements to an NDA or to an application for marketing authorization submitted by us;
•
seize our product; and/or
•
refuse to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.
Our relationships with physicians, patients and payors in the U.S. are subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse laws and regulations. In addition, we are subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. Our failure to comply with these laws could expose us to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, reputational harm, and could harm our results of operations and financial conditions.
Our current and future operations with respect to the commercialization of YUTIQ and DEXYCU are subject to various U.S. federal and state healthcare laws and regulations. These laws impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing, support and education programs and constrain our business and financial arrangements and relationships with third-party payors, healthcare professionals and others who may prescribe, recommend, purchase or provide our products, and other parties through which we market, sell and distribute our products. Finally, our current and future operations are subject to additional healthcare-related statutory and regulatory requirements and enforcement by foreign regulatory authorities in jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The laws include, but are not limited to, the following:
•
The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits persons or entities from, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, lease, order, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of, any good or service, for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. 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. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical companies on one hand and Medicare patients, prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. 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 federal civil False Claims Act. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common manufacturer business arrangements and activities from prosecution and administrative sanction, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices or arrangements that involve remuneration may be subject to scrutiny if they do
48
not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection, and therefore would be subject to a facts and circumstances analysis to determine potential Anti-Kickback Statute liability.
•
The federal civil False Claims Act (which can be enforced through “qui tam,” or whistleblower actions, by private citizens on behalf of the federal government) prohibits any person from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented false or fraudulent claims for payment of government funds or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay money to the government or knowingly and improperly avoiding, decreasing or concealing an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. Many pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been investigated or subject to lawsuits by whistleblowers and have reached substantial financial settlements with the federal government under the False Claims Act for a variety of alleged improper marketing activities, including providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product; providing consulting fees, grants, free travel, and other benefits to physicians to induce them to prescribe the company’s products; and inflating prices reported to private price publication services, which are used to set drug reimbursement rates under government healthcare programs. In addition, the government and private whistleblowers have pursued False Claims Act cases against pharmaceutical companies for causing false claims to be submitted as a result of the marketing of their products for unapproved uses. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies also are subject to other federal false claim laws, including federal criminal healthcare fraud and false statement statutes that extend to non-government health benefit programs.
•
HIPAA 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 knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false statement, in connection with the delivery of, or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services by a healthcare benefit program, which includes both government and privately funded benefits programs; similar to the U.S. 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.
•
HIPAA, and its implementing regulations, impose certain obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information and impose notification obligations in the event of a breach of the privacy or security of individually identifiable health information.
•
Numerous federal and state laws and regulations that address privacy and data security, including state data breach notification laws, state health information and/or genetic privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or FTC Act), govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. Compliance with these laws is difficult, constantly evolving, and time consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws may face civil penalties.
•
The majority of states have adopted analogous laws and regulations, including state anti-kickback and false claims laws, that 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 any third-party payer, including private insurers. Other states have adopted laws that, among other things, require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the U.S. federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; and state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing and marketing information, which requires tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to healthcare professionals and entities. In addition, some states have laws requiring pharmaceutical sales representatives to be registered or licensed, and still others impose limits on co-pay assistance that pharmaceutical companies can offer to patients.
•
The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, implemented as the Open Payments program, and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies that are reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to the CMS information related to certain payments made in the preceding calendar year and other transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. As of 2022, manufacturers must also report transfers of value made to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives.
The shifting commercial compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and expandable systems to comply with different compliance or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare or pharmaceutical company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations or guidance. 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, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional oversight
49
and reporting requirements if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to the same criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our financial condition and divert resources and the attention of our management from operating our business.
The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize YUTIQ in the U.S. and generate revenues, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
If the market opportunities for our products and product candidates, including EYP-1901, are smaller than we believe they are, our results of operations may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.
We focus our research and product development primarily on treatments for eye diseases. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our products and product candidates, such as our projections of the number of patients with wet AMD, NPDR and DME who may benefit from treatment with EYP-1901 if it is approved for use, are based on estimates. These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies or clinical trials may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients in the U.S. and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products, or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. For example, we are developing our leading product candidate, EYP-1901, for the treatment of wet AMD. Although we believe wet AMD is a common condition and a leading cause of vision loss for people age 50 and older, our estimates of the potential market opportunity for EYP-1901 may be incorrect.
If any of our products have newly discovered or developed safety problems, our business would be seriously harmed.
All of our approved products are and will be subject to continued oversight by the FDA or other foreign regulatory bodies, and we cannot assure you that newly discovered or developed safety issues will not arise. Although we have observed no material safety issues to date, we cannot rule out that issues may arise in the future. For example, with the use of any newly marketed drug by a wider patient population, serious adverse events may occur from time to time that initially do not appear to relate to the drug itself. If such events are subsequently associated with the drug, or if any other safety issue emerges, we or our collaboration partners may voluntarily, or FDA or other regulatory authorities may require that we suspend or cease marketing of our approved products or modify how we or they market our approved products. In addition, newly discovered safety issues may subject us to substantial potential liabilities and adversely affect our financial condition and business.
The Affordable Care Act and any changes in healthcare laws may increase the difficulty and cost for us to commercialize our approved products in the U.S. and affect the prices we may obtain.
The U.S. and state governments have enacted and proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could affect our ability to profitably sell our approved products, prevent or delay marketing of our other product candidates, and restrict or regulate post-approval activities. The U.S. and state governments also have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription products.
For example, the Affordable Care Act was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.
Among the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that have been implemented since enactment and are of importance to the commercialization of our approved products in the U.S. are the following:
•
an annual, nondeductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports specified branded prescription drugs or biologic agents;
•
an increase in the statutory minimum rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program;
•
expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the U.S. civil False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance;
50
•
a Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for a manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D (such manufacturer discounts were increased from 50% to 70% effective as of January 1, 2019 as required by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018) (the IRA sunsets the coverage gap discount program effective 2025);
•
extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;
•
price reporting requirements for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected;
•
expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs;
•
addition of entity types eligible for participation in the Public Health Service Act’s 340B drug pricing program;
•
a requirement to annually report certain information regarding drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians; and
•
a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research.
Certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act have been subject to judicial challenges as well as efforts to modify them or to alter their interpretation or implementation. For example, Congress eliminated, starting January 1, 2019, the tax penalty for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance Further, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, among other things, amended the Medicare statute to reduce the coverage gap in most Medicare drugs plans, commonly known as the “donut hole,” by raising the required manufacturer point-of-sale discount from 50% to 70% off the negotiated price effective as of January 1, 2019. Additional legislative changes, regulatory changes, and judicial challenges related to the Affordable Care Act remain possible. It is unclear how the Affordable Care Act and its implementation, as well as efforts to modify or invalidate the Affordable Care Act, or portions thereof or its implementation, will affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. It is possible that the Affordable Care Act, as currently enacted or as it may be amended in the future, and other healthcare reform measures, including those that may be adopted in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to maintain or increase sales of our approved products in the U.S. or to continue to successfully commercialize in the U.S.
We also expect that the Affordable Care Act, as well as other healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for our approved products in the U.S., and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid, or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenues, attain profitability or successfully commercialize our approved products in the U.S.
There has been increasing legislative, regulatory, and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to drug pricing and
marketing practices. For example, in November 2020, the OIG issued a Special Fraud Alert to highlight certain inherent fraud and abuse risks associated with speaker fees, honorariums and expenses paid by pharmaceutical and medical device companies to healthcare professionals participating in company-sponsored events. The Special Fraud Alert sent a clear signal that speaker programs will be subject to potentially heightened enforcement scrutiny.
Patient assistance programs for pharmaceutical products have come under increasing scrutiny by governments, legislative bodies and enforcement agencies. These activities may result in actions that have the effect of reducing prices or demand for our products, harming our business or reputation, or subjecting us to fines or penalties.
We sponsor patient assistance programs, which are available to qualified patients for our products, including insurance premium and copay assistance programs. We also make donations to third-party charities that provide such assistance. Recently, there has been enhanced scrutiny of such company-sponsored programs and services. If we, our vendors or donation recipients, are deemed to have failed to comply with relevant laws, regulations or government guidance in any of these areas, we could be subject to criminal and civil sanctions, including significant fines, civil monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and burdensome remediation measures. Actions could also be brought against executives overseeing our business or other employees.
It is possible that any actions taken by the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a result of this industry-wide inquiry could reduce demand for our products and/or reduce coverage of our products, including by federal and state health care programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. If any or all of these events occur, our business, prospects and stock price could be materially and adversely affected.
51
If competitive products are more effective, have fewer side effects, are more effectively marketed and/or cost less than our products or product candidates, or receive regulatory approval or reach the market earlier, our product candidates may not be approved, and our products or product candidates may not achieve the sales we anticipate and could be rendered noncompetitive or obsolete.
We believe that pharmaceutical, drug delivery and biotechnology companies, research organizations, governmental entities, universities, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations and individual scientists are seeking to develop drugs, therapies, products, approaches or methods to treat our targeted diseases or their underlying causes. For our targeted diseases, competitors have alternate therapies that are already commercialized or are in various stages of development, ranging from discovery to advanced clinical trials. Any of these drugs, therapies, products, approaches or methods may receive government approval or gain market acceptance more rapidly than our products and product candidates, may offer therapeutic or cost advantages, or may more effectively treat our targeted diseases or their underlying causes, which could result in our product candidates not being approved, reduce demand for our products and product candidates or render them noncompetitive or obsolete.
Many of our competitors and potential competitors for our leading product candidate, EYP-1901, and our commercialized products have substantially greater financial, technological, research and development, marketing and personnel resources than we do. Our competitors may succeed in developing alternate technologies and products that, in comparison to the products or product candidates we have and are seeking to develop:
•
are more effective and easier to use;
•
are more economical;
•
have fewer side effects;
•
offer other benefits; or
•
may otherwise render our products less competitive or obsolete.
Many of these competitors have greater experience in developing products, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals or clearances and manufacturing and marketing products than we do.
DEXYCU is an intraocular suspension that delivers dexamethasone, a corticosteroid that is associated with certain adverse side effects in the eye, which may affect the success of DEXYCU for the treatment of post-operative inflammation.
DEXYCU is an intraocular suspension that delivers dexamethasone, a corticosteroid, which is associated with certain adverse side effects in the eye. The safety analyses from DEXYCU’s clinical trials revealed that the most commonly reported adverse reactions were increases in intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal edema and iritis, a type of uveitis affecting the front of the eye. These side effects may adversely affect sales of DEXYCU.
If the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities approve generic products that compete with any of our products or product candidates, it could reduce our sales of those products or product candidates.
In the U.S., after an NDA is approved, the product generally becomes a “listed drug” which can, in turn, be relied upon by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA regulations and other applicable regulations and policies provide incentives to manufacturers to create generic, non-infringing versions of a drug to facilitate the approval of an ANDA. These manufacturers might show that their product has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, conditions of use, and labeling as our product candidate and might conduct a relatively inexpensive study to demonstrate that the generic product is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent as, or is bioequivalent to, our product. These generic equivalents would be significantly less costly than ours to bring to market, and companies that produce generic equivalents are generally able to offer their products at lower prices. Thus, after the introduction of a generic competitor, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product are typically lost to the generic product. Accordingly, competition from generic equivalents to our products would substantially limit our ability to generate revenues and therefore to obtain a return on the investments we have made in our products.
Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of YUTIQ and DEXYCU, and any other product candidates that we may develop and commercialize, including EYP-1901.
We face the risk of product liability exposure as we commercialize YUTIQ and DEXYCU, and other product candidates that we may develop and commercialize. We also may face product liability claims from patients who are treated with any of our product candidates in clinical trials. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our products or product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:
•
decreased demand for our products;
•
injury to our reputation and significant negative media attention;
52
•
termination of clinical trial sites or entire trial programs that we conduct in the future relating to YUTIQ, DEXYCU, EYP-1901 or our other product candidates;
•
withdrawal of clinical trial participants from any future clinical trial relating to YUTIQ, DEXYCU, EYP-1901 or our other product candidates;
•
significant costs to defend the related litigation;
•
substantial money awards to patients;
•
loss of revenue;
•
diversion of management and scientific resources from our business operations; and
•
an increase in product liability insurance premiums or an inability to maintain product liability insurance coverage.
We currently carry product liability insurance with coverage up to $30.0 million in the aggregate, with a per incident limit of $30.0 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. Further, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. Our inability to maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of YUTIQ and DEXYCU, or the development and commercialization of our other product candidates, including EYP-1901.
Additionally, any agreements we may enter into in the future with collaborators in connection with the development or commercialization of YUTIQ, DEXYCU, EYP-1901 or any of our other product candidates may entitle us to indemnification against product liability losses, but such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise. In addition, several of our agreements require us to indemnify third parties and these indemnification obligations may exceed the coverage under our product liability insurance policy.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
If we are unable to protect our intellectual property rights or if our intellectual property rights are inadequate to protect our product candidates, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar to ours, and our competitive position could be harmed.
Our commercial success will depend in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other intellectual property protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We rely on trade secret, patent, copyright and trademark laws, and confidentiality and other agreements with employees and third parties, all of which offer only limited protection. We seek patent protection for many different aspects of our product candidates, including their compositions, their methods of use, processes for their manufacture, and any other aspects that we deem to be commercially important to the development of our business.
The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we and any licensors and licensees may not be able to apply for or prosecute patents on certain aspects of our product candidates or delivery technologies at a reasonable cost, in a timely fashion, or at all. For technology licensed to third parties, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and/or prosecution of the corresponding patent applications, or to maintain patent rights corresponding to such technology. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. It is also possible that we, or any licensors or licensees, will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patents or patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If any licensors or licensees are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance, or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised, and we might not be able to prevent third parties from making, using, and selling competing products. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patents or patent applications, such patents or applications may be invalid or unenforceable. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods, and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, and operating results.
The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies generally are highly uncertain, involve complex legal and factual questions and have in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of any patents that issue, are highly uncertain. For example, recent changes to the patent laws of the U.S. provide additional procedures for third parties to challenge the validity of issued patents. Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or AIA, which was signed into law on September 16, 2011, patents issued from applications with an effective filing date after March 15, 2013, may be challenged by third parties using the post-grant review procedure which allows challenges for a number of reasons, including prior art, sufficiency of disclosure, and subject matter eligibility. Under the AIA, patents may also be challenged under the inter partes review procedure. Inter partes review provides a mechanism by which any third party may challenge the validity of any issued U.S.
53
Patent in the USPTO on the basis of prior art. Because of a lower evidentiary standard necessary to invalidate a patent claim in USPTO proceedings as compared to the evidentiary standard relied on in U.S. federal court, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.
With respect to foreign jurisdictions, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. or vice versa. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than U.S. law does. Also, patents granted by the European Patent Office may be opposed by any person within nine months from the publication of their grant.
Our patents and patent applications, even if unchallenged by a third party, may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. The steps we have taken to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to preclude misappropriation of our proprietary information or infringement of our intellectual property rights, both inside and outside the U.S. Further, the examination process may require us to narrow the claims of pending patent applications, which may limit the scope of patent protection that may be obtained if these applications issue. The rights that may be granted under future issued patents may not provide us with the proprietary protection or competitive advantages we are seeking. If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficient, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or superior to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be impaired.
As of February 28, 2023, we had several patents and pending applications, including patents and pending applications covering our Durasert®, Verisome® and other technologies. With respect to these patent rights, we do not know whether any of our patent applications will result in issued patents or, if any of our patent applications do issue, whether such patents will protect our technology in whole or in part, or whether such patents will effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. There is no guarantee that any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found invalid or unenforceable. Furthermore, since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. For applications with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, or patents issuing from such applications, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications and patents. As of March 16, 2013, the U.S. transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. The change to “first-to-file” from “first-to-invent” is one of the changes to the patent laws of the U.S. resulting from the AIA.
Publications of discoveries in the 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, until they are issued as a patent. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our pending patent applications, that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions, or that we have found all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications that could invalidate one or more of our patents or prevent one or more of our patent applications from issuing. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may initiate oppositions, interferences, re-examinations, post-grant reviews, inter partes reviews, nullification or derivation actions in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings challenging the validity, enforceability, or scope of such patents, which may result in the patent claims being narrowed or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties.
Furthermore, 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. 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 and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
54
We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of any party from whom we may license patents from in the future. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In a 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, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. A court may decide that a patent of ours or of any of our future 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. In addition, to the extent that we have to file patent litigation in a federal court against a U.S. patent holder, we would be required to initiate the proceeding in the state of incorporation or residency of such entity. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that no invalidating prior art exists. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, found unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly, and it could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. 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. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our products. Such a loss of patent protection could compromise our ability to pursue our business strategy.
As noted above, interference proceedings brought by the USPTO for applications with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, or for patents issuing from such applications may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents and patent applications or those of our collaborators or licensors. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if a prevailing party does not offer us a license on terms that are acceptable to us. Litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distraction of our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with any of our future licensors, misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the U.S. 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. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the USPTO or other foreign patent offices, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could invalidate or reduce the scope of, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or drugs and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize drugs without infringing third-party patent rights. 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 product candidates.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. may be less extensive than those in the U.S. In addition, the laws and practices of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights, especially those relating to life sciences, to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. For example, novel formulations of drugs and manufacturing processes may not be patentable in certain jurisdictions, and the requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. Also, some foreign countries, including EU countries, India, Japan and China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled under certain circumstances to grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we are compelled to grant a license to a third party, and 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 products made using our inventions into or within the U.S. or other jurisdictions. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products, and may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but where enforcement is not as strong as that in the U.S. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued patents and our patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing with us in these jurisdictions. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial
55
advantage from our intellectual property. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate in these foreign countries and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.
Further, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have increased in recent years. In Europe, a new unitary patent system will likely be introduced by the end of 2023, which would significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of such a system. Under the unitary patent system, European applications will soon have the option, upon grant of a patent, of becoming a Unitary Patent which will be subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC). As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC will be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of any potential changes.
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 for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and applications are required to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the U.S. in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and applications. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process and after a patent has issued. There are situations in which non-compliance 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.
Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which could be uncertain and could harm our business.
Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our partners and collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products and product candidates, if approved, and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Although our product candidates are in pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, we believe that the use of our product candidates in these pre-clinical studies and clinical trials falls within the scope of the exemptions provided by 35 U.S.C. Section 271(e) in the U.S., which exempts from patent infringement liability activities reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA. As our other product candidates progress toward commercialization, the possibility of a patent infringement claim against us increases. Accordingly, we may invest significant time and expense in the development of our product candidates only to be subject to significant delay and expensive and time-consuming patent litigation before our product candidates may be commercialized. There can be no assurance that our products or product candidates do not infringe other parties’ patents or other proprietary rights, and competitors or other parties may assert that we infringe their proprietary rights in any event.
There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our product candidates, including interference or derivation proceedings before the USPTO. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future.
If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue commercializing our products or product candidates. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license, we may be unable to effectively market products or product candidates based on our technology, which could limit our ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenues sufficient to sustain our operations. Alternatively, we may need to redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. Under certain circumstances, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing our products or product candidates. In addition, in any such proceeding or litigation, we could be found liable for substantial monetary damages, potentially including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our products or product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could harm our business. Any claims by third parties that we have misappropriated their confidential information or trade secrets could have a similar negative impact on our business.
56
The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation would divert our management’s attention. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our commercialization efforts, delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations. There could also be public announcements of the results of the hearing, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive those results to be negative, it could cause the price of shares of our common stock to decline.
Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.
Our competitors may seek approval to market their own products that are the same as, similar to or otherwise competitive with our products or product candidates. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents by various means, including filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement requiring us to engage in complex, lengthy and costly litigation or other proceedings. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or government agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.
Changes in either U.S. or foreign patent law or interpretation of such laws could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products or product candidates.
As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and it therefore is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. As noted above, the AIA has significantly changed U.S. patent law. In addition to transitioning from a “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” system, the AIA also limits where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provides opportunities for third parties to challenge issued patents in the USPTO via post-grant review or inter partes review, for example. All of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013, may be challenged by a third party seeking to institute inter partes review.
Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, the USPTO, or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.
We may be subject to claims asserting that our employees, consultants, independent contractors and advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information and/or alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.
Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants, independent contractors and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information and/or intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of the companies that any such individual currently or formerly worked for or provided services to. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our business.
In addition, while we require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or 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, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.
Intellectual property rights do not prevent all potential threats to competitive advantages we may have.
The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and intellectual property rights may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage.
57
The following examples are illustrative:
•
others may be able to make drug and device components that are the same as or similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own or have exclusively licensed;
•
we or any of our licensors or collaborators might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by the issued patent or pending patent application that we own or have exclusively licensed;
•
we or any of our licensors or 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;
•
the prosecution of our pending patent applications may not result in granted patents;
•
granted patents that we own or have licensed may not cover our products or may be held not infringed, invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;
•
with respect to granted patents that we own or have licensed, especially patents that we either acquire or in-license, if certain information was withheld from or misrepresented to the patent examiner, such patents might be held to be unenforceable;
•
patent protection on our product candidates may expire before we are able to develop and commercialize the product, or before we are able to recover our investment in the product;
•
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 such activities, as well as in countries in which we do not have patent rights, and may then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in markets where we intend to market our product candidates;
•
we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;
•
the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business; and
•
we may choose not to file a patent application for certain technologies, trade secrets or know-how, and a third party may subsequently file a patent covering such intellectual property.
Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.
In addition to seeking patent protection for certain aspects of our product candidates and technologies, we also consider trade secrets, including confidential and unpatented know-how, important to the maintenance of our competitive position. We protect trade secrets and confidential and unpatented know-how, in part, by customarily entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, outside scientific and commercial collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to maintain confidentiality and assign their inventions to us. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known, including through a potential cybersecurity breach, or may be independently developed by competitors.
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 in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.
If our trademarks are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.
We expect to rely on trademarks as one means to distinguish any of our approved products from the products of our competitors. We have received registrations for YUTIQ®, DEXYCU®, DELIVERING INNOVATION TO THE EYE® and DURASERT®. The Verisome® technology is exclusively licensed to us by Ramscor, Inc and the Verisome® mark is owned by Ramscor, Inc. Our and our licensees’ trademarks may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. For our trademarks, we have entered into a co-existence agreement with Sun Pharma and a settlement agreement with Merck allowing continued, though somewhat limited, use of two of our marks. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks, we may not be able to compete effectively.
58
ILUVIEN® is Alimera’s trademark. Retisert® and Vitrasert® are Bausch & Lomb’s trademarks.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR RELIANCE ON THIRD PARTIES
The development and commercialization of our lead product candidate, EYP-1901, is dependent on intellectual property we license from Equinox Science and API supply of vorolanib. If we breach our agreement with Equinox Science, or the agreement is terminated, we could lose license rights that are material to our business.