pbyi20211231_10k.htm

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-35703

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2150

Los Angeles, CA90024

(424) 248-6500

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class Trading symbol Name of each exchange on which registered

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer ☐ Accelerated filer ☒

Non-accelerated filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $373.9 million as of June 30, 2021, based upon the closing price of $9.18 per share of the registrant’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on Thursday, June 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer, director and holder of 10% or more of the outstanding common stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes. As of February 25, 2022, there were41,332,920 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or the 2022 Proxy Statement, are incorporated by reference into Part III of the Form 10-K to the extent stated herein.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Part I

Item 1. Business 3

Item 1A. Risk Factors 31

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 58

Item 2. Properties 58

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 58

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosure 59

Part II

Item 6. [Reserved] 62

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 75

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 76

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 76

Item 9B. Other Information 77

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 77

Part III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 77

Item 11. Executive Compensation 77

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 77

Part IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules 78

Exhibit Index 80

Signatures 84

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements F-1

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"). Any statements about our expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions, future events or performance are not historical facts and may be forward looking. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

• the commercialization of NERLYNX® (neratinib) tablets ("NERLYNX");

• the anticipated timing of regulatory filings;

• the regulatory approval of our drug candidates;

• our use of clinical research organizations ("CRO") and other contractors;

• our ability to market any of our products;

• our expectations regarding our costs and expenses;

• our ability to compete against other companies and research institutions;

• our ability to secure adequate protection for our intellectual property;

• our ability to in-license additional drugs;

• our ability to attract and retain key personnel; and

• our ability to obtain adequate financing.

These statements are often, but not always, made through the use of words or phrases such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “project,” “continuing,” “ongoing,” “expect,” “believe,” “intend” and similar words or phrases. Accordingly, these statements involve estimates, assumptions and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in them. Discussions containing these forward-looking statements may be found throughout this Annual Report, including the sections entitled “Item 1. Business” in Part I and “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II of this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, including the risks discussed in the section entitled “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in Part I of this Annual Report that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to update the forward-looking statements or to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document, except as required by law. The risks discussed in this Annual Report should be considered in evaluating our prospects and future financial performance.

Table of Contents

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS

Our business is subject to a number of risks of which you should be aware before making a decision to invest in our common stock, including those described in the section entitled “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in Part I of this Annual Report. These risks include, among others, the following:

• We may not be able to successfully commercialize NERLYNX.

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Company Overview

Unless otherwise provided in this Annual Report, references to the “Company,”“we,”“us,” and “our” refer to Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a Delaware corporation formed on April27, 2007 together with our wholly-owned subsidiaries, Puma Biotechnology Ltd and Puma Biotechnology B.V.

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the development and commercialization of innovative products to enhance cancer care. Our lead product is NERLYNX, an oral version of neratinib, which is a potent irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor ("TKI") that blocks signal transduction through the human epidermal growth factor receptors, HER1, HER2 and HER4. In 2017, we obtained approval from the FDA to market, and commenced commercialization of NERLYNX in the United States for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer following adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. More recently, in February 2020, we received FDA approval to expand the indication for NERLYNX to include its use in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of adult patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. We believe neratinib has clinical application in the treatment of several other cancers as well, including other tumor types that over-express or have a mutation in HER2 or epidermal growth factor receptor ("EGFR") such as cervical cancer, lung cancer or other solid tumors.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Studies show that up to 20% of breast cancer tumors have an over-expression of the HER2 protein. Women with breast cancer that over-expresses HER2, referred to as HER2-positive breast cancer, are at greater risk for disease progression and death than women whose tumors do not over-express HER2. Therapeutic strategies, such as the use of trastuzumab (marketed as Herceptin ®), pertuzumab (marketed as Perjeta ®) and T-DM1 (marketed as Kadcyla ®), each produced by Genentech, lapatinib (marketed as Tykerb ®) produced by Novartis, fam‐trastuzumab deruxtecan (marketed as Enhertu ®) by Astra Zeneca and Daiichi Sankyo and tucatinib (Tukysa ®) marketed by Seagen, given either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, have been developed to improve the treatment of this type of breast cancer by binding to the HER2 protein. There are a number of trials ongoing that involve various combinations of these drugs.

Based on pre-clinical studies and clinical trials to date, we believe that neratinib may offer an advantage over existing treatments that are used in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, including treatment with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1, fam‐trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib. We believe that by more potently inhibiting HER2 at a different site and/or acting via a mechanism different from other agents, neratinib may have therapeutic benefits in patients who have been previously treated with these existing treatments, most notably due to its increased selectivity and irreversible inhibition of the HER2 target enzyme.

We currently market NERLYNX in the United States using our direct specialty sales force consisting of approximately 38 sales specialists. Our sales specialists are supported by an experienced sales leadership team consisting of regional managers and directors, as well as a commercial team of experienced professionals in marketing, access and reimbursement, managed markets, marketing research, commercial operations and sales force planning and management. In 2018, the EC granted marketing authorization for NERLYNX in the European Union ("EU") for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage hormone receptor positive HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer and who are less than one year from the completion of prior adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. To facilitate our international activities, we have entered into exclusive sub-license agreements with various parties to pursue regulatory approval, if necessary, and commercialize NERLYNX, if approved. We are currently party to several sub-licenses in various regions outside the United States, including Europe (excluding Russia and Ukraine), Australia, Canada, China, Southeast Asia, Israel, South Korea, and various countries and territories in Central America, South America and Africa.

We have also implemented a managed access program for neratinib. Managed access programs provide physicians and patients access to medicines when there are limited or no other therapeutic options available. Our managed access program for neratinib enables participation from countries outside the United States where permitted by applicable rules, procedures and regulatory authorities. The program provides access to neratinib for the treatment of early stage HER2-positive breast cancer (extended adjuvant setting), HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer and HER2-mutated solid tumors. In order for patients to qualify for our managed access program they must be unable to participate in any ongoing neratinib clinical trial. Patients in the managed access program are given neratinib and are instructed to take a prophylaxis which consists of high dose loperamide and budesonide, during treatment to manage neratinib-related diarrhea. We have partnered with Caligor Opco LLC, which specializes in early access to medicines, to oversee the managed access program for neratinib.

Table of Contents

In addition to commercializing NERLYNX for its approved indications, we are actively conducting the following trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neratinib in various indications:

The following chart shows each of the approved indications of neratinib and those indications currently under development, together with their clinical development stage.

* EBC: Early breast cancer

** MBC: Metastatic breast cancer

*** HRC+: Hormone receptor positive

Table of Contents

The following table shows the HER2+ Breast Cancer approvals by disease area and country.

Extended adjuvant

United States July 2017

European Union August 2018

Argentina August 2019

Hong Kong October 2019

Singapore November 2019

Switzerland March 2020

New Zealand June 2020

South Korea October 2021

Metastatic

United States February 2020

Argentina January 2021

Strategy

Our goal is to become a leading provider of advanced therapies for the treatment of various forms of cancer. The following elements comprise our strategy to achieve this objective:

Table of Contents

Breast Cancer Overview

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide, with approximately 1 million new cases reported each year and more than 400,000 deaths per year. Up to 20% of breast cancer tumors show over-expression of the HER2 protein. Women with breast cancer that over-expresses HER2 are at greater risk for disease recurrence, progression and death than women whose tumors do not over-express HER2. Therapeutic strategies have been developed to block HER2 in order to improve the treatment of this type of breast cancer.

Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, lapatinib, T-DM1, fam‐trastuzumab deruxtecan and tucatinib are all drugs that bind to the HER2 protein and thereby cause the cells to cease reproducing. Today, these drugs are used as single agents, in combination with other drugs and in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with HER2-positive breast cancer at various stages.

Currently, the only treatment approved by the FDA for the treatment of neoadjuvant (newly diagnosed) HER2-positive breast cancer is the combination of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and taxane chemotherapy. The FDA-approved treatments for the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer is either the combination of trastuzumab and chemotherapy, the combination of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy, or Kadcyla, which is approved specifically in patients with HER2-positive early stage breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment. We are aware of a Phase III clinical trial that is comparing trastuzumab plus pertuzumab plus taxane following anthracyclines versus T-DM1 plus pertuzumab following anthracyclines as an adjuvant therapy. In addition, we are also aware of a Phase III trial in patients with high risk HER2-positive early stage breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment that is testing the combination of Kadcyla plus tucatinib versus Kadcyla alone (the CompassHER2 RD Trial) as well as a Phase III trial in patients with high risk HER2-positive early stage breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment that is testing fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan versus Kadcyla alone (the DESTINY-Breast05 Trial).

We believe that there are approximately 30,000 patients in the United States and 37,000 patients in the EU with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer that get treated with adjuvant treatment. We also believe that there are approximately 6,400 patients in the United States with third-line and 4,700 patients in the United States with fourth-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. The number of patients with third-line or later HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer may decrease in future years as the introduction of new neoadjuvant, adjuvant and extended adjuvant treatments may reduce the number of patients with recurrence of HER2-positive breast cancer and therefore reduce the number of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

We believe that approximately 1% to 12% of all cancer patients have a mutation in HER2 kinase in the United States and that approximately 7% to 9% of all estrogen receptor positive metastatic breast cancer patients who have received prior endocrine treatment have a mutation in HER2 kinase (approximately 8,000 to 10,000 patients in the United States).

Neratinib

Neratinib is a potent irreversible TKI that blocks signal transduction through the epidermal growth factor receptors, HER1, HER2 and HER4. Based on pre-clinical studies and clinical trials to date, we believe that neratinib may offer an advantage over existing treatments that are used in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. We believe that by more potently inhibiting HER2 at a different site and acting via a mechanism different from other agents, neratinib may have therapeutic benefits in patients who have been previously treated with these existing treatments, most notably due to its irreversible inhibition of the HER2 target enzyme.

In addition, we believe neratinib has clinical application in the treatment of several other cancers as well, including other tumor types that over-express or have a mutation in HER2 or EGFR, such as breast cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer or other solid tumors.

Our initial focus is on the commercialization and development of the oral formulation of neratinib.

Table of Contents

PB272 (neratinib oral)—Early Stage Breast Cancer

Extended Adjuvant Breast Cancer

In 2017, the FDA approved NERLYNX, formally known as PB272 (neratinib (oral)), for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer following adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. In 2018, the EC granted marketing authorization for NERLYNX in the EU for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage hormone receptor positive HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer and who are less than one year from the completion of prior adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. These approvals were obtained based on the two-year data obtained in our ExteNET trial.

Two-Year ExteNET Data. In July 2014, we announced top line results from our ExteNET trial, a Phase III clinical trial of neratinib for the extended adjuvant treatment of early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. The data from this trial were presented in an oral presentation at the American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") Annual Meeting in June 2015 and were published online in The Lancet Oncology in February 2016. The ExteNET trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial of neratinib versus placebo after adjuvant treatment with Herceptin in women with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer. More specifically, the ExteNET trial enrolled 2,840 patients in 41 countries with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer who had undergone surgery and adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab. After completion of adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab, patients were randomized to receive extended adjuvant treatment with either neratinib or placebo for a period of one year. Patients were then followed for recurrent disease, ductal carcinoma in situ ("DCIS"), or death for a period of two years after randomization in the trial.

The safety results of the study showed that the most frequently observed adverse event for the neratinib-treated patients was diarrhea, with approximately 39.9% of the neratinib-treated patients experiencing grade 3 or higher diarrhea (one patient, 0.1%, had grade 4 diarrhea). Patients who received neratinib in this trial did not receive any prophylaxis with antidiarrheal agents to prevent the neratinib-related diarrhea.

The primary endpoint of the ExteNET trial was invasive disease-free survival ("DFS"). The results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 33% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.67, p = 0.009). The two-year DFS rate for the neratinib arm was 93.9% and the two-year DFS rate for the placebo arm was 91.6%. The secondary endpoint of the trial was disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ ("DFS-DCIS"). The results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 37% reduction of risk of disease recurrence including DCIS or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.63, p = 0.002). The two-year DFS-DCIS rate for the neratinib arm was 93.9% and the two-year DFS-DCIS rate for the placebo arm was 91.0%.

As an inclusion criteria for the ExteNET trial, patients needed to have tumors that were HER2-positive using local assessment. In addition, as a pre-defined subgroup in the trial, patients had centralized HER2 testing performed on their tumor as well. At the time the two-year data was compiled, centralized HER2 testing had been performed on 1,704 (60%) of the patients in the ExteNET trial and further central testing on available samples was currently ongoing. For the 1,463 patients whose tumors were HER2-positive by central confirmation, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 49% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.51, p = 0.002). The two-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 94.7% and the 2-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 90.6%. For the patients in the trial whose tumors were HER2-positive by central confirmation, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 51% reduction of risk of disease recurrence including DCIS or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.49, p < 0.001). The two-year DFS-DCIS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 94.7% and the two-year DFS rate for centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 90.2%.

For the pre-defined subgroup of patients with hormone receptor positive disease, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 49% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.51, p = 0.001). The two-year DFS rate for the neratinib arm was 95.4% and the two-year DFS rate for the placebo arm was 91.2%. For the patients in the trial whose tumors were HER2-positive by central confirmation, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 75% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death (hazard ratio = 0.25, p < 0.001). The two-year DFS rate for the centrally confirmed patients in the neratinib arm was 97.0% and the two-year DFS rate for centrally confirmed patients in the placebo arm was 88.4%.

Table of Contents

Five-Year ExteNET Data. In September 2017, we presented updated data from the ExteNET trial at the European Society of Medical Oncology ("ESMO") 2017 Congress in Madrid, Spain. The data represented a predefined five-year invasive disease-free survival ("iDFS"), analysis as a follow-up to the primary two-year iDFS analysis of the Phase III ExteNet trial. The results of the trial demonstrated that after a median follow up of 5.2 years, treatment with neratinib resulted in a 27% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.73, p = 0.008). The five-year iDFS rate for the neratinib arm was 90.2% and the 5-year iDFS rate for the placebo arm was 87.7%. The secondary endpoint of the trial was invasive disease-free survival including ductal carcinoma in situ, or iDFS-DCIS. The results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 29% reduction of risk of disease recurrence, including DCIS or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.71, p = 0.004). The five-year iDFS-DCIS rate for the neratinib arm was 89.7% and the five-year iDFS-DCIS rate for the placebo arm was 86.8%.

For the pre-defined subgroup of patients with hormone receptor positive disease, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a 40% reduction of risk of invasive disease recurrence or death versus placebo (hazard ratio = 0.60, p = 0.002). The five-year iDFS rate for the neratinib arm was 91.2% and the five-year iDFS rate for the placebo arm was 86.8%. For the pre-defined subgroup of patients with hormone receptor negative disease, the results of the trial demonstrated that treatment with neratinib resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.95 (p = 0.762).

The results of the ExteNET trial showed that after two years of follow-up, for patients with hormone receptor positive, HER2-positive early stage breast cancer patients who were treated within one year after the completion of trastuzumab based adjuvant therapy, iDFS was 95.3% in the patients treated with neratinib compared with 90.8% in those receiving placebo (hazard ratio = 0.49; 95% CI: (0.30, 0.78); p=0.002).

The safety results were unchanged from the primary two-year iDFS analysis of the study that showed the most frequently observed adverse event for the neratinib-treated patients was diarrhea, with approximately 39.9% of the neratinib-treated patients experiencing grade 3 or higher diarrhea (one patient, or 0.1%, had grade 4 diarrhea). Patients who received neratinib in this trial did not receive any prophylaxis with antidiarrheal agents to prevent the neratinib-related diarrhea.

In October 2020, we announced that efficacy results of neratinib in HER2-positive, hormone receptor-positive, or HR+, early stage breast cancer, ("eBC") from the Phase III ExteNET trial were published in Clinical Breast Cancer. The manuscript presented data focusing on HR+ patients who initiated treatment within a year of completing an adjuvant trastuzumab containing treatment (HR+ /< 1 yr) and subgroups of clinical interest including patients who did not achieve a pathological complete response (no pCR) after neoadjuvant treatment and therefore were at a high risk of disease recurrence (HR+/ <1 yr, no pCR). In the HR+ /< 1 yr patient population, the absolute 5-year invasive disease-free survival benefit versus placebo was 5.1% (HR=0.58, 95% CI 0.41–0.82) and absolute 8-year overall survival benefit was 2.1%. (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.55–1.13). The 5-year cumulative incidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases was 0.7% in the neratinib arm and 2.1% in the placebo arm.

In the HR+/ <1 yr, no pCR subgroup of patients that were at a high risk of disease recurrence the absolute 5-year iDFS benefit in the neratinib arm versus placebo was 7.4% (HR=0.60; 95% CI 0.33–1.07) and the 8- year overall survival benefit was 9.1% (HR=0.47; 95% CI 0.23– 0.92).

NERLYNX is currently in the body of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network ("NCCN") breast cancer guidelines for the treatment of adjuvant HER2-positive Breast Cancer (BINV-L) under the heading Useful in Certain Circumstances, with a recommendation for considering extended adjuvant neratinib for patients with HR-positive, HER2-positive disease with a perceived high risk of recurrence.

CONTROL. In February 2015, we initiated the CONTROL trial which is an international, open-label, Phase II study investigating the use of antidiarrheal prophylaxis or dose escalation in the prevention and reduction of neratinib-associated diarrhea and, more specifically, grade 3 diarrhea. In the CONTROL trial, patients with HER2-positive early stage breast cancer who had completed trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy received neratinib daily for a period of one year.

In December 2019 and December 2020, interim results from the CONTROL trial were presented at the 2019 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, and the 2020 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, respectively, and in December 2021, final results from the CONTROL trial were presented at the CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Final results showed the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 137 patients who received the loperamide prophylaxis was 31%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 64 patients who received the combination of loperamide plus budesonide was 28%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 136 patients who received the combination of loperamide plus colestipol was 21%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 104 patients who received colestipol alone with loperamide as needed was 33%, the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 60 patients who used the dose escalation 1 regimen (DE 1) was 13%, and the incidence of grade 3 diarrhea for the 62 patients who used dose escalation regimen 2 (DE 2) was 27%. Further information is provided in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Incidence of Treatment-Emergent Diarrhea

Colestipol + Neratinib Neratinib Dose

Loperamide Dose Escalation

Loperamide Budesonide Colestipol Loperamide PRN Escalation Scheme 2

Patient incidence of diarrhea by worst grade - n (%)

Hospitalization (due to diarrhea) 2 (1) 0 0 0 0 0

Table of Contents

Adoption of neratinib dose escalation at the initiation of treatment, particularly the 2-week DE schedule ("DE1"), most markedly reduced the incidence, severity, and duration of neratinib-associated grade 3 diarrhea in CONTROL compared to other treatment cohorts. Both DE strategies showed a lower incidence of grade 3 diarrhea (DE1 13%; DE2 27%) compared with that observed in the ExteNET trial (historical control: 39.8%). No grade 4 diarrhea was reported in any cohort. The median cumulative duration of grade 3 diarrhea ranged from 2 – 2.5 days across the CONTROL DE study cohorts for the entire 12-month treatment period (compared with 5.0 days for ExteNET). The proportion of patients discontinuing neratinib because of diarrhea was decreased both DE cohorts (DE1 3%; DE2 6%) compared with ExteNET (17%). The adoption of neratinib DE + loperamide PRN during the first 2 weeks of treatment (DE1 cohort) was associated with the lowest rate of grade 3 diarrhea during the trial compared with all other anti-diarrheal strategies investigated in CONTROL. These final findings from the CONTROL study showed improved tolerability of neratinib with all diarrhea prophylaxis strategies and suggest that neratinib DE1 with loperamide PRN may allow patients to stay on treatment longer and receive the full benefit of neratinib therapy.

This study is complete, and the results have been submitted to multiple global Health Authorities to support the addition of a dose escalation regimen to approved package inserts. As of December 31, 2021, label changes to incorporate dose escalation had been approved in the US, Canada and Australia.

PB272 (neratinib, oral)—Metastatic Breast Cancer

On February 25, 2020, the FDA approved our supplemental New Drug Application ("NDA") for the use of neratinib in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of adult patients with advanced or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer who have received two or more prior anti-HER2-based regimens in the metastatic setting. This approval was based on the results from our NALA trial.

Trials of Neratinib as a Single Agent. In 2009, Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer") presented data at the CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium from a Phase II trial of neratinib administered as a single agent to patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Final results from this trial were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in March 2010.

The trial involved a total of 136 patients, 66 of whom had received prior treatment with trastuzumab and 70 of whom had not received prior treatment with trastuzumab. The results of the study showed that neratinib was reasonably well-tolerated among both the pretreated patients and the patients who had not received prior treatment with trastuzumab. Diarrhea was the most common side effect but was manageable with antidiarrheal agents and dose modification. Efficacy results from the trial showed that the objective response rate was 24% for patients who had received prior trastuzumab treatment and 56% for patients with no prior trastuzumab treatment. Furthermore, the median PFS was 22.3 weeks for the patients who had received prior trastuzumab and 39.6 weeks for the patients who had not received prior trastuzumab.

Data from a second Phase II study, in which patients with confirmed HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had failed treatment with trastuzumab and taxane chemotherapy were given neratinib in combination with capecitabine, was presented at the 2011 CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. The results of the study showed that the combination of PB272 and capecitabine had acceptable tolerability. The efficacy results from the trial showed that for the 61 patients in the trial who had not been previously treated with the HER2 targeted anti-cancer drug lapatinib, there was an overall response rate of 64% and a clinical benefit rate of 72%. In addition, for the seven patients in the trial who had previously been treated with lapatinib, there was an overall response rate of 57% and a clinical benefit rate of 71%. The median PFS for patients who had not received prior treatment with lapatinib was 40.3 weeks and the median PFS for the patients who had received prior lapatinib treatment was 35.9 weeks.

Table of Contents

NALA. In February 2013, we reached agreement with the FDA under a Special Protocol Assessment ("SPA") for our Phase III clinical trial (PUMA-NER-1301 or the NALA trial) of neratinib in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have failed two or more prior treatments (third-line disease). An SPA is a written agreement between the trial’s sponsor and the FDA regarding the design, endpoints, and planned statistical analysis of the Phase III trial with respect to the effectiveness of PB272 for the indication to be studied to support a New Drug Application ("NDA"). The European Medicines Agency ("EMA") also provided follow-on Scientific Advice ("SA") consistent with that of the FDA regarding our Phase III trial design and endpoints used for such design to support the submission of an marketing authorization application ("MAA") in the EU.

Pursuant to the SPA and SA, the Phase III NALA trial was designed as a randomized controlled trial of neratinib plus capecitabine versus Tykerb® (lapatinib) plus capecitabine in patients with third-line HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. The trial enrolled 621 patients who were randomized (1:1) to receive either neratinib plus capecitabine or lapatinib plus capecitabine. The trial was conducted globally at sites in North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific and South America. The co-primary endpoints of the trial were centrally confirmed PFS and overall survival, or OS. An alpha level of 1% was allocated to the PFS and 4% allocated to OS.

In June 2019, we announced that results from the Phase III NALA trial were presented at the ASCO 2019 Annual Meeting in Chicago. For the primary analysis of centrally confirmed PFS, treatment with neratinib plus capecitabine resulted in a statistically significant improvement in centrally confirmed PFS (hazard ratio=0.76, p=0.0059) compared to treatment with lapatinib plus capecitabine. Because the hazard ratio was found to not be constant over time (i.e., the proportional hazard assumption did not hold), the statistical analysis plan for the NALA trial prespecified that a restricted means survival analysis at 24 months would be performed. In this prespecified analysis the mean PFS for the patients treated with neratinib plus capecitabine was 8.8 months and the mean PFS for the patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine was 6.6 months.

For the primary analyses of OS, neratinib plus capecitabine resulted in an improvement in OS that, although not statistically significant, trended numerically in favor of the neratinib plus capecitabine arm of the study (hazard ratio = 0.88, p=0.21). The median OS for the patients treated with neratinib plus capecitabine was 21.0 months and the median OS for the patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine was 18.7 months. In the prespecified restricted means analysis the mean OS at 48 months for the patients treated with neratinib plus capecitabine was 24.0 months and the mean OS for the patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine was 22.2 months.

For the secondary endpoint of time to intervention for symptomatic central nervous system disease (also referred to as brain metastases), the results of the trial showed that treatment with neratinib plus capecitabine led to an improvement over the combination of lapatinib plus capecitabine. The overall cumulative incidence of CNS metastases was 22.8% for the neratinib plus capecitabine arm and 29.2% for the lapatinib plus capecitabine arm (p=0.043). For the secondary endpoint of duration of response, neratinib plus capecitabine treatment resulted in a longer duration of response compared to lapatinib and capecitabine treatment, with a median response of 8.54 months compared to a median response of 5.55 months (HR = 0.495, p = 0.0004).

Treatment-emergent adverse events ("TEAEs") were similar between arms: TEAEs leading to neratinib/lapatinib discontinuation were lower with neratinib (10.9%) than with lapatinib (14.5%). There was a higher rate of grade 3 diarrhea with neratinib plus capecitabine compared to lapatinib plus capecitabine (24.4% vs 12.5%); however, the discontinuations due to diarrhea (neratinib plus capecitabine: 2.6%, lapatinib plus capecitabine: 2.3%) were similar in both arms.

In the NCCN Breast guidelines for HER2 positive unresectable or Stage IV (M1) disease, neratinib + capecitabine is currently listed as a treatment option for the third line and beyond setting (BINV-Q).

Metastatic Breast Cancer with Brain Metastases

Approximately one-half of the patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer develop metastases that spread to their brain. The current antibody-based treatments, including trastuzumab and pertuzumab, do not enter the brain and therefore are not believed to be effective in treating these patients.

Neratinib is currently being tested in a clinical trial in collaboration with Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium referred to as TBCRC 022. The purpose of this study is to determine how well neratinib works in treating breast cancer that has spread to the brain. In this research study, the investigators are looking to see how well neratinib works to decrease the size of or stabilize breast cancer that has metastasized to the brain.

In June 2017, we presented interim data from the TBCRC 022 at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting. The multicenter Phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who have brain metastases. The trial enrolled three cohorts of patients. Patients in the second cohort (n=5) represent patients who had brain metastases which were amenable to surgery and who were administered neratinib monotherapy prior to and after surgical resection. The third cohort (target enrollment=60) enrolled two sub-groups of patients (prior lapatinib-treated and no prior lapatinib) with progressive brain metastases who were administered neratinib in combination with the chemotherapy drug capecitabine. The oral presentation reflected only the patients in the third cohort of patients without prior lapatinib exposure (cohort 3A, n=37), who all had progressive brain metastases at the time of enrollment and who received the combination of capecitabine plus neratinib.

Table of Contents

In cohort 3A, 30% of the patients had received prior craniotomy, 65% of the patients had received prior whole brain radiotherapy, and 35% had received prior stereotactic radiosurgery to the brain. No patients had received prior treatment with lapatinib.

The primary endpoint of the trial was CNS Objective Response Rate according to a composite criteria that included volumetric brain MRI measurements, steroid use, neurological signs and symptoms, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors ("RECIST") evaluation for non-CNS sites. The secondary endpoint of the trial was CNS response by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Brain Metastases, or RANO-BM, criteria. The efficacy results from the trial showed that 49% of patients experienced a CNS Objective Response by the composite criteria. The results also showed that the CNS response rate using the RANO-BM criteria was 24%. The median time to CNS progression was 5.5 months and the median overall survival was 13.5 months, though 49% of patients remain alive and survival data are immature.

The results for cohort 3A showed that the most frequently observed severe adverse event for the 37 patients evaluable for safety was diarrhea. Patients received antidiarrheal prophylaxis consisting of high dose loperamide, given together with the combination of capecitabine plus neratinib for the first cycle of treatment in order to try to reduce the neratinib-related diarrhea. Among the 37 patients evaluable for safety, 32% of the patients had grade 3 diarrhea and 41% had grade 2 diarrhea.

The TBCRC 022 trial is currently enrolling patients in an arm of the study that is administering neratinib 160 mg daily in combination with the drug ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1, Kadcyla) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer that has metastasized to the brain. Data from this trial is expected in 2022.

In April 2018, we announced that NERLYNX has been included as a recommended treatment option in the latest NCCN, Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Central Nervous System Cancers for Breast Cancer patients with brain metastases. The NCCN designated NERLYNX in combination with capecitabine as a category 2B treatment option and NERLYNX in combination with paclitaxel as a category 2B treatment option. Use, as designated for breast cancer patients with brain metastases, is outside the FDA-approved indication for NERLYNX and considered investigational, and we do not market or promote NERLYNX for these uses.

PB272 (neratinib, oral)—Other Potential Applications

HER2 Mutation-Positive Solid Tumors

Based on the results from the Cancer Genome Atlas Study, we estimate that between 1% and 12% of each solid tumor has a mutation in HER2.

SUMMIT -- Basket Trial for HER2 Mutation-Positive Solid Tumors. In October 2013, we announced that we had initiated a Phase II clinical trial of neratinib as a single agent in patients with solid tumors that have an activating HER2 mutation, which we refer to as the SUMMIT basket trial. The Phase II SUMMIT basket trial is an open-label, multicenter, multinational study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PB272 administered daily to patients who have solid tumors with activating HER mutations.

In May 2014, we expanded the first cohort from the SUMMIT basket trial. Interim results from this ongoing Phase II trial were presented at the 2017 American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting and were published in January 2018 in Nature. All patients received loperamide (16 mg per day initially) prophylactically for the first cycle of treatment in order to reduce the neratinib-related diarrhea. Included in the presentation were data on 141 patients enrolled in the neratinib monotherapy arm of the trial, including 124 patients with HER2 mutations and 17 patients with HER3 mutations. This included patients with 21 unique tumor types, with the most common being breast, lung, bladder and colorectal cancer. There were also 30 distinct HER2 and 12 distinct HER3 mutations observed among these patients, with the most frequent HER2 variants involving S310, L755, A755_G776insYVMA and V777.

The interim safety results observed in the SUMMIT study were consistent with that observed previously in metastatic patients with HER2 amplified tumors. With anti-diarrheal prophylaxis and management, diarrhea has not been a treatment-limiting side effect in SUMMIT. The interim safety results of the study showed that the most frequently observed adverse event was diarrhea. For the 141 patients enrolled in the neratinib monotherapy arm with safety data available as of March 10, 2017, 31 patients (22%) reported grade 3 diarrhea. The median duration of grade 3 diarrhea for those patients was two days. Four patients (2.8%) permanently discontinued neratinib due to diarrhea and 21 patients (14.9%) temporarily discontinued neratinib due to diarrhea and then restarted after the diarrhea subsided.

HER2-Mutated, Non-Amplified Breast Cancer

A HER2 mutation in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer was identified as part of a study performed by the Cancer Genome Atlas Network and published in Cancer Discovery in December 2012. We believe this mutation may occur in an estimated 2% of patients with breast cancer. Pre-clinical data from this publication demonstrated that neratinib was active in pre-clinical models of HER2-negative breast cancer that have this HER2 mutation and that neratinib has more anti-cancer activity than either trastuzumab or lapatinib in cells with this mutation. A Phase II trial of neratinib in HER2-negative breast cancer patients who have a HER2 mutation opened for enrollment in December 2012.

In December 2020, we announced that updated interim results from the SUMMIT basket trial in the HER2-mutant, hormone receptor positive breast cancer cohort were presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. In the HER2-mutant, hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer cohort, 51 patients received 240 mg of neratinib daily in combination with trastuzumab and fulvestrant. In this cohort, patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy in the metastatic setting (range 1-10 prior regimens) before entering the trial. 36 patients (70.6%) had received prior fulvestrant, 35 patients (68.6%) had received prior aromatase inhibitor and 4 patients (7.8%) had received prior tamoxifen. Further, 30 patients (58.8%) received prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6-inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy. Thirty-five patients (68.6%) had received prior chemotherapy.

The interim efficacy summary of the breast cohort that received neratinib in combination with trastuzumab and fulvestrant showed that for the 37 RECIST efficacy evaluable patients, 17 patients (45.9%) experienced a confirmed objective response, including one complete response (2.7%) and 16 (43.2%) partial responses, and 20 patients (54.1%) experienced clinical benefit (clinical benefit is defined as confirmed complete response or partial response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). The median duration of response was 10.9 months and the median progression-free survival was 8.3 months.

Table of Contents

The safety profile observed in patients treated with the combination of neratinib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant in the SUMMIT study was consistent with that observed previously in metastatic patients with HER2 amplified tumors. All patients received anti-diarrheal prophylaxis with loperamide alone. The interim safety results of the study showed that the most frequently observed adverse event was diarrhea. For the 51 safety evaluable patients enrolled in this cohort, 20 patients (39.2%) reported grade 3 diarrhea. The median duration of grade 3 diarrhea for those patients was 6 days. No patient permanently discontinued neratinib due to diarrhea.

In December 2021, we announced updated interim results from the SUMMIT basket trial in the HER2-mutant, hormone receptor ("HR")-positive, metastatic breast cancer cohort and a separate cohort of patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. In the HER2-mutant, HR-positive, metastatic breast cancer cohort, patients who have previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors were previously enrolled in a non-randomized cohort and received 240 mg of neratinib per day in combination with fulvestrant and trastuzumab. In the HER2-mutant, TNBC cohort, patients received 240 mg of neratinib per day in combination with trastuzumab. All patients received anti-diarrheal prophylaxis with loperamide alone for the first two treatment cycles.

Following our discussion with the FDA, the SUMMIT trial had been amended to randomize HR-positive, HER2-mutant metastatic breast cancer patients to receive either: (i) the combination of neratinib (N), trastuzumab (T) and fulvestrant (F), (ii) the combination of fulvestrant and trastuzumab, or (iii) fulvestrant alone. Once randomized, patients received either neratinib plus fulvestrant plus trastuzumab, fulvestrant plus trastuzumab, or fulvestrant in 1:1:1 ratio. All patients received anti-diarrheal prophylaxis with loperamide alone for the first two treatment cycles.

In the non-randomized cohort, for the 26 patients with HR-positive, HER2-mutated MBC who had previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors, the efficacy results showed that, as of a cutoff date of September 10, 2021, for the patients who received neratinib plus fulvestrant plus trastuzumab, 12 patients (46.2%) experienced a confirmed objective response, all of which were partial responses, and 15 patients (57.7%) experienced clinical benefit (clinical benefit is defined as confirmed complete response or partial response, or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). The median duration of response was 14.4 months and the median progression-free survival was 8.2 months as of the cutoff date (Table 2).

For the randomized portion of the trial, for the patients with HR-positive, HER2-mutated MBC who had previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors, no patient in either the fulvestrant plus trastuzumab or fulvestrant alone arm experienced a confirmed objective response. In the 7 randomized patients who received the combination of neratinib, trastuzumab and fulvestrant, as of the cutoff date, 2 patients (28.6%) experienced a confirmed objective response, including one complete response (14.3%) and one partial response (14.3%), and 2 patients (28.6%) experienced clinical benefit as of the cutoff date. The median duration of response was not reached and the median progression-free survival was 6.2 months as of the cutoff date (Table 2).

For all 33 patients with HR-positive, HER2-mutated MBC, who had previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors, who received the combination of neratinib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant, the efficacy results showed, as of the cutoff date, that 14 patients (42.4%) experienced a confirmed objective response, including one complete response (3.0%) and 13 partial responses (39.4%), and 17 patients (51.5%) experienced clinical benefit. The median duration of response was 14.4 months and the median progression-free survival was 7.0 months as of the cutoff date (Table 2).

Following review by the Independent Data monitoring committee, the fulvestrant plus trastuzumab and fulvestrant only arms were closed to enrolment and additional patients enrolled to receive the combination of neratinib, trastuzumab and fulvestrant to further evaluate the efficacy of the combination. Enrolment in this cohort is now complete and no additional patients are being enrolled.

Table 2: Efficacy findings from HR+ MBC patients

Non-randomized Randomized Randomized Randomized All N+F+T

(N+F+T, n=26) (N+F+T, n=7) (F+T, n=7) (F, n=7) (N+F+T, n=33)

Best overall response

Median DORb, months (95% CI) 14.4 (6.4–NE) NE NE NE 14.4 (6.4–NE)

b Kaplan-Meier analysis

Based on the results from the randomized portion of the trial, for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-mutant metastatic breast cancer, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended closing enrollment to the fulvestrant plus trastuzumab and fulvestrant alone arms of the trial and recommended continuing enrollment in the neratinib plus trastuzumab plus fulvestrant arm of the trial. As of the cutoff date, the Company has enrolled 19 additional patients in this triplet arm of the trial.

For the 18 patients with HER2-mutant TNBC who received fulvestrant plus trastuzumab, as of the cutoff date, 6 patients (33.3%) experienced a confirmed objective response, including one complete response (5.6%) and 5 partial responses (27.8%), and 7 patients (38.9%) experienced clinical benefit (clinical benefit is defined as confirmed complete response or partial response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). The median duration of response was not reached and the median progression-free survival was 6.2 months as of the cutoff date. (Table 3).

Table of Contents

Table 3: Efficacy findings from TBNC patients

TNBC

(N + T, n=18)

Objective response (confirmed CR/PR)a, n (%) 6 (33.3)

Best overall response

(confirmed or unconfirmed PR or CR), n (%) 7 (38.9)

Median DORb, months (95% CI) NE

Clinical benefitc, n (%) 7 (38.9)

Median PFS, months (95% CI) 6.2 (2.1-8.2)

Median duration of treatment, months (range) 4.4 (0.3-15.4)

DOR, duration of response; NE, not estimable; PFS, progression-free survival

are initially met

b Kaplan-Meier analysis

EGFR Exon 18 Mutated Non Small Cell Lung Cancer

Exon 18 mutations comprise approximately 5% of the EGFR mutations detected in lung cancer. Pre-clinical data have demonstrated that neratinib was active in pre-clinical models of EGFR exon 18 mutated lung cancer and neratinib was previously shown to be active in treating patients with exon 18 mutated lung cancer in a Phase II trial that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 2010.

In November 2020, we announced interim results from the ongoing SUMMIT trial of neratinib in the cohort of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer ("NSCLC") patients with EGFR exon 18 mutations who have been previously treated with an EGFR targeted TKI. In the EGFR exon 18 mutation cohort, patients with lung cancer with single or complex EGFR exon 18 mutations, who were EGFR TKI naïve or were previously exposed to EGFR TKI, were enrolled into this study and received 240 mg of neratinib daily as a single agent.

In this cohort of 11, patients had received a median of two prior lines of therapy in the metastatic setting (range 1-3 prior regimens) before entering the trial. Ten patients had been previously treated with an EGFR targeted TKI (gefitinib, erlotinib, osimertinib and/or afatinib).

The interim efficacy results from the trial showed that for the 10 evaluable patients who had been treated with a prior EGFR TKI, six patients (60%) experienced a partial response, which included four patients (40%) with a confirmed partial response. Eight patients (80%) experienced clinical benefit (clinical benefit is defined as confirmed complete response or partial response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks). The median duration of response was 7.5 months and the median progression free survival was 9.1 months. The success criteria for both the first stage and the second stage of the Simon’s 2-stage design were met and enrollment in the second stage of this cohort continues.

The safety profile observed in the subgroup of patients with EGFR exon 18 mutated NSCLC showed that for the 11 patients who received neratinib in the trial, there were no reports of grade 3 or higher diarrhea. Four patients (36%) reported grade 1 and one patient (9%) reported grade 2 diarrhea. No patients required a dose hold, dose reduction, hospitalization or permanently discontinued neratinib due to diarrhea.

This cohort is now closed to enrollment.

Clinical Testing of Our Products in Development

Each of our products in development, and likely all future drug candidates we in-license, will require extensive pre-clinical and clinical testing to determine the safety and efficacy of the product applications prior to seeking and obtaining regulatory approval. This process is expensive and time consuming. In completing these trials, we are dependent upon third-party consultants, consisting mainly of investigators and collaborators, who will conduct such trials.

Table of Contents

We and our third-party consultants conduct pre-clinical testing in accordance with Good Laboratory Practices ("GLP") and clinical testing in accordance with Good Clinical Practice standards ("GCP") which are international ethical and scientific quality standards utilized for pre-clinical and clinical testing, respectively. GCP is the standard for the design, conduct, performance, monitoring, auditing, recording, analysis and reporting of clinical trials and the FDA requires compliance with GCP regulations in the conduct of clinical trials. Additionally, our pre-clinical and clinical testing completed in the EU is conducted in accordance with applicable EU standards, such as the EU Clinical Trials Directive (Directive 2001/20/EC of April 4, 2001), and the national laws of the 27 member states of the EU, or Member States, implementing its provisions.

We have entered into, and may enter into in the future, master service agreements with CROs with respect to initiating, managing and conducting the clinical trials of our products. These contracts contain standard terms for the type of services provided that contain cancellation clauses requiring between 30 and 45 days written notice and that obligate us to pay for any services previously rendered with prepaid, unused funds being returned to us.

Competition

The development and commercialization of new products to treat cancer is highly competitive, and we face considerable competition from major pharmaceutical, biotechnology and specialty cancer companies. As a result, there are and will likely continue to be extensive research and substantial financial resources invested in the discovery and development of new cancer products. Our competitors include, but are not limited to, Genentech, Novartis, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo and Seagen. Lilly is developing their drug abemaciclib, which acts via a different mechanism than neratinib, in patients with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-positive, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer who have completed standard adjuvant HER2-targeted treatment. All of these competitors are developing their drugs for the treatment of early stage and/or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer and/or for cancers that have a HER2 mutation. We are an early commercial stage company with a limited history of operations, sales, marketing and commercial manufacturing. Many of our competitors have substantially more financial and technical resources than we do. In addition, many of our competitors have more experience than we have in pre-clinical and clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory and global commercialization. We are also competing with academic institutions, governmental agencies and private organizations that are conducting research in the field of cancer.

We anticipate that we will face intense competition if we are able to commercialize additional product candidates. We expect that our products under development and in clinical trials will address major markets within the cancer sector. Our competition will be determined in part by the potential indications for which drugs are developed and ultimately approved by regulatory authorities. Additionally, the timing of market introduction of some of our potential products or of competitors’ products may be an important competitive factor. Accordingly, the speed with which we can develop products, complete pre-clinical testing, clinical trials and approval processes, and supply commercial quantities to market are expected to be important competitive factors. We expect that competition among products approved for sale will be based on various factors, including product efficacy, safety, reliability, availability, price, reimbursement and patent position.

Sales and Marketing

We currently have a U.S. direct specialty sales force of approximately 38 sales specialists who are focused on promoting NERLYNX to oncologists. This sales force is supported by an experienced leadership team consisting of regional business leaders, as well as a commercial team of experienced professionals in marketing, access and reimbursement, managed markets, marketing research, commercial operations, and sales force planning and management. In addition, our commercial infrastructure includes capabilities in manufacturing, medical affairs, quality control, and compliance.

We launched NERLYNX in the United States in July 2017, and our focus is to establish NERLYNX as the first choice for extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer following adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy.

In 2018, the EC granted marketing authorization for NERLYNX in the EU for the extended adjuvant treatment of adult patients with early stage hormone receptor positive HER2-overexpressed/amplified breast cancer and who are less than one year from the completion of prior adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy. We plan to continue to pursue commercialization of NERLYNX in Europe and other countries outside the United States, where approved. To facilitate our international activities, we have entered into exclusive sub-license agreements with various parties to pursue regulatory approval, if necessary, and commercialize NERLYNX, if approved. We are currently party to several sub-licenses in various regions outside the United States, including Europe (excluding Russia and Ukraine), Australia, Canada, China, Southeast Asia, Israel, South Korea, and various countries and territories in Central and South America. As we expand into additional territories we will continue to evaluate whether we seek to commercialize NERLYNX in those territories directly or through additional sub-licenses.

Intellectual Property and License Agreements

We hold a worldwide exclusive license under our license agreement with Pfizer, as amended, or the Pfizer Agreement, to 21 granted U.S. patents and four pending U.S. patent applications, as well as foreign counterparts thereof, and other patent applications and patents claiming priority therefrom to develop and commercialize certain compounds, including neratinib.

Table of Contents

In the United States, we have a license to an issued patent, which is set to expire in 2030, for the composition of matter of neratinib, our lead compound. We also have a license to an issued U.S. patent for the use of neratinib in the treatment of breast cancer, which is currently set to expire in 2025, an issued patent for the use of neratinib in the extended adjuvant treatment of early stage HER2-positive breast cancer that has previously been treated with a trastuzumab containing regimen that expires in 2030, two issued patents for the use of neratinib in combination with capecitabine the later of which is set to expire in 2031 and two issued patents for the formulation of NERLYNX that are set to expire in 2030, two issued patents for the polymorphic forms of neratinib which are set to expire in 2028, one issued patent for the preparation of the polymorphic forms of neratinib which is set to expire in 2028, and three issued patents for the use of the polymorphic forms of neratinib in the treatment of breast cancer which are set to expire in 2028. In jurisdictions which permit such, we will seek patent term extensions where possible for certain of our patents (discussed further below, including in “Government Regulation”). We plan to pursue additional patents in and outside the United States from the four pending U.S. patent applications noted above and the 67 pending foreign patent applications, respectively, covering neratinib composition, formulations, and combinations and uses thereof, and additional therapeutic uses of neratinib. In addition, we will pursue patent protection for any new discoveries or inventions made in the course of our development of neratinib.

In the United States, marketing approval for neratinib was obtained on July 17, 2017, which provided five years of regulatory exclusivity. Marketing approval in the United States for neratinib in combination with capecitabine was obtained on February 25, 2020, which provided three years of regulatory exclusivity. Requests for patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act have been filed for two patents in the United States: U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865 and U.S. Patent No. 9,211,291. We elected to apply patent term extension to U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has determined that U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865 is eligible for five years of patent term extension. Once extended, U.S. Patent No. 7,399,865 will expire December 29, 2030. See “Government Regulation” below. If we obtain marketing approval in the United States for new uses or combinations therapies for neratinib, we may be eligible for additional periods of regulatory exclusivity, such as three-year market exclusivity covering the new use. If we obtain market approval for neratinib or other drug candidates or in certain jurisdictions outside the United States, we may be eligible for regulatory protection, such as, eight to eleven years of data and marketing exclusivity potentially are available for new drugs in the EU; up to five years of patent extension are potentially available in Europe (Supplemental Protection Certificate), and eight years of data exclusivity are potentially available in Japan. In Europe, marketing approval for neratinib was obtained on August 31, 2018, which provided 10 years of regulatory exclusivity. Between 2019 and 2020, marketing approval for neratinib was obtained in Argentina, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. Where available and eligible, regulatory or data exclusivity has been obtained, or is currently being pursued in these jurisdictions outside the United States and Europe. Patent term extension or supplemental protection certificate are being, or will be, pursued in jurisdictions where available and eligible, including Chile, Europe and Taiwan. Current market approved jurisdictions where patent term extensions or supplemental protection certificates are not available, not eligible, or not pursued, include Argentina, Brunei, Canada, China, Ecuador, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia and Singapore. There can be no assurance that we will qualify for any such regulatory exclusivity, or that any such exclusivity will prevent competitors from seeking approval solely on the basis of their own studies. See “Government Regulation” below.

On November 28, 2011, a Boehringer Ingelheim entity filed an opposition to European Patent No. EP1848414, which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which included specific claims to a pharmaceutical composition for use in treating cancer in a subject with a cancer having a mutation in epidermal growth factor receptor with a T790M mutation. Oral proceedings were held before the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office in Munich, Germany on February 4, 2014. The decision of the Opposition Division was to uphold the granted claims of the European patent that relate to the T790M mutation without any modification. This included specific claims to a pharmaceutical composition comprising an irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor for use in treating cancer in a subject having a T790M mutation, and claims for the pharmaceutical composition for use in the treatment of numerous cancers, including lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. Both parties appealed this decision. The opposition was rejected as inadmissible by the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office on December 1, 2020, and the EP1848414 patent was upheld as originally granted. We have filed Supplemental Protection Certificate applications in the countries the EP1848414 patent was validated. Of these applications, five have been granted, and the remaining are in active prosecution.

An Opposition was filed by Hexal AG ("Hexal") on August 3, 2016 against European Patent No. EP2416774 which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims neratinib for use in a method for treating HER-2/neu overexpressed/amplified cancer and improving IDFS, wherein the method comprises delivering neratinib therapy to HER-2/neu overexpressed/amplified cancer patients following the completion of at least one year of trastuzumab adjuvant therapy, and wherein the neratinib therapy comprises treating the cancer patients with neratinib for at least twelve months. An oral hearing was held December 8, 2017, wherein the patent was maintained as granted. Following an appeal filed by Hexal, the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office rejected the claims as granted and all pending auxiliary requests during the oral hearing of September 2, 2021. Before issuance of a decision, we withdrew approval of the text in which the patent was granted and all pending auxiliary requests, thereby revoking the patent and concluding the appeal.

On October 4, 2017, Hexal also filed an Opposition to European Patent No. EP2326329 which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims a combination of neratinib and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof with capecitabine for use in a method of treating an Erb-2 positive metastatic breast cancer. An oral hearing was held on February 13, 2019, wherein the patent was maintained as granted. Hexal then appealed, which appeal is pending.

On May 21, 2020, Hexal also filed an Opposition to European Patent No. EP2498756, which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims, inter alia, tablet formulations of neratinib maleate comprising intragranular and extragranular components. Oral hearings have been re-scheduled for April 8, 2022 and briefings exchange between the parties are still in progress.

An Opposition was filed by Generics (UK) Ltd. ("Generics") on September 3, 2015 against European Patent No. EP2656844, which was licensed from Pfizer in 2011, and which claims, inter alia, a pharmaceutical pack containing 50 to 300 mg of neratinib and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof and vinorelbine for use in a method of treating a neoplasm. An oral hearing was held July 3, 2017, wherein the patent was maintained as granted. Generics then appealed. The appeal was dismissed by the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office on August 11, 2020, and the EP2656844 patent was upheld as originally granted.

Unipharm filed a pre-grant opposition to Israeli Patent Application No. IL210616 on January 31, 2016. This application was licensed from Pfizer in 2011. An oral hearing was held in Jerusalem before the Israeli Patent Office on January 22, 2018. The patent was granted by the Israeli Patent Office upon filing of amendments to the claims. No opposition to the patent has been filed within the allowed opposition period. The granted claims are directed to use of a combination of neratinib and capecitabine in the manufacture of a medicament for treating a neoplasm.

Table of Contents

Our goal is to obtain, maintain and enforce patent protection for our products, formulations, processes, methods and other proprietary technologies, preserve our trade secrets, and operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of other parties, both in the United States and in other countries. Our policy is to actively seek to obtain, where appropriate, the broadest intellectual property protection possible for our current product candidates and any future product candidates, proprietary information and proprietary technology through a combination of contractual arrangements and patents, both in the United States and abroad. However, even patent protection may not always provide us with complete protection against competitors who seek to circumvent our patents. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property—Our proprietary rights may not adequately protect our intellectual property and potential products, and if we cannot obtain adequate protection of our intellectual property and potential products, we may not be able to successfully market our potential products.”

We depend upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our scientific and technical personnel, as well as that of our advisors, consultants and other contractors, none of which is patentable. To help protect our proprietary know-how, which is not patentable, and inventions for which patents may be difficult to obtain or enforce, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our interests. To this end, we require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and other contractors to enter into confidentiality agreements that prohibit the disclosure of confidential information and, where applicable, require disclosure and assignment to us of the ideas, developments, discoveries and inventions important to our business.

In-License Agreement

We license the worldwide exclusive rights for the development, manufacture and commercialization of neratinib (oral), neratinib (intravenous), PB357, and certain related compounds from Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer. Under the Pfizer agreement, Pfizer was obligated to transfer to us certain information, records, regulatory filings, materials and inventory controlled by Pfizer and relating to or useful for developing these compounds and to continue to conduct certain ongoing clinical studies until a certain time. After that time, we were obligated to continue such studies pursuant to an approved development plan, including after the license agreement terminates for reasons unrelated to Pfizer’s breach of the license agreement, subject to certain specified exceptions. We were also obligated to commence a new clinical trial for a product containing one of these compounds within a specified period of time and use commercially reasonable efforts to complete such trial and achieve certain milestones as provided in a development plan. If certain of our out-of-pocket costs in completing such studies exceed a mutually agreed amount, Pfizer was obligated to pay for certain additional out-of-pocket costs to complete such studies. We must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize products containing these compounds in specified major-market countries and other countries in which we believe it is commercially reasonable to develop and commercialize such products. In July 2021, we entered into a confirmatory agreement with Pfizer and Wyeth LLC, or Wyeth, confirming that the rights granted to us by Pfizer under the Pfizer Agreement included Wyeth's rights in neratinib (oral), neratinib (intravenous), PB357, and certain related compounds.

As consideration for the license, we are required to make payments totaling $187.5 million upon the achievements of certain milestones if all such milestones are achieved. FDA approval of NERLYNX in July 2017 triggered a one-time milestone payment. In June 2020, we entered into a letter agreement ("Letter Agreement") with Pfizer relating to the method of payment associated with a one-time milestone payment under the Pfizer Agreement. The Letter Agreement permits us to make the milestone payment in installments with portions of the amount payable to Pfizer (including interest) made in June and November 2020 for approximately $20.6 million in the aggregate and the remaining portion to be made in September 2021 for approximately $21.9 million. Unpaid portions of the milestone payment will accrue interest at 6.25% per annum until paid. The installment payments and accrued interest are included in accrued in-licensed rights on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

The Pfizer Agreement originally stipulated that should we commercialize any of the compounds licensed from Pfizer or any products containing any of these compounds, we will be obligated to pay to Pfizer incremental annual royalties between approximately 10% and 20% of net sales of all such products, subject, in some circumstances, to certain reductions.

In July 2014, we signed an amendment to the Pfizer Agreement that, among other things reduced the annual royalties to be paid on net sales of licensed products from a tiered royalty rate structure ranging between 10% to 20% to a fixed rate in the low to mid-teens.

Our royalty obligation continues, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, until the later of (i) the last to expire valid claim of a licensed patent covering the applicable licensed product in such country, or (ii) the earlier of generic competition for such licensed product reaching a certain level of sales in such country or expiration of a certain time period after first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. We can terminate the Pfizer Agreement at will at any time or for safety concerns, in each case upon specified advance notice. Each party may terminate the Pfizer Agreement if the other party fails to cure any breach of a material obligation by such other party within a specified time period. Pfizer may terminate the Pfizer agreement in the event of our bankruptcy, receivership, insolvency or similar proceeding. The Pfizer agreement contains other customary clauses and terms as are common in similar agreements in the industry.

Table of Contents

Sub-License Agreements

Specialised Therapeutics Agreement

On November 20, 2017, we entered into a sub-license agreement, or the Specialised Therapeutics Agreement, with Specialised Therapeutics Asia Pte Ltd. ("STA"). Pursuant to the Specialised Therapeutics Agreement, we granted to STA, under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive, sublicensable (under certain circumstances) license to commercialize any pharmaceutical product containing neratinib in finished form for the extended adjuvant treatment of patients with early stage HER2-positive breast cancer and HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vietnam, or the STA Territory.

The Specialised Therapeutics Agreement sets forth the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the development, commercialization, and supply of the licensed product. Within the STA Territory, STA will be generally responsible for regulatory and commercialization activities, and we will be solely responsible for the manufacturing and supply of the licensed product under a supply agreement entered into between the parties.

Pursuant to the Specialised Therapeutics Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory milestone payments. In addition, we will receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products throughout the STA Territory.

The term of the Specialised Therapeutics Agreement continues, on a country-by-country basis, until the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last patent covering the licensed product or (ii) the earlier of (a) the date upon which sales of generic versions of licensed product reach a specified level in such country, or (b) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of the licensed product in such country. The Specialised Therapeutics Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a customary cure period, or if the other party is insolvent. The Specialised Therapeutics Agreement will also terminate upon the termination of the supply agreement for licensed products between the parties.

Medison Agreement:

During the first quarter of 2018, we entered into a sub-license agreement, or the Medison Agreement, with Medison Pharma Ltd., or Medison. Pursuant to the Medison Agreement, we granted to Medison, under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive license to commercialize neratinib and certain related compounds and participate in the named patient supply in Israel, or the Medison Territory, subject to the terms of the Medison Agreement and the related supply agreement. Pursuant to the Medison Agreement, we will potentially receive milestone payments due to us upon successful completion of certain separate, distinct performance obligations. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products in the Medison Territory.

Pint Agreement

On March 30, 2018, we entered into a sub-license agreement, or the Pint Agreement, with Pint Pharma International SA, or Pint. Pursuant to the Pint Agreement, we granted to Pint, under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive, sublicensable (under certain circumstances) license to develop and commercialize any product containing neratinib and certain related compounds in Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela, French Guiana, the Falkland Islands, and Mexico, or the Pint Territory.

Table of Contents

The Pint Agreement sets forth the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the development, commercialization, and supply of the licensed product. Pint will, at its expense, develop the licensed product for the purpose of obtaining regulatory approval in the Pint Territory, subject to our consent to conduct such development activities and approval of certain aspects of clinical studies conducted by Pint. Within the Pint Territory, Pint will also be responsible for regulatory and commercialization activities. We will be solely responsible for the manufacturing and supply of the licensed product under a supply agreement that will be entered into between the parties, subject to certain exceptions therein.

Pursuant to the Pint Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory and sales-based milestone payments. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products throughout the Pint Territory.

The term of the Pint Agreement continues, on a country-by-country basis, until the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last licensed patent covering the licensed product in such country, or (ii) the earlier of (a) the date upon which sales of generic versions of licensed product reach a specified level in such country, or (b) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of the licensed product in such country. The Pint Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a customary cure period, or if the other party is insolvent. Pint may also terminate the Pint Agreement at will, for certain safety concerns.

Knight Agreement

On January 9, 2019, we entered into a sub-license agreement, or the Knight Agreement, with Knight Therapeutics, Inc., or Knight. Pursuant to the Knight Agreement, we granted to Knight, under certain of the our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib, an exclusive, sublicensable (under certain circumstances) license (i) to commercialize any product containing neratinib and certain related compounds in Canada, or the Knight Territory, (ii) to seek and maintain regulatory approvals for the licensed products in the Knight Territory and (iii) to manufacture the licensed products anywhere in the world solely for the development and commercialization of the licensed products in the Knight Territory for human use, subject to the terms of the Knight Agreement and a supply agreement to be negotiated and executed by the parties.

Under the terms of the Knight Agreement, we will be solely responsible for the manufacturing and supply of the licensed products to Knight, but under limited circumstances Knight may obtain the right to manufacture the licensed products under the supply agreement.

The Knight Agreement sets forth the parties’ respective obligations with respect to the commercialization of the licensed products. Within the Knight Territory, we will be solely responsible for obtaining the regulatory approval for the indication of extended adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer, or the Initial Indication, and Knight will use commercially reasonable efforts to prepare, file and manage regulatory filings for any other indications in the field of human use. Promptly after obtaining the regulatory approval for the Initial Indication in the Knight Territory, we will transfer such regulatory approval to Knight, and Knight will own and hold any regulatory approvals for the licensed products in the Knight Territory in its name.

Pursuant to the Knight Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory and commercial milestone payments. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products in the Knight Territory.

The term of the Knight Agreement continues, on a licensed product-by-licensed product basis, until the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last valid claim of the licensed patents that covers such licensed product in the Territory, or (ii) the earlier of (a) the time when generic competitors to such licensed product have achieved a specified level in such country, or (b) ten (10) years following the date of first commercial sale of such licensed product in the Territory. The Knight Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a customary cure period, or if the other party is insolvent.

Pierre Fabre Agreement

On March 29, 2019, we entered into a sub-license agreement, or the Pierre Fabre Agreement, with Pierre Fabre Medicament SAS, or Pierre Fabre. Pursuant to the Pierre Fabre Agreement, we granted to Pierre Fabre under certain of our intellectual property rights relating to neratinib an exclusive, sub-licensable (under certain circumstances) license to develop, manufacture and commercialize any pharmaceutical product containing neratinib for therapeutic and prophylactic indications for human or veterinary use in European countries excluding Russia and Ukraine, along with countries in North Africa and francophone countries of West Africa, or the Pierre Fabre Territory. On November 25, 2019, we entered into a license amendment, or the First Pierre Fabre Amendment, with Pierre Fabre to extend Pierre Fabre’s licensed territory to the Middle East, South Africa, Sudan and Turkey, or together with the Pierre Fabre Territory, the First Pierre Fabre Territory.

Table of Contents

On February 24, 2021, we resolved a dispute with our former partner CANbridge Biomed Limited and terminated our sub-license agreement. Simultaneous to the termination of this agreement, we entered into a third license amendment (the "Third Pierre Fabre Amendment") with Pierre Fabre to further extend Pierre Fabre’s licensed territory to Greater China, (the "Third Pierre Fabre Territory") which includes mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao (each a "China Region").

Pursuant to the Pierre Fabre Agreement, we received an upfront payment and will potentially receive additional regulatory and sales-based milestone payments based on regulatory and sales activities in the Licensee Territory (as such term is defined in the Third Pierre Fabre Amendment). Pursuant to the Third Pierre Fabre Amendment, we received an upfront payment of $50.0 million and will potentially receive, additional regulatory and sales-based milestone payments up to $240.0 million based solely on regulatory and sales activities in the Third Pierre Fabre Territory. In addition, we will receive double-digit royalties based on net sales of the licensed products in the Licensee Territory, on the one hand, and double-digit royalties based on net sales of the licensed products in the Third Pierre Fabre Territory, on the other hand. For the purposes of calculating royalties, sales of the licensed products in the Third Pierre Fabre Territory will be excluded from the sales of licensed products made in the Licensee Territory.

Under the terms of the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, we are obligated to supply Pierre Fabre with the licensed products in accordance with the related supply agreement. Pierre Fabre will be responsible for conducting additional clinical studies and leading regulatory activities in connection with the EMA, and Greater China.

The term of the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, continues until, on a country-by-country basis, the later of (i) the expiration or abandonment of the last licensed patent covering the licensed product in such country and (ii) the earlier of (a) the date upon which sales of generic versions of the licensed product reach a specified level in such country, or (b) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of a licensed product in such country.

The Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, may be terminated by either party, in its entirety, if the other party commits a material breach, subject to a cure period, or if the other party is insolvent, and Pierre Fabre may terminate the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, at its convenience or if there is evidence of safety issues with the licensed product. Pierre Fabre may terminate the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, on a territory-by-territory basis, by terminating only the Licensee Territory or the Third Pierre Fabre Territory, for any of the foregoing reasons. We may terminate the Pierre Fabre Agreement, as amended, on a China Region-by-China Region basis or, under certain circumstances, in the entire Third Pierre Fabre Territory if Pierre Fabre is in material violation of certain anti-corruption laws.

Bixink Agreement

During the second quarter of 2020, we entered into a sub-license agreement, or the Bixink Agreement, with Bixink Therapeutics Co., Ltd. ("Bixink"). The Bixink Agreement granted intellectual property rights and set forth the respective obligations with respect to development, commercialization and supply of NERLYNX in South Korea, or the Bixink Territory. The Bixink Agreement includes potential milestone payments due to us upon successful completion of certain performance obligations, such as achieving regulatory approvals. In addition, we are entitled to receive double-digit royalties on sales of licensed products, calculated as a percentage of net sales of licensed products throughout the Bixink Territory.

Manufacturing

We do not currently have our own manufacturing facilities. We intend to continue to use our financial resources to accelerate commercialization of NERLYNX and development of our drug candidates rather than diverting resources to establish our own manufacturing facilities. We intend to meet our pre-clinical and clinical trial manufacturing requirements by establishing relationships with third-party manufacturers and other service providers to perform these services for us. While our drug candidates were being developed by Pfizer, both the drug substance and drug product were manufactured by third-party contractors. We are currently using the same third-party contractors to manufacture, supply, store and distribute our products in clinical trials and commercial quantities.

Should any of our other drug candidates obtain marketing approval, we anticipate establishing relationships with third-party manufacturers and other service providers in connection with commercial production of our products. We have some flexibility in securing other manufacturers to produce our drug candidates; however, our alternatives may be limited due to proprietary technologies or methods used in the manufacture of some of our drug candidates.

Government Regulation

United States—FDA Process

The research, development, testing, manufacture, labeling, promotion, advertising, distribution and marketing, among other things, of drug products are extensively regulated by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") and its implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements may subject us to administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs, warning letters, fines, civil penalties, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions and/or criminal prosecution.

Table of Contents

Drug Approval Process. None of our drug product candidates may be marketed in the United States until the drug has received FDA approval. The steps required before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally include the following:

• satisfactory completion of an FDA advisory committee review, if applicable;

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. The conduct of the pre-clinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the pre-clinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. An IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the trial, such as whether human research subjects will be exposed to an unreasonable health risk. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical trials can proceed. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin.

Clinical trials involve administration of the investigational drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be provided to the FDA as part of a separate submission to the IND. Further, an IRB for each medical center proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the study protocol and informed consent information for study subjects for any clinical trial before it commences at that center, and the IRB must monitor the study until it is completed. There are also requirements governing reporting of ongoing clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries. Study subjects must sign an informed consent form before participating in a clinical trial.

Clinical trials necessary for product approval typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. Phase I usually involves the initial introduction of the investigational drug into a limited population, typically healthy humans, to evaluate its short-term safety, dosage tolerance, metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacologic actions, and, if possible, to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. Phase II usually involves trials in a limited patient population to (i) evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage; (ii) identify possible adverse effects and safety risks; and (iii) evaluate preliminarily the efficacy of the drug for specific targeted indications. Multiple Phase II clinical trials may be conducted by the sponsor to obtain information prior to beginning larger and more expensive Phase III clinical trials. Phase III trials, commonly referred to as pivotal studies, are undertaken in an expanded patient population at multiple, geographically dispersed clinical trial centers to further evaluate clinical efficacy and test further for safety by using the drug in its final form. Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase IV studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase IV clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

Furthermore, the sponsor, the FDA or an IRB may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, such as in the circumstances where the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

Table of Contents

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

A sponsor may request an SPA to reach an agreement with the FDA that the protocol design, clinical endpoints, and statistical analyses are acceptable to support regulatory approval of the product candidate with respect to effectiveness in the indication studied. If such an agreement is reached, it will be documented and made part of the administrative record, and it will be binding on the FDA except in limited circumstances, such as if the FDA identifies a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the product after clinical studies begin, if the relevant data, assumptions, or information provided by the sponsor in a request for SPA change are found to be false statements or misstatements or omit relevant facts, or if the sponsor fails to follow the protocol that was agreed upon with the FDA. A documented SPA may be modified, and such modification will be deemed binding on the FDA review division, except under the circumstances described above, if FDA and the sponsor agree in writing to modify the protocol and such modification is intended to improve the study. There is no guarantee that a study will ultimately be adequate to support an approval, even if the study is subject to an SPA.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal safety studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the final drugs. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of pre-clinical studies and of clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture and composition of the drug, are submitted to the FDA in the form of an NDA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. An NDA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, which is waived for the first NDA submitted by a qualifying small business.

The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to a filing review before the FDA accepts it for filing and substantive review.

The FDA also may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA inspects the facility or the facilities at which the drug and/or its active pharmaceutical ingredient is manufactured and will not approve the product unless the manufacturing is in compliance with cGMPs and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter ("Complete Response Letter"). An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data and/or additional clinical trial(s), and/or other significant, expensive and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, pre-clinical studies or manufacturing. Even if such additional information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

Table of Contents

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may entail limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA could approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy to mitigate risks of the drug, which could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. Once the FDA approves a drug, the FDA may withdraw product approval if ongoing regulatory requirements are not met or if safety problems occur after the product reaches the market. In addition, the FDA may require testing, including Phase IV clinical trials, and surveillance programs to monitor the safety effects of approved products that have been commercialized. The FDA has the power to prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of these post-marketing programs or other information. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Expedited Review and Approval Programs. The FDA has various programs, including fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for reviewing certain drugs and in the case of accelerated approval, provide for approval on the basis of surrogate or intermediate endpoints. Even if a drug qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Generally, drugs that may be eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs, and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

For example, fast track designation is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs designed to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and which demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for such diseases or conditions. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product candidate has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team during development. With regard to a fast track-designated product candidate, the FDA may also consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA. .

A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a fast track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. An NDA is eligible for priority review if the product candidate is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

Drug products intended for serious or life threatening conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint, which is a laboratory measurement or physical sign used as an indirect or substitute measurement representing a clinically meaningful outcome, or an effect on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to verify or characterize the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. Products receiving accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails to conduct the required clinical trials in a timely manner, or if such trials fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval.

Post-Approval Requirements. After a drug has been approved by the FDA for sale, the FDA may require that certain post-approval requirements be satisfied, including the conduct of additional clinical studies. In addition, certain changes to an approved product, such as adding new indications, making certain manufacturing changes, or making certain additional labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Before a company can market products for additional indications, it must obtain additional approvals from the FDA. Obtaining approval for a new indication generally requires that additional clinical studies be conducted. A company cannot be sure that any additional approval for new indications for any product candidate will be approved on a timely basis, or at all.

Table of Contents

If post-approval conditions are not satisfied, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug. In addition, holders of an approved NDA are required to (i) report certain adverse reactions to the FDA and maintain pharmacovigilance programs to proactively look for these adverse events; (ii) comply with certain requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling for their products; and (iii) continue to have quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMPs after approval. The FDA periodically inspects the sponsor’s records related to safety reporting and/or manufacturing facilities; this latter effort includes assessment of ongoing compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. We use third-party manufacturers to produce our products in clinical and commercial quantities, and future FDA inspections may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our contract manufacturers that may disrupt production or distribution, or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA, including, among other things:

• fines, warning letters or holds on post-approval clinical trials;

• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drugs. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Data and market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or an NDA submitted under section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the holder of the NDA for the reference drug.

The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the original active agent or from accepting and reviewing an application referencing the approved drug’s application. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct, or obtain a right of reference to all of the pre-clinical studies and clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Foreign Regulation

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

Non-clinical studies and clinical trials

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU, are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new biological substances. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of GLP as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization ("ICH") guidelines on GCP as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU countries, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

Table of Contents

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation ("CTR") which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application ("CTA") to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR. Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with GMP. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

Marketing Authorization

In the EU, medicinal product candidates can only be placed on the market after obtaining a marketing authorization ("MA"). To obtain regulatory approval of a product candidate under EU regulatory systems, we must submit a MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the member states of the EU assess the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy. MA have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed for an unlimited period on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Under the centralized procedure, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a MAA by the EMA is 210 days. In exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of a MAA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is not guaranteed. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a CHMP rapporteur before submission of a MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

Data and Marketing Exclusivity

As in the United States, it may be possible in foreign countries to obtain a period of market and/or data exclusivity that would have the effect of postponing the entry into the marketplace of a competitor’s generic or biosimilar product.

For example, the EU provides opportunities for market exclusivity. Upon receiving MA, reference medicinal products generally receive 8 years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity period begins on the date of the product’s first MA in the EU and prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of 8 years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first 8 years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

Table of Contents

In Japan, our products may be eligible for eight years of data exclusivity. There can be no assurance that we will qualify for such regulatory exclusivity, or that such exclusivity will prevent competitors from seeking approval solely on the basis of their own studies.

Post-Approval Requirements

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the member states. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports ("PSURs").

All new MAA must include a risk management plan ("RMP"), describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

The advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.

Failure to comply with the aforementioned EU and member state laws may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials, or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the MA, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area ("EEA") which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

For other countries outside of the EU, UK and the United States, the requirements governing product development, the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing, distribution, marketing approval, advertising and promotion, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Additionally, to the extent that any of our product candidates, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and internationally, sales of NERLYNX and any other products that we market in the future, and our ability to generate revenues on such sales, are dependent, in significant part, on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, such as state and federal governments, managed care providers and private insurance plans. Private insurers, such as health maintenance organizations and managed care providers, have implemented cost-cutting and reimbursement initiatives and likely will continue to do so in the future. These include establishing formularies that govern the drugs and biologics that will be offered and the out-of-pocket obligations of member patients for such products. We may need to conduct pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products for formulary coverage and reimbursement. Even with such studies, our products may be considered less safe, less effective or less cost-effective than existing or future products, and third-party payors may not provide coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates, in whole or in part.

In addition, particularly in the United States and increasingly in other countries, we are required to provide discounts and pay rebates to state and federal governments and agencies in connection with purchases of our products that are reimbursed by such entities. It is possible that future legislation in the United States and other jurisdictions could be enacted to potentially impact reimbursement rates for the products we are developing and may develop in the future and could further impact the levels of discounts and rebates paid to federal and state government entities. Any legislation that impacts these areas could impact, in a significant way, our ability to generate revenues from sales of products that, if successfully developed, we bring to market.

Political, economic and regulatory influences are subjecting the healthcare industry in the United States to fundamental changes. There have been, and we expect there will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could significantly affect our future business. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA, enacted in March 2010, substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among other cost containment measures, ACA established:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA.

Table of Contents

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through July 1, 2022 (with a 1% payment reduction from April 1 to June 30, 2022), unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, beginning January 1, 2024.

The cost of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States has also been the subject of considerable discussion. There have been several Congressional inquiries, as well as legislative and regulatory initiatives and executive orders designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Members of Congress and the Biden Administration have indicated they will continue to pursue legislative or administrative measures to control prescription drug costs, although the likelihood of such measures being adopted remains uncertain. For example, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would introduce substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, and the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D. If the Build Back Better Act is not enacted, similar or other drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation. We cannot predict with certainty what impact any federal or state health reforms will have on us, but such changes could impose new or more stringent regulatory requirements on our activities or result in reduced reimbursement for our products, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Similar political, economic and regulatory developments are occurring in the EU and may affect the ability of pharmaceutical companies to profitably commercialize their products. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the EU or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles. The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect the ability of pharmaceutical companies to commercialize their products. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

In the future, there may continue to be additional proposals relating to the reform of the U.S. healthcare system and international healthcare systems. Future legislation, or regulatory actions implementing recent or future legislation may have a significant effect on our business. Our ability to successfully commercialize products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for the costs of our products and related treatments will be available in the United States and worldwide from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. The adoption of certain proposals could limit the prices we are able to charge for our products, the amounts of reimbursement available for our products, and limit the acceptance and availability of our products. Therefore, substantial uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved health care products by third-party payors.

Government Price Reporting

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program for low-income and disabled beneficiaries. Medicare is a federal program covering individuals age 65 and over as well as those with certain disabilities. As a condition of having federal funds being made available for our covered outpatient drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B, we have enrolled in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”), which requires us to pay a rebate to state Medicaid programs for each unit of our covered outpatient drugs dispensed to a Medicaid beneficiary and paid for by a state Medicaid program. Medicaid drug rebates are based on pricing data that we must report on a monthly and quarterly basis to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the federal agency that administers the MDRP and Medicare programs. For the MDRP, these data include the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) for each drug and, in the case of our innovator products, the best price (“BP”). If we become aware that our MDRP price reporting submission for a prior period was incorrect or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we must resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. If we fail to provide information timely or are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties and other sanctions, including termination from the MDRP.

Federal law requires that a manufacturer that participates in the MDRP also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program (the “340B program”) in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. We participate in the 340B program, which is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”), and requires us to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for our covered outpatient drugs used in an outpatient setting. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP. In general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. We must report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA publishes them to 340B covered entities. HRSA has finalized regulations regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities for 340B-eligible drugs. HRSA has also finalized an administrative dispute resolution process through which 340B covered entities may pursue claims against participating manufacturers for overcharges, and through which manufacturers may pursue claims against 340B covered entities for engaging in unlawful diversion or duplicate discounting of 340B drugs. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program, such as adding further covered entities or requiring participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

Table of Contents

In order to be eligible to have drug products paid for with federal funds under Medicaid and Medicare Part B and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we also must participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program. Under the VA/FSS program, we must report the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”) for our covered drugs to the VA and charge certain federal agencies no more than the Federal Ceiling Price, which is calculated based on Non-FAMP using a statutory formula. These four agencies are the VA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service). We must also pay rebates on products purchased by military personnel and dependents through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. If we fail to provide timely information or are found to have knowingly submitted false information, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties.

Individual states continue to consider and have enacted legislation to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs and combination products. A number of states have either implemented or are considering implementation of drug price transparency legislation. Requirements under such laws include advance notice of planned price increases, reporting price increase amounts and factors considered in taking such increases, wholesale acquisition cost information disclosure to prescribers, purchasers, and state agencies, and new product notice and reporting. Such legislation could limit the price or payment for certain drugs, and a number of states are authorized to impose civil monetary penalties or pursue other enforcement mechanisms against manufacturers who fail to comply with drug price transparency requirements, including the untimely, inaccurate, or incomplete reporting of drug pricing information.

Sales and Marketing

The FDA regulates all advertising and promotion activities for products under its jurisdiction prior to and after approval, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, dissemination of off-label information, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the Internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, we may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new or supplemental NDA, which may require us to collect additional data or conduct additional pre-clinical studies and clinical trials. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements may subject a company to adverse publicity, enforcement action by the FDA, corrective advertising, consent decrees and the full range of civil and criminal penalties available to the FDA.

Physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for uses that are not described in the drug’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Such off-label uses are common across medical specialties, and often reflect a physician’s belief that the off-label use is the best treatment for the patient. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments, but FDA regulations do impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label uses. Failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements may subject a company to adverse publicity, enforcement action by the FDA and other regulatory agencies, corrective advertising, consent decrees and the full range of civil and criminal penalties available to the FDA.

Outside the United States, our ability to market a product is contingent upon obtaining marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory authorities and similar requirements to the ones described above may apply in foreign jurisdictions. The requirements governing, among other things, marketing authorization and pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country.

Other Healthcare Laws

We are also subject to various federal, state and foreign laws pertaining to health care “fraud and abuse,” including anti-kickback laws and false claims laws, data privacy and security laws and transparency laws.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute ("AKS") prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of an item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution; however, these are drawn narrowly and require strict compliance in order to offer protection. Additionally, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, such as the federal False Claims Act ("FCA") prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented false, fictitious or fraudulent claims for payment or approval by the federal government, including federal health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim, or knowingly making a false statement to improperly avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government. Private individuals can bring “qui tam” actions under the FCA, on behalf of the government and such individuals, commonly known as “whistleblowers,” may share in amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the FCA.

The federal Civil Monetary Penalties law prohibits, among other things, offering or transferring remuneration to a federal healthcare beneficiary that a person knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary’s decision to order or receive items or services reimbursable by the government from a particular provider or supplier.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") created federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the AKS, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Table of Contents

The federal transparency requirements under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under the ACA, requires, among other things, certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies reimbursed under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to annually report to CMS information related to payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician practitioners (nurse practitioners, certified nurse anesthetists, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiology assistants and certified nurse midwives), and teaching hospitals and physician ownership and investment interests, including such ownership and investment interests held by a physician’s immediate family members.

There are also state and foreign law equivalents of each of the above federal laws, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may impose similar or more prohibitive restrictions, and may apply to items or services reimbursed by any non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. Similar restrictions are also imposed on the promotion and marketing of medicinal products in the EU and other countries. Laws (including those governing promotion, marketing and anti-kickback provisions), industry regulations and professional codes of conduct often are strictly enforced.

PBYI US Equity

PBYI · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

PBYI US Equity☆

PBYI · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

PBYI US Equity