Item 1A. Risk Factors.

RISK FACTORS

Except for the historical information contained herein or incorporated by reference, this Annual Report and the information incorporated by reference contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. These statements include projections about our accounting and finances, plans and objectives for the future, future operating and economic performance and other statements regarding future performance. These statements are not guarantees of future performance or events. Our actual results may differ materially from those discussed here. Factors that could cause or contribute to differences in our actual results include those discussed in the following section, as well as those discussed in Part II, Item 7 entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere throughout this Annual Report and in any other documents incorporated by reference into this Annual Report. You should consider carefully the following risk factors, together with all of the other information included or incorporated in this Annual Report. Each of these risk factors, either alone or taken together, could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition, as well as adversely affect the value of an investment in our common stock. There may be additional risks that we do not presently know of or that we currently believe are immaterial which could also impair our business and financial position.

Risks Related to the Discovery and Development of Our Product Candidates

Our ability to conduct our clinical trials has been and could continue to be adversely impacted by COVID-19.

COVID-19 has and could continue to adversely impact our ability to conduct our clinical trials. The COVID-19 pandemic may negatively affect the operations of third-party suppliers and service providers that we rely upon to carry out our clinical trials or the operations of our third-party manufacturers, which could result in delays or disruptions in the supply of our product candidates for our clinical trials. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic may delay startup of new clinical trial sites and enrollment in our clinical trials due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the pandemic, requirements for working remotely and restrictions in travel. Some patients may be unwilling to enroll in our current and future clinical trials or be unable to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines or travel restrictions impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Increased demand at clinical trial sites and quarantined doctors and staff may reduce personnel and other available resources at clinical trial sites needed to conduct our clinical trials and may cause the screening of new patients or clinical trial operations to be delayed or paused. Trial sites may also limit or prohibit on site dosing and monitoring to decrease potential exposure of doctors, staff and patients to COVID-19, which may require us to adopt remote monitoring and other procedures to ensure verifiable trial execution. In alignment with recent FDA guidance on clinical trials, “FDA Guidance on Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products during COVID-19 Pandemic Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Institutional Review Boards,” we are taking steps to address potential trial protocol deviations due to COVID-19 pandemic or the pandemic control measures taken. Although we continue to enroll patients in our clinical studies, there is the potential that we may experience significant delays or other material adverse effects from the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to the conduct of our clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic could potentially decrease the implementation of protocol required trial activities and the quality of source data verification at clinical trial sites. Additionally, if a clinical trial site is not capable of new remote clinical trial capabilities, we may be required to find and engage new clinical trial investigative sites. Any negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient enrollment or treatment could delay our clinical trial timelines and adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our product candidates, particularly on our current projected timelines. We remain in active dialog with our contract research organizations, or CROs, and clinical sites to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to our clinical trials without adversely affecting the safety of patients, the quality of clinical data and overall integrity of our clinical trials. Despite our best efforts, it may prove difficult to continue to treat patients in a timely manner and activation of new sites could be delayed, particularly for our clinical trial sites in areas with high rates of community spread.

We are highly dependent on the success of our lead product candidates, tipifarnib and KO-539, which are still in clinical development, and we cannot give any assurance that they or any of our other product candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized.

Our future success is highly dependent on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize, our lead product candidates, tipifarnib and KO-539. Our business depends entirely on the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates. We have not completed the development of any product candidates; we currently generate no revenues from sales of any product, and we have not demonstrated that we can successfully develop a marketable product.

Tipifarnib and KO-539 will require additional clinical development, evaluation of clinical, preclinical and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions, substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenues from product sales. We presently anticipate that an approved companion diagnostic will be required in order to obtain approval for tipifarnib in HRAS mutant HNSCC and for KO-539 in NPM1-mutant AML and KMT2A-rearranged AML. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation and must be separately approved for marketing by the FDA. We are not permitted to market or promote tipifarnib, KO-539 or any other product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approvals. Although the scope of regulatory approval is similar in other countries, in some countries there are additional regulatory requirements and potential regulatory risks and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions.

There is no guarantee that our current clinical trials for tipifarnib or KO-539 will be completed on time or at all. Prior to receiving approval to commercialize tipifarnib or KO-539, if any, in the United States or internationally, we must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA and other regulatory authorities, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. The results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways, and the favorable results from previous trials of a product candidate may not be replicated in subsequent clinical trials. Even if we believe the preclinical or clinical data are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. We maintain frequent, ongoing dialogue with the FDA and other regulatory bodies regarding our clinical trial designs, including the patient selection criteria, dosing plan and statistical analysis plans. There is a risk that the FDA or other regulatory agencies could at any time raise objections to the design or conduct of our clinical trials. Any such objections could delay the initiation or completion of our registration-directed clinical trial.

Although we believe from our discussions with the FDA and the minutes from our end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA that, if AIM-HN is positive, there is the potential for accelerated approval of tipifarnib for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory HNSCC who harbor the HRAS mutation, the FDA has substantial discretion in the approval process and may not grant approval based on data from AIM-HN and RUN-HN. Even if the trial results are positive, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do. There is also no guarantee that data from SEQ-HN will support any potential marketing application for tipifarnib in HRAS mutant HNSCC.

Although we believe there may be potential to pursue a path to accelerated approval for KO-539 for the treatment of patients with particular subtypes of relapsed or refractory AML, we cannot guarantee that KO-539 will demonstrate sufficient safety and tolerability and clinical activity in that subtype to support an application for accelerated approval. Even if KO-539 demonstrates sufficient activity in one patient subtype, such as patients with KMT2A-rearranged AML, to support an application in that subset, there can be no assurance it will demonstrate sufficient activity to support an application for accelerated approval in other patient subsets. Even if the trial results from KO-539 demonstrate a compelling clinical benefit, the FDA has substantial discretionin the approval process and may not grant approval based on data generated by us.

If the results of our trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of tipifarnib, KO-539 or our other product candidates.

We have not previously submitted a new drug application, or NDA, to the FDA, or similar product approval filings tocomparable foreign authorities, or received marketing approval for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that tipifarnib or KO-539 will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval for any indication. We cannot anticipate whether or when we will seek regulatory review of tipifarnib or KO-539 for any other indications. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for and successfully commercialize tipifarnib on a timely basis or at all, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market tipifarnib or KO-539, our revenues will be dependent, in part, on our third-party collaborator’s ability to commercialize the companion diagnostic as well as the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights. If the market opportunities for the treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC, NPM1-mutant AML and KMT2A-rearranged AML and other diseases are not as significant as we estimate, our business and prospects may be harmed.

Our discovery, preclinical and clinical development is focused on the development of targeted therapeutics for patients with genetically defined cancers, which is a rapidly evolving area of science, and the approach we are taking to discover and develop drugs may never lead to marketable products.

The discovery and development of targeted therapeutics for patients with genetically defined cancers, and the scientific discoveries that form the basis for our efforts to discover and develop product candidates, are a relatively new and rapidly

evolving area of science. The scientific evidence to support the feasibility of developing product candidates based on these discoveries is both preliminary and limited. The patient populations for our product candidates are not completely defined but are substantially smaller than the general treated cancer population, and patients will need to be screened and identified in order to be eligible for our therapies. Successful identification of patients is dependent on several factors, including screening a sufficient number of patients to identify whether they harbor a particular genetic alteration or expression level, achieving certainty as to how specific genetic alterations or expression levels respond to our product candidates and developing companion diagnostics to identify such genetic alterations or expression levels. Furthermore, even if we are successful in identifying patients, we cannot be certain that the resulting patient populations will be large enough to allow us to successfully commercialize any products for which we are able to obtain marketing approval and achieve profitability. Therefore, we do not know if our approach of treating patients with genetically defined cancers will be successful. If our approach is unsuccessful, our business will suffer.

In order to execute on our strategy of advancing the clinical development of tipifarnib and KO-539, we have designed our clinical trials, and expect to design future clinical trials of our product candidates, to include patients who harbor a particular attribute such as a particular genetic alteration, tumor histology or expression level that we believe contribute to or are associated with particular cancer subsets. Our goal in doing this is to enroll patients who have the highest probability of responding to our product candidate and in our proof-of-concept Phase 2 clinical trials, to show early and statistically significant evidence of clinical efficacy. Potential molecular biomarkers we have identified in retrospective analyses of data from clinical trials of tipifarnib in certain cancer indications may not be prospectively validated as biomarkers of tipifarnib activity in our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trials or in future clinical trials that we may conduct in these indications. If we are unable to identify molecular or genetic alterations, or biomarkers, that are predictive of response to our product candidates, or we are unable to include patients who harbor the applicable genetic alterations or expression levels in our clinical trials, or if our product candidates fail to work as we expect, our ability to assess the therapeutic effect, seek participation in FDA expedited review and approval programs, including Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track Designation, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval, or otherwise to seek to accelerate clinical development and regulatory timelines, could be compromised, resulting in longer development times, larger clinical trials and a reduced likelihood of obtaining regulatory approval.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials for tipifarnib and KO-539. Difficulty in enrolling patients could delay or prevent clinical trials of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical studies of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical studies depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in testing our product candidates, and we may experience delays in our clinical trials if we encounter difficulties in enrollment.

In addition to the potentially small populations for our clinical trials, the eligibility criteria of our clinical trials will further limit the pool of available trial participants as we will require that patients have specific characteristics that we can measure or to assure their disease is either severe enough or not too advanced to include them in a trial. Additionally, the process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly. For example, many physicians who treat HNSCC patients do not routinely screen their patients for genetic mutations, such as oncogenic mutations present in the HRAS gene. To seek to address these limitations, we have contracted with third-party laboratories to facilitate the genetic screening of patients for our clinical sites. However, there is no guarantee that these efforts will be effective.

We also may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete our clinical studies because of the perceived risks and benefits of the product candidate under trial including the number and frequency of trial required procedures and tests, the availability and efficacy of competing therapies and clinical trials, the proximity and availability of clinical trial sites for prospective patients, and the patient referral practices of physicians. For example, with the approvals of immune therapy agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab, many HNSCC patients are now being treated with one of these agents in the first line in combination with chemotherapy and after failure of first-line treatments such as chemotherapy and/or cetuximab. If patients receiving immune therapy, or the physicians treating them are unwilling or unable to participate in our studies for any reason, or if such patients experience positive results from such agents resulting in longer times to disease progression than originally anticipated, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies, and obtaining regulatory approval of potential products may be delayed or we may not be able to successfully complete our studies. Further, if patients do not comply with clinical trial process and procedure and, for example, drop out, miss scheduled doses or follow-up visits, or fail to follow trial protocols, then the integrity of data from our trials may be compromised or not accepted by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Lastly, if our trials are otherwise disputed due to delays resultant from staff re-directed to take actions to slow the spread of COVID-19, collectively all of these possibilities, which would represent a significant setback for the applicable clinical program.

Additionally, in estimating the frequency of biomarkers, such as the frequency of HRAS mutations in patients with HNSCC, we rely on data published in the scientific literature as well as our experience and that of our collaborators. Initial studies on the frequency of HRAS mutation in HNSCC were conducted retrospectively and may not reflect the current incident HRAS mutational rates that can be affected by changes in environmental exposures, access to early treatment, viral infections with HPV and other variables that influence oncogenesis. The technologies used to identify mutations in published datasets may be different from the technologies we are using currently, which may make it more difficult to compare results across clinical trials or we may experience lower rates of HRAS mutation frequency in our clinical trial than provided in the current scientific literature. Moreover, sample quality in academic studies of molecular biomarkers may not reflect standard clinical practice that is focused on pathological diagnosis. Even if patients carrying HRAS mutations are identified, potential clinical benefit of tipifarnib may be delayed or reduced due to increased durations in time to disease progression in patients treated with immune therapy and the number of patients who could benefit from tipifarnib may be reduced. Potential trial subjects may also be located at too great a distance to participate at our clinical trial sites. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to screen patients or identify patients with HRAS mutations for enrollment in our AIM-HN clinical trial and other ongoing trials could delay or prevent us from completing our clinical trials which could prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing tipifarnib on a timely or profitable basis, or at all.

If we experience delays in the completion of, or termination of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue from any of these product candidates could be delayed or prevented. 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 revenue. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, 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, including:

• unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects;

• failure of our companion diagnostics to identify patients;

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of subsequent clinical trials, and preliminary or interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

The risk of failure for our product candidates is high. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must conduct extensive preclinical and clinical testing to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. This testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Further, the results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of subsequent clinical trials, and preliminary or interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. For example, the preliminary data we have presented from our positive Phase 2 clinical trial of tipifarnib in HRAS mutant HNSCC, may not predict the results of AIM-HN or any other later-stage clinical trials we may conduct. The primary endpoint of AIM-HN is ORR as determined using RECIST 1.1 criteria and as determined by independent radiological review. Independent radiological review refers to a formal process whereby third-party radiologists who are not affiliated with the drug development program are engaged to provide an independent assessment of the primary radiological images. All of our patient responses disclosed to date in our ongoing Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial in HRAS mutant HNSCC have been assessed by the trial investigators. In contrast to independent radiology review, investigator assessed response is performed by investigators or their affiliated radiology colleagues who may be aware of the trial treatment, patient history or other information that could impact their choices in applying the rules and conventions of RECIST 1.1. Conversely, independent radiology reviewers have limited access to non-radiographic clinical information or other ancillary information, which could have informed their application of RECIST 1.1 response rules. The published literature demonstrates a consistent decrease in response rate when investigator assessed response rates are verified by independent radiology review. Furthermore, HNSCC lesions are difficult to assess due to the complexity of the anatomic locations. For AIM-HN we will be identifying trial subjects with measurable disease that meets criteria for RECIST 1.1 target lesions by local radiology review. This may further reduce the number of subjects eligible to join AIM-HN within the small pool of HRAS mutant HNSCC patients.

Results from clinical trials conducted at a single clinical site or a small number of clinical sites, may not be predictive of results from additional clinical sites or from subsequent clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. For instance, the FDA previously issued a non-approval letter to Janssenfor tipifarnib as a treatment for elderly, untreated AML in June 2005. It is impossible to predict with certainty if or when any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive regulatory approval.

We may experience delays in our clinical trials and we do not know whether ongoing or planned clinical trials will begin or enroll patients on time, need to be redesigned or be completed on schedule, if at all. If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, or IRBs have comments on our study plans for our clinical trials of tipifarnib or any of our other product candidates, that we are required to address, such studies may be delayed, or may not start at all. Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated at any time by us or by the FDA or other similar regulatory agency if it is determined at any time that patients may be or are being exposed to unacceptable health risks, including risk of death, or if compounds are not manufactured in compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, regulations or with acceptable quality. There can be no assurance that the FDA or other similar regulatory agency will not put any of our product candidates on clinical hold in the future. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates. Clinical trials may be delayed, suspended or prematurely terminated because costs are greater than we anticipate or for a variety of reasons, such as:

• there may be changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions.

In addition, our clinical trials have been and may continue to be affected by COVID-19. Clinical site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed due to prioritization of hospital resources toward COVID-19. Current or potential patients in our ongoing or planned clinical trials may also choose to not enroll, not participate in follow-up clinical visits or drop out of the trial as a precaution against contracting COVID-19. Further, some patients may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Some clinical sites in the United States have started to slow or stop further enrollment of new patients in clinical trials, denied access to site monitors or otherwise curtailed certain operations. Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, may be adversely impacted. These events could delay our clinical trials, increase the cost of completing our clinical trials and negatively impact the integrity, reliability or robustness of the data from our clinical trials. On May 4, 2020, we announced the suspension and termination of certain development activities due to a strategic review of our portfolio, including the suspension of the initiation of a planned registration directed study for tipifarnib in T-cell lymphoma, the suspension of a planned Phase 2 clinical trial for tipifarnib in pancreatic cancer and the termination of our KO-947 ERK inhibitor program.

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

• be delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates;

• not obtain marketing approval at all;

• have the product removed from the market after obtaining marketing approval.

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

Preclinical and clinical testing of tipifarnib that has been conducted to date may not have been performed in compliance with applicable regulatory standards, which could lead to increased costs or material delays for their further development.

We licensed the rights to develop our lead product candidate, tipifarnib, from Janssen in December 2014, and the development of tipifarnib prior to our license was conducted wholly by Janssen or any third parties with which it had contracted. As a result, we were not involved with nor did we have any control over any of those development activities. Because we had no input on Janssen’s development activities relating to tipifarnib, we may discover that certain elements of the clinical development or manufacturing activities that Janssen performed were not performed in compliance with applicable regulatory standards or have otherwise been deficient, particularly relative to current requirements as development of tipifarnib began in the 1990s. Any such deficiency in the prior development of tipifarnib may adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval for tipifarnib.

We anticipate that our current product candidates and any future product candidates may be used in combination with third-party drugs or biologics, some of which are still in development, and we have limited or no control over the supply, regulatory status, or regulatory approval of such drugs or biologics.

Our current product candidates and any future product candidates have the potential to be administered in combination with one or more cancer therapies, such as PI3 kinase alpha inhibitor in the case of tipifarnib, VENCLEXTA (venetoclax) in the case of KO-539, or other drugs, both approved and unapproved. Our ability to develop and ultimately commercialize our current product candidates and any future product candidates used in combination with another drug or biologic will depend on our ability to access such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms for the clinical trials and their availability for use with the commercialized product, if approved. We cannot be certain that current or potential future commercial relationships will provide us with a steady supply of such drugs or biologics on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Any failure to maintain or enter into new successful commercial relationships, or the expense of purchasing PI3 kinase alpha inhibitor or other drugs, may delay our development timelines, increase our costs and jeopardize our ability to develop our current product candidates and any future product candidates as commercially viable therapies. If any of these occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

Moreover, the development of product candidates for use in combination with another product or product candidate may present challenges that are not faced for single agent product candidates. We are currently developing tipifarnib and may develop other future product candidates for use in combination with PI3 kinase alpha inhibitor or other therapies. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to use more complex clinical trial designs in order to evaluate the contribution of each product and product candidate to any observed effects. It is possible that the results of such trials could show that any positive previous trial results are attributable to the combination therapy and not our current product candidates and any future product candidates. Moreover, following product approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require that products used in conjunction with each other be cross labeled for combined use. To the extent that we do not have rights to the other product, this may require us to work with a third party to satisfy such a requirement. Moreover, developments related to the other product may impact our clinical trials for the combination as well as our commercial prospects should we receive marketing approval. Such developments may include changes to the other product’s safety or efficacy profile, changes to the availability of the approved product, quality, manufacturing and supply issues, and changes to the standard of care.

In the event that any future collaborator or supplier cannot continue to supply their products on commercially reasonable terms, we would need to identify alternatives for accessing such products. Additionally, should the supply of products from any future collaborator or supplier be interrupted, delayed or otherwise be unavailable to us, our clinical trials may be delayed. In the event we are unable to source an alternative supply or are unable to do so on commercially reasonable terms, our business, financial condition, results of operations, stock price and prospects may be materially harmed.

Our product candidates may cause serious adverse events or have unacceptable side effects that could delay, limit or prevent their development.

If our product candidates are associated with unacceptable side effects in preclinical or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to interrupt, delay or abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective.

Tipifarnib has been studied in more than 5,000 oncology patients and was generally well tolerated and exhibited a manageable side effect profile. The most common hematologic adverse events of any grade were neutropenia, or low white blood cell count, anemia and thrombocytopenia, or low platelet count. The most common non-hematologic adverse events of any grade were gastrointestinal system disorders such as nausea, anorexia, diarrhea and vomiting, fatigue and rash. Treatment discontinuation across the prior tipifarnib clinical studies has been in the range of approximately 20-25%. The side effects observed so far in our ongoing Phase 2 clinical trials of tipifarnib have been generally consistent with the prior observations; however, there is no guarantee that additional or more severe side effects will not be identified through further clinical studies, including our AIM-HN clinical trial. Rights to develop tipifarnib in virology indications have been granted by Janssen to EB Pharma LLC, or EB Pharma, a subsidiary of Eiger BioPharmaceuticals. Undesirable side effects may be identified in clinical trials that EB Pharma may conduct in virology indications, which may negatively impact the development, commercialization or potential value of tipifarnib.

We are currently conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial to evaluate KO-539 in relapsed or refractory AML. Any observed, drug-related side effects could affect the ability of patients to tolerate potentially therapeutically effective doses of the drug, which in turn could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the clinical trial or result in potential product liability claims. Additionally, if results of our ongoing or planned clinical trials for tipifarnib or KO-539 reveal an unacceptable frequency and severity of serious adverse events or side effects, our trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory agencies could require us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Many compounds developed in the biopharmaceutical industry that initially showed promise in early-stage testing for treating cancer have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of those compounds. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

Additionally, we may evaluate our product candidates in combination with third-party drugs or biologics, and safety concerns arising during a combination trial could negatively affect the individual development program of each candidate, as the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to discontinue single-candidate trials until the contribution of each product candidate to any safety issues is better understood.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a specific product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or 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 must focus on a limited number of research programs and product candidates and on specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for 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 discovery and preclinical development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

Failure by us or our third-party collaborators to successfully develop and commercialize a diagnostic testing platform for use by oncologists could harm our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates.

One of the central elements of our business strategy is to screen and identify subsets of patients with molecular or genetic alterations who may derive meaningful clinical benefit from our product candidates. Successful identification of these patient subsets depends on the development of sensitive, accurate and cost-effective molecular and other diagnostic tests and the widespread adoption and use of these tests at clinical sites to screen a sufficient number of patients to identify whether they are appropriate candidates for treatment with one our product candidates.

As we do not have in-house diagnostic testing capabilities, we rely extensively on third-party collaborators for the development and commercialization of these diagnostic tests. Our goal is to provide a sensitive, accurate and cost-effective diagnostic testing solution for oncologists, whereby they can obtain molecular testing data that will help them to identify whether their patients are eligible as candidates for enrollment in our clinical trials. Moreover, we anticipate that, if and when tipifarnib and/or KO-539 receives marketing approval, a significant percentage of patients will be identified using diagnostic testing platforms such as NGS testing.

We and our third-party collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for these diagnostic tests. We may also experience difficulties in having these diagnostic tests adopted and used at clinical sites, both during the clinical development phase and if and when approved for commercial sale. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of these diagnostic tests or any failure in having a sufficient number of clinical sites adopt and use these diagnostic tests could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates, which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Failure to successfully validate, develop and obtain regulatory approval for companion diagnostics for our product candidates could harm our drug development strategy and operational results.

As one of the central elements of our business strategy and clinical development approach, we seek to screen and identify subsets of patients with molecular or genetic alterations who may derive meaningful clinical benefit from our product candidates. To achieve this, certain of our programs may require the de novo development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic for marketing approval. We rely on third-party collaborators for development of companion diagnostics for use in clinical trials and, if successful, will rely on third-party collaborators for development of companion diagnostics for commercialization of our product candidates. Companion diagnostics are developed in conjunction with clinical programs for the associated product and are subject to regulation as medical devices. For example, for tipifarnib for the treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC, we and our third-party collaborators have obtained an IDE for use of a qPCR-based assay to identify patients with HRAS mutant tumors as the companion diagnostic in AIM-HN in this indication. Patients can also be enrolled based on information on the patients’ tumor HRAS mutation status obtained by the clinical sites from NGS panels used by the site or third parties to characterize patients’ tumors. Additionally, HRAS mutant allele frequency is an important measure of an end point in AIM-HN. The results of NGS panels used by our clinical sites may not be accurate or consistent across sites and may not be consistent with results obtained from our companion diagnostic, and our development of tipifarnib or a companion diagnostic may be delayed or complicated as a result.

If the results of AIM-HN, KOMET-001 or other clinical trials are positive and we validate our biomarker hypotheses in those clinical trials, we plan to partner development and validation of companion diagnostic tests to aid in the selection of patients in any subsequent clinical trials we decide to pursue for those product candidates and to prepare and submit an application for IDE for use of the companion diagnostic in the clinical trials, when necessary. Any delay or failure by us or our third-party collaborators to develop or obtain IDE approval for use of companion diagnostics in our clinical trials could delay or prevent us from commencing or completing our clinical trials. Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate clearance or approval prior to their commercialization. To date, the FDA has frequently required a premarket approval application of companion diagnostics for cancer therapies. We presently anticipate that an approved companion diagnostic will be required in order to obtain approval for tipifarnib in HRAS mutant HNSCC and for KO-539 in NPM1-mutant AML and KMT2A-rearranged AML. We and our third-party collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. Any delay or failure by us or third-party collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of a companion diagnostic could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates. The approval of a companion diagnostic as part of the product label will limit the use of the product candidate to only those patients who express the specific genetic alteration it was developed to detect. We may also experience delays in developing a sustainable, reproducible and scalable manufacturing process or transferring that process to commercial partners or negotiating insurance reimbursement plans, all of which may prevent us from completing our clinical trials or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

Failure by us or our third-party collaborators to successfully commercialize companion diagnostics developed for use with our product candidates could harm our ability to commercialize these product candidates.

Even if we or our companion diagnostic collaborators successfully obtain regulatory approval for the companion diagnostics for our product candidates, our collaborators:

• may not perform their obligations as expected;

• may terminate their relationship with us.

Additionally, we or our collaborators may encounter production difficulties that could constrain the supply of the companion diagnostics, affect the ease of use, affect the price or have difficulties gaining acceptance of the use of the companion diagnostics in the clinical community.

If companion diagnostics for use with our product candidates fail to gain market acceptance, our ability to derive revenues from sales of our product candidates could be harmed. If insurance reimbursement to the laboratories who perform the companion diagnostic tests is inadequate, utilization may be low, and patient tumors may not be comprehensively screened for the presence of the genetic markers that predict response to our product candidates. If we or our collaborators fail to commercialize these companion diagnostics, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and delay the development or commercialization of our product candidates.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through equity and debt financings. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and increasing operating losses for the foreseeable future. The net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

• continue research and development of our product candidates;

• initiate new clinical trials for our product candidates;

• seek marketing approvals for our product candidates;

• maintain, expand and protect our intellectual property portfolio;

• hire additional personnel;

• incur increased costs as a result of continued operations as a public company.

To become and remain profitable, we must develop and eventually commercialize a product or products with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical trials of our product candidates, successfully developing companion diagnostics, obtaining marketing approval from the FDA and other global Regulatory authorities for these product candidates, the manufacturing, marketing and selling of these products for which we may obtain marketing approval. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant or even sufficient to achieve profitability. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable could decrease our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain our research and development efforts, expand our business or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused volatility in the global financial markets and threatened a slowdown in the global economy, which may have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional capital on attractive terms or at all.

We are a clinical-stage company with no approved products and no historical product revenue. Consequently, we expect that our financial and operating results will vary significantly from period to period.

We are a clinical-stage company that has incurred losses since our inception and expect to continue to incur substantial losses in the foreseeable future. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of uncertainty. We expect our actual financial condition and operating results to fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter or year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including COVID-19. Factors relating to our business that may contribute to these fluctuations include:

• the success of our clinical trials through all phases of clinical development;

• delays in the commencement, enrollment and completion of clinical trials;

• any delays in regulatory review and approval of our product candidates;

• our ability to identify and develop additional product candidates;

• costs related to and outcomes of any future intellectual property litigation;

• our ability to adequately support future growth;

Accordingly, the likelihood of our success must be evaluated in light of many potential challenges and variables associated with a clinical-stage company, many of which are outside of our control, and past operating or financial results should not be relied on as an indication of future results. Fluctuations in our operating and financial results could cause our share price to decline. It is possible that in some future periods, our operating results will be above or below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could also cause our share price to decline.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for you to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

We are a clinical-stage company with a limited operating history. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, identifying and acquiring potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical, clinical and regulatory development of our product candidates and conducting pre-commercial and diagnostic related activities for our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully complete clinical trials or the development of companion diagnostics in support of FDA approval, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a product at commercial scale, or arrange for a third-party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Medicines, on average, take 10 to 15 years to be developed from the time they are discovered to the time they receive marketing approval. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability based on our short operating history to date may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown factors. We may in the future need to transition from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

We will need to obtain substantial additional capital in connection with our continuing operations. Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish certain rights to our technologies or product candidates.

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate sufficient product revenues to fund our operations, we will need to raise additional capital in connection with our continuing operations. We expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings and debt financings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interest of our stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect rights of our stockholders as a common stockholder. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken to slow its spread, the global financial markets have experienced volatility and uncertainty. There can be no assurance that further volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets and declining confidence in economic conditions will not occur. If financial markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult to obtain, more costly and/or more dilutive.

In March 2019, we entered into the ATM facility with SVB Leerink LLC and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, under which we may offer and sell, from time to time, at our sole discretion, shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $75.0 million.We have not yet sold any shares of our common stock under the ATM facility.

In November 2018, we entered into the loan agreement with Silicon Valley Bank, providing for up to $20.0 million in a series of term loans, which was subsequently amended in April 2020 to extend the second draw period. Under the terms of the loan agreement, we have borrowed $7.5 million. The draw period for the additional loan expired without us drawing down the additional loan. We do not have any committed external source of funds. While any amounts are outstanding under our term loan facility, we are subject to affirmative and restrictive covenants, including covenants regarding delivery of financial statements, maintenance of inventory, payment of taxes, maintenance of insurance, dispositions of property, business combinations or acquisitions, incurrence of additional indebtedness and transactions with affiliates, among other customary covenants. If we default under our term loan facility, the lender may accelerate our repayment obligations and take control of our pledged assets, potentially requiring us to renegotiate our agreement on terms less favorable to us or to immediately cease operations. Further, if we are liquidated, the lender’s right to repayment would be senior to the rights of the holders of our common stock to receive any proceeds from the liquidation. The lender could declare a default under our term loan facility upon the occurrence of an event of default, which includes our failure to satisfy our payment obligations under the loan agreement, the breach of certain of our other covenants under the loan agreement or the occurrence of a material adverse change, thereby requiring us to repay the loan immediately or to attempt to reverse the declaration of default through negotiation or litigation. Any declaration by the lender of an event of default could significantly harm our business and prospects and could cause the price of our common stock to decline.

We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Subject to limited exceptions, our term loan facility also prohibits us from incurring indebtedness without the prior written consent of the lender. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We rely on third-party contractors and organizations to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such clinical trials.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party contractors, clinical data management organizations, independent contractors, medical institutions and clinical investigators to support our preclinical development activities and conduct our clinical trials, including our registration-directed clinical trial of tipifarnib in HRAS mutant HNSCC, our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of KO-539 in AML and any other subsequent clinical trials of tipifarnib and KO-539. These agreements may terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we are required to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities could be delayed.

We compete with many other companies, some of which may be our business competitors, for the resources of these third parties. Large pharmaceutical companies often have significantly more extensive agreements and relationships with such third-party providers, and such third-party providers may prioritize the requirements of such large pharmaceutical companies over ours. The third parties on whom we rely may terminate their engagements with us at any time, which may cause delay in the development and commercialization of our product candidates. If any such third-party terminates its engagement with us or fails to perform as agreed, we may be required to enter into alternative arrangements, which could result in significant cost and delay to our product development program. Moreover, our agreements with such third parties generally do not provide assurances regarding employee turnover and availability, which may cause interruptions in the research on our product candidates by such third parties.

Our reliance on these third parties to conduct our clinical trials reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the clinical trial. Moreover, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require us to comply with good clinical practice guidelines for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of clinical trial participants are protected. We are also required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Additionally, we rely substantially on third-party data managers for our clinical trial data. There is no assurance that these third parties will not make errors in the design, management or retention of our data or data systems. There is no assurance that these third parties will pass FDA or other regulatory audits, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval.

If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates.

In addition, the ability of these third parties to conduct certain of their operations, including monitoring of clinical sites, may be limited by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to the extent that such third parties are unable to fulfil their contractual obligations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic or government orders in response to the pandemic, we may have limited or no recourse under the terms of our contractual agreements with such third parties. Further, if any of the third parties with whom we engage were to experience shutdowns or other substantial disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively affected, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and our results of operation and financial condition.

We depend on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products at an acceptable cost and quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not own or operate facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates and we currently have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of clinical supplies of tipifarnib and KO-539 for preclinical and clinical testing. We will rely on third parties as well for commercial manufacture if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. We also expect to rely on other third parties to package and label the drug product as well as to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials.

The manufacture of pharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of drug formulation and manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs, and pharmaceutical products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling up and validating initial production and absence of contamination. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our products or in the manufacturing facilities in which our products are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We have developed a modified drug product manufacturing process and a modified tablet formulation of tipifarnib we are using in our AIM-HN clinical trial. Although our Phase 1 relative bioavailability study indicated pharmacokinetic comparability between the original and the modified tablets, we cannot be certain that in our AIM-HN or other clinical trials we will not observe differences between the tablets which could impact clinical outcomes.

If we are unable to develop formulations of our product candidates with acceptable stability and sterility characteristics, or experience an unexpected delay or loss of supply of any of our product candidates for any reason, whether as a result of manufacturing, supply or storage issues or otherwise, our business may be harmed and we may experience delays, disruptions, suspensions or terminations of, or we may be required to restart or repeat, any pending or ongoing clinical trials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the clinical trial, we may be required to manufacture additional supplies of our product candidates to the extent our estimates of the amounts required prove inaccurate, we suffer unexpected losses of product candidate supplies, or to the extent that we are required to have fresh product candidate supplies manufactured to satisfy regulatory requirements or specifications. Any significant delay or discontinuation in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, due to the need to replace a supplier, contract manufacturer or other third-party manufacturer, could considerably harm our business and delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers, suppliers or distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of our product candidates or commercialization of our products, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue. If our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our product candidates, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement.

We may be unable to establish any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

• reliance on the third-party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance;

• catastrophic events at the third-party organization;

• the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third-party;

The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the applicable regulatory authorities, including the FDA, pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after an NDA is submitted to the FDA. We are completely dependent on our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the FDA’s requirements for manufacture of both the active drug substances and finished drug product for tipifarnib and our other product candidates. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the FDA’s regulatory requirements, they will not be able to secure or maintain FDA approval for the manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have limited control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or any other applicable regulatory authorities does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, or if our suppliers or contract manufacturers decide they no longer want to supply or manufacture our products, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, in which case we might not be able to identify manufacturers for clinical or commercial supply on acceptable terms, or at all, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products.

Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

We and our collaboration partners have been able to continue to supply our clinical products to our patients and currently do not anticipate any interruptions in supply. To the extent our third-party manufacturers and supply chain suppliers are negatively impacted by COVID-19, we may not be able to provide continuous drug supply to our clinical sites and our clinical trials may be delayed or may not be completed which would have a material adverse effect on our business operations and performance.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates and Other Legal Compliance Matters

If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to an NDA in the United States and by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States prior to commercialization. The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and takes many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic could also potentially affect the business of the FDA, the EMA or other health authorities, which could result in delays in meetings related to planned clinical trials and ultimately of reviews and approvals of our product candidates. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have not received approval to market any of our product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have no experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party CROs to assist us in this process. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing marketing

approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities, among other requirements. Our product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, may not have an acceptable durability of response, may not have an acceptable risk-benefit profile or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may also cause delays in or prevent the approval of an application.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

We may not be able to benefit from available regulatory exclusivity periods if another company obtains regulatory approval for tipifarnib before we do.

As the composition of matter patents covering tipifarnib expired in the United States and in countries in Europe in 2016 and we have only a limited number of issued U.S. and foreign patents directed to our potential tipifarnib indications, our commercial strategy for tipifarnib relies on obtaining method of use and method of treatment patents, including those directed to specific indications and biomarkers, other patents related to tipifarnib, method of treatment patents related to farnesyl transferase inhibitors including tipifarnib, and on non-patent regulatory exclusivity. In the United States, a pharmaceutical manufacturer may obtain five years of non-patent exclusivity upon FDA approval of an NDA for new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains an active moiety that has not been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An “active moiety” is defined as the molecule or ion responsible for the drug substance’s physiological or pharmacologic action. During the five-year exclusivity period, the FDA cannot accept for filing any abbreviated new drug application seeking approval of a generic version of that drug or any Section 505(b)(2) NDA for the same active moiety and that relies on the FDA’s findings regarding that drug, except that the FDA may accept an application for filing after four years if the follow-on applicant makes a paragraph IV certification. EB Pharma has licensed rights from Janssen to develop tipifarnib in virology indications. If EB Pharma obtains regulatory approval for tipifarnib in a virology indication before we obtain regulatory approval in one of our oncology or other non-virology indications, the five-year exclusivity period would commence on the date upon which EB Pharma obtains regulatory approval, and as a result, the period of regulatory exclusivity to which we may be entitled may be reduced or eliminated and the commercial prospects for tipifarnib could be harmed as a result.

Additionally, if EB Pharma obtains approval of tipifarnib for a virology indication, EB Pharma may sell tipifarnib at a lower price, which could adversely affect the price at which we could sell tipifarnib for oncology or other non-virology indications.

We may not be able to obtain orphan drug exclusivity for the product candidates for which we seek it, which could limit the potential profitability of such product candidates.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States. Generally, if a product with an orphan designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it receives the designation, then the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity that precludes the applicable regulatory authority from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same indication during the exclusivity period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a drug no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation or if the drug is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective, or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

In July 2019, the FDA granted orphan drug designation to KO-539 for the treatment of AML. If KO-539 receives marketing approval for an indication broader than AML, KO-539 may no longer be eligible for marketing exclusivity. In addition, we intend to pursue an orphan designation for some of our other product candidates, including tipifarnib. However, obtaining an orphan designation can be difficult, and we may not be successful in doing so for our other product candidates. The EMA does not generally recognize for orphan designation, molecular defined subsets of non-orphan disease indications, and as an example, EMA previously rejected orphan designation for a drug product for anaplastic lymphoma kinase, or ALK-positive NSCLC. As such, we do not expect to be able to obtain orphan drug designation in Europe for tipifarnib in the subset of HRAS mutant HNSCC at the current time. Even if we were to obtain orphan exclusivity for a product candidate, such as that received for KO-539, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from the competition of different drugs for the same orphan condition, which could be approved during the exclusivity period. Additionally, after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA could subsequently approve another application for the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. The failure to obtain an orphan designation for any product candidates we may develop for the treatment of rare cancers, and/or the inability to maintain that designation for the duration of the applicable exclusivity period, could reduce our ability to make sufficient sales of the applicable product candidate to balance our expenses incurred to develop it, which would have a negative impact on our operational results and financial condition.

If we obtain an orphan designation and FDA approval of any of our product candidates for an oncology indication, we would be entitled to seven years of marketing exclusivity for that orphan indication. However, if a competitor obtained approval of a generic form of such product candidate for another indication, physicians would not be prevented from prescribing the generic drug for the orphan indication during the period of marketing exclusivity. Such prescribing practices could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates for the orphan indication.

A Fast Track Designation by the FDA, such as granted to tipifarnib for the treatment of patients with HRAS mutant HNSCC after progression on platinum therapy and for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, follicular T-cell lymphoma and nodal peripheral T-cell lymphoma with T follicular helper phenotype, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the drug sponsor may apply to the FDA for Fast Track Designation. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, and even if we believe a specific product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. We have been granted Fast Track Designation by the FDA for our tipifarnib product candidate for the treatment of patients with HRAS mutant HNSCC after progression on platinum therapy and for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, follicular T-cell lymphoma and nodal peripheral T-cell lymphoma with T follicular helper phenotype, but this is no assurance we will receive this designation for any future product candidates. Further, even though we have received this designation for tipifarnib, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program. Many drugs that have received Fast Track Designation have failed to obtain drug approval.

A Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA, even if granted for any of our product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the FDA on tipifarnib for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic HRAS mutant HNSCC with variant allele frequency ≥ 20% after disease progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs that have been designated as Breakthrough Therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor can help to identify the most efficient path for development.

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe that one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. However, the reduced timelines may introduce significant chemistry, manufacturing

and controls challenges for product development. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drugs considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification and rescind such designations.

Failure to obtain marketing approval in international jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad.

In order to market and sell our products in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we or our third-party collaborators must obtain separate marketing approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing and different criteria for approval. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be approved for sale in that country. We or our third-party collaborators may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, failure to obtain marketing approval in some countries or jurisdictions may compromise our ability to obtain approval elsewhere. We may not be able to file for marketing approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will be subject to extensive post-approval regulatory requirements and could be subject to post-approval restrictions or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products, when and if any of them are approved.

Our product candidates and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their testing, manufacture, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include, without limitation, submissions of safety and other post-approval information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to manufacturing, quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, including periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, restrictions or requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, tracking and reporting of payments to physicians and other healthcare providers, and recordkeeping requirements.

The FDA may also impose requirements for costly post-approval studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product. The FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure drugs are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding use of their products and if we promote our products beyond their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label promotion. Violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act relating to the promotion of prescription drugs may lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws.

In addition, later discovery of previously unknown adverse events or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

• restrictions on such products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes;

• restrictions on the labeling or marketing of a product;

• restrictions on product distribution or use;

• requirements to conduct post-approval studies or clinical trials;

• warning or untitled letters;

• withdrawal of the products from the market;

• recall of products;

• fines, restitution or disgorgement of profits or revenues;

• suspension or withdrawal of marketing approvals;

• refusal to permit the import or export of our products;

• product seizure; or

• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

Non-compliance with European Union requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with the European Union’s requirements regarding the protection of personal information can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies may require more extensive or expensive trials for combination product candidates than may be required for single agent pharmaceuticals.

In the event that we seek regulatory approval for a combination product candidate, we may be required to show that each active pharmaceutical ingredient in the product candidate makes a contribution to the combined product candidate’s claimed effects and that the dosage of each component, including amount, frequency and duration, is such that the combination is safe and effective for a significant patient population requiring such concurrent therapy. As a result, we may be required to conduct clinical trials comparing each component drug with the combination. This could require us to conduct more extensive and more expensive clinical trials than would be the case for many single agent pharmaceuticals. The need to conduct such trials could make it more difficult and costly to obtain regulatory approval of a combination drug than of a new drug containing only a single active pharmaceutical ingredient.

Our relationships with healthcare professionals, customers and third-party payors and our general business operations may be subject to applicable fraud and abuse laws, including anti-kickback and false claims laws, transparency laws, privacy laws and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to significant penalties, including criminal sanctions, administrative and civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings, among other penalties.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research as well as market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures, and/or drug pricing. Some state and local laws also require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Recently enacted and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

For example, in March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, a sweeping law intended to broaden access to health insurance, improve quality, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms.

Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential product candidates and our business are the following:

• extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability;

• expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs;

There have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. Certain changes to the ACA, such as the removal of the ACA’s individual health insurance mandate by federal tax legislation, a delay in the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees, and other changes to the ACA to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole,” were recently enacted or implemented, and the effect of these changes is unknown. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in Texas ruled that ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, but it is unknown when a decision will be reached. Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how the Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact ACA and our business. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of healthcare reform legislation or regulation or the impact of potential legislation or regulation on us, particularly in light of the new presidential administration.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, starting in 2013, that due to subsequent legislative amendments, will stay in effect through 2030 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 relief legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to certain providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws and other potential legislation may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

Further, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. As a result, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the cost of drugs under Medicare, and reform

government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example,on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the Trump administration’s proposals.The FDA also released a final rule, effective November 30, 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing guidance for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed pending review by the Biden administration until March 22, 2021. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the United States District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Future legislation could potentially change drug pricing dynamics. We cannot predict all of the ways in which future healthcare reform legislation or regulation could affect our business. It is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

We expect that healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare 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 revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-approval testing and other requirements. Foreign legislative changes may also affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Additionally, California recently enacted legislation that has been dubbed the first “GDPR-like” law in the United States. Known as the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, it creates new individual privacy rights for consumers (as that word is broadly defined in the law) and places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling personal data of consumers or households. Effective January 1, 2020, the CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers, provides such consumers new ways to opt-out of certain sales of personal information, and allows for a new private right of action for data breaches. The CCPA will likely impact (possibly significantly) our business activities and exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to not only cyber threats but also the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data.

Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

In some countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. If reimbursement for our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed, possibly materially.

If we fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could harm our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our discovery, preclinical development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our product candidates, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates may be impaired.

We intend to rely upon a combination of regulatory exclusivity periods, patents, trade secret protection, confidentiality agreements, and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our current product candidates and development programs. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by any patents, patent applications or future patents we may own, license, or pursue with respect to any of our current or future product candidates or products is threatened, it could threaten our ability to commercialize any of our current or future product candidates or products. Further, if we encounter delays in our development efforts, the period of time during which we could market any of our current or future product candidates or products under any patent protection we obtain would be reduced. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates or products, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates or products are commercialized.

Our patent rights may not protect our patent protected products and product candidates if competitors devise ways of making products that compete with us without legally infringing our patent rights. For example, our patent rights in tipifarnib are limited in ways that affect our ability to exclude third parties from competing against us. In particular, the patent term for the composition of matter patents covering the API of tipifarnib expired in the United States and countries in Europe in 2016. Composition of matter patents on APIs are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection because such patents provide protection without regard to any particular method of use or manufacture or formulation of the API used. The U.S. PTO issued us several patents directed to the method of treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC with tipifarnib and corresponding patents have been issued in a number of foreign jurisdictions. In July and November 2019, the U.S. PTO issued us patents directed to the treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC with any farnesyl transferase inhibitor. In addition, in July 2019 and January 2020, the European Patent Office granted us patents directed to the method of treatment of HRAS mutant HNSCC patients with tipifarnib. The U.S. PTO also issued us patents directed to the method of treatment of angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma with tipifarnib and the method of treatment of CXCL12-expressing PTCL or AML with tipifarnib. In October 2019, the U.S. PTO issued us a patent directed to the method of treatment of CXCL12-expressing PTCL or AML with any farnesyl transferase inhibitor.

Although these patents are currently in force, there is no guarantee that a court would agree that any of the patents are valid or enforceable. Further, if a competitor were to develop tipifarnib for use in an indication other than that claimed by the patents, we would not be able to prevent them from marketing tipifarnib in the United States or other jurisdictions based on our currently issued patents. A limited number of patents directed to the use of tipifarnib in certain patients with HRAS mutant HNSCC have been granted in foreign jurisdictions. We are pursuing additional United States and foreign method of treatment patents for tipifarnib and farnesyl transferase inhibitors, however there is no guarantee that any such patents will be granted.

We have issued patents in the United States covering the composition of matter of KO-539 and certain structurally related compounds and methods of using the compounds for treating cancers. Although these patents are currently in force, there is no guarantee that a court would agree that any of the patents are valid or enforceable.

We are pursuing additional U.S. and foreign patents for KO-539; however, there is no guarantee that any such patents will be granted. Patent term extension may be available in the United States to account for regulatory delays in obtaining human marketing approval for a product candidate; however, only one patent may be extended per marketed compound. Under our license agreement with Janssen for tipifarnib, we and Janssen agree to cooperate in obtaining available patent term extensions. We and Janssen may not reach agreement and no patent term extension may be obtained. Additionally, the applicable authorities, including the U.S. PTO and the FDA, and any equivalent regulatory authority in other countries, may not agree with our assessment of whether such extensions are available, and may refuse to grant extensions to patents, or may grant more limited extensions than requested. If this occurs, our competitors who obtain the requisite regulatory approval can offer products with the same API as tipifarnib so long as the competitors do not infringe any method of use patents that we may hold. Competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and clinical trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

We expect that following expiration of patents and any regulatory exclusivity we are able to obtain, competitors may manufacture and sell generic versions of tipifarnib, at a lower price, which would reduce tipifarnib’s revenues. In certain jurisdictions, legislation mandates generic substitution for brand name drugs.

We depend on our licensors to prosecute and maintain patents and patent applications that are material to our business. Any failure by our licensors to effectively protect these intellectual property rights could adversely impact our business and operations.

We have licensed patent rights from third parties for some of our development programs, including tipifarnib from Janssen and compounds in our menin-KMT2A program from the University of Michigan. As a licensee of third parties, we rely on these third parties to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the licensed intellectual property under some of our license agreements. We have not had and do not have primary control over these activities for certain of our patents or patent applications and other intellectual property rights. We cannot be certain that such activities by third parties have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreements with some of our licensors, the licensors may have the right to control enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we will require the cooperation of our licensors. We cannot be certain that our licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business.

With respect to the patent portfolio for tipifarnib, which is in-licensed from Janssen, Janssen maintains rights to prosecute and maintain patents and patent applications within the portfolio as well as to assert such patents against infringers within and outside the scope of our license, and to defend such patents against claims of invalidity and unenforceability. Although we have rights to consult with Janssen on actions taken as well as back-up rights of prosecution and enforcement, rights to tipifarnib granted to another licensee, such as EB Pharma, could potentially influence Janssen’s interests in the exercise of its prosecution, maintenance and enforcement rights in a manner that may favor the interests of such other licensee as compared with us.

If we breach any of the agreements under which we license from third parties the commercialization rights to our product candidates, we could lose license rights that are important to our business and our operations could be materially harmed.

We have in-licensed from Janssen the use, development and commercialization rights in all indications other than virology, for our lead product candidate, tipifarnib. We have also in-licensed rights to KO-539 and other compounds in our menin-KMT2A program from the University of Michigan. Additionally, we have an exclusive worldwide license from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to a patent family pertaining to a method of use of tipifarnib. As a result, our current business plans are dependent upon our satisfaction of certain conditions to the maintenance of the Janssen agreement and the rights we license under it and our other in-license agreements. The Janssen license agreement and the University of Michigan license agreement each provide that we are subject to diligence obligations relating to the commercialization and development of the respective product candidates, milestone payments, royalty payments and other obligations. If we fail to comply with any of the conditions or obligations or otherwise breach the terms of our license agreement with Janssen,

University of Michigan or any of our other license agreements or license agreements we may enter into on which our business or product candidates are dependent, Janssen, University of Michigan or other licensors may have the right to terminate the applicable agreement in whole or in part and thereby extinguish our rights to the licensed technology and intellectual property and/or any rights we have acquired to develop and commercialize certain product candidates. The loss of the rights licensed to us under our license agreement with Janssen, University of Michigan or our other license agreements or any future license agreement that we may enter granting us rights on which our business or product candidates are dependent, would eliminate our ability to further develop the applicable product candidates and would materially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to, and any of our rights and obligations under, any license or other strategic agreement, including:

• the priority of invention of patented technology.

In addition, the agreements under which we license intellectual property or technology to or from third parties are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Moreover, if disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on commercially acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.

The patent applications of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies involve highly complex legal and factual questions, which, if determined adversely to us, could negatively impact our patent position.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Certain inventions that are patentable in the United States may not be patentable in other countries and vice versa. Further, our ability to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions may not be as effective as in the United States. For example, some foreign countries, such as India and China, may not allow or enforce patents for methods of treating the human body. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection, or eliminate our patent protection completely.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The U.S. PTO developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file

provisions, became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. PTO, or become involved in patent office post-grant proceedings, such as 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 reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. 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.

Even if our owned and licensed patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Even if our owned and licensed patents might provide such protection or competitive advantage, we may not have the resources to effectively enforce our rights under such patents, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Further, our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

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 United States 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 candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Changes in U.S. patent law, or laws in other countries, could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our 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 a high degree of technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing pharmaceutical patents is costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property and may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. In addition, Congress or other foreign legislative bodies may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

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

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/or applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. PTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm and rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The U.S. PTO 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. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in 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. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Because competition in our industry is intense, competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our issued patents, patents of our licensors or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or 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. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. We may also elect to enter into license agreements in order to settle patent infringement claims or to resolve disputes prior to litigation, and any such license agreements may require us to pay royalties and other fees that could be significant. 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.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. 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 products and technology, including derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings before the U.S. PTO. 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 developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Presently we have rights to intellectual property under an exclusive license from Janssen, to develop tipifarnib in all fields other than virology, an exclusive worldwide license from the University of Michigan for all therapeutic indications for KO-539 and other compounds in our menin-KMT2A program and an exclusive worldwide license from Memorial Sloan

Kettering Cancer Center to a patent family pertaining to a method of use of tipifarnib. Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. Additionally, a companion diagnostic may require that we or a third-party collaborator developing the diagnostic acquire proprietary rights held by third parties, which may not be available. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we may collaborate with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate our discovery and preclinical development work under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such right of first negotiation for intellectual property, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to us. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights, our business, financial condition and prospects for growth could suffer.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We seek to protect our confidential proprietary information, in part, by entering into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, however, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties. Moreover, to the extent we enter into such agreements, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

Intellectual property discovered through government funded programs may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Although we do not currently own issued patents or pending patent applications covering tipifarnib or KO-539 that have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding, our license agreement with the University of Michigan includes intellectual property rights unrelated to KO-539 that have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants, and we may acquire or license additional intellectual property rights from one or more entities that have been generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants. Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, the U.S. government has certain rights in inventions developed with government funding. These U.S. government rights include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant exclusive, partially exclusive, or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (1) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (2) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (3) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). If the U.S. government exercised its march-in rights in our intellectual property rights generated through the use of U.S. government funding or grants, we could be forced to license or sublicense intellectual property developed by us or that we license on terms unfavorable to us, and there can be no assurance that we would receive compensation from the U.S.

government for the exercise of such rights. The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if the grant recipient fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the intellectual property within specified time limits. Intellectual property generated under a government funded program is also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying any of these inventions or produced through the use of any of these inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. This preference for U.S. industry may be waived by the federal agency that provided the funding if the owner or assignee of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. industry may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property.

Risks Related to the Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Even if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. For example, current cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy are well established in the medical community, and doctors may continue to rely on these treatments to the exclusion of our product candidates. In addition, physicians, patients and third-party payors may prefer other novel products to ours, such as the recently approved immune-oncology therapies, in which there is increasing awareness and interest. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

• our ability to offer our products for sale at competitive prices;

• the convenience and ease of administration compared to alternative treatments;

• the strength of our marketing and distribution support;

• the prevalence and severity of any side effects; and

• any restrictions on the use of our products together with other medications.

We currently have no sales or market access personnel. If we are unable to establish effective sales or market access capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell or market our product candidates if they obtain regulatory approval, we may not be able to effectively sell or market our product candidates, if approved, or generate product revenues.

We currently do not have sales or market access teams for the marketing, sales and distribution of any of our product candidates that are able to obtain regulatory approval. In order to commercialize any product candidates, we must build on a territory-by-territory basis sales, marketing, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If our product candidates continue to progress toward regulatory approval, we intend to establish sales and market access teams with expertise to commercialize our product candidates, which will be expensive and time consuming and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. Capable managers with commercial experience may need to be identified and successfully recruited to our company. Any failure or delay in the development of our sales and market access capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of any of our products that we obtain approval to market. With respect to the commercialization of all or certain of our product candidates, we may choose to collaborate, either globally or on a territory-by-territory basis, with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements when needed on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of

our product candidates that receive regulatory approval or any such commercialization may experience delays or limitations. If we are not successful in commercializing our product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our future product revenue will suffer and we may incur significant additional losses.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing competing products before or more successfully than we do.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates, and we will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell products or are pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the disease indications for which we are developing our product candidates. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

Specifically, there are a large number of companies developing or marketing treatments for cancer, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, which may directly compete with tipifarnib, KO-539 and any other future product candidates. In the case of KO-539, one of our competitors recently published preliminary clinical data demonstrating that their inhibitor of the menin-KMT2A interaction was able to drive clinical benefit, including objective responses, in relapsed or refractory patients with KMT2A-rearranged AML. If that competitor is able to advance their clinical program more quickly than ours, our commercial opportunity for KO-539 could be reduced.

Our commercial opportunity also could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop alone or in combination with other drugs or biologics. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market or slow our regulatory approval. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products are uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within the HHS, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under

Medicare. Private payors often, but not always, follow CMS’s decisions regarding coverage and reimbursement. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. One payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Further, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. We or our collaborators may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA approvals. Nonetheless, our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective.

Reimbursement agencies in countries other than the United States may be more conservative than CMS. For example, a number of cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the United States and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries. Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada, and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors, in the United States and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. In addition, drug-pricing by pharmaceutical companies has come under increased scrutiny. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing by requiring drug companies to notify insurers and government regulators of price increases and provide an explanation of the reasons for the increase, reduce the out-of-pocket cost of prescription drugs, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products into the healthcare market.

In addition to CMS and private payors, professional organizations such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology can influence decisions about reimbursement for new medicines by determining standards for care. In addition, many private payors contract with commercial vendors who sell software that provide guidelines that attempt to limit utilization of, and therefore reimbursement for, certain products deemed to provide limited benefit to existing alternatives. Such organizations may set guidelines that limit reimbursement or utilization of our products.

KURA US Equity

KURA · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

KURA US Equity☆

KURA · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

KURA US Equity