pirs20231231_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, 2023

For the transition period from to

Commission file number: 001-37471

PIERIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor Boston, MA United States 02110

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

857-246-8998

Securities registered pursuant to Section12(b) of the Exchange Act:

Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share PIRS The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

Securities registered pursuant to Section12(g) of the Act:

None

(Title of class)

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) 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 an 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. ☐

Table of Contents

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. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant's executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to § 240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant's common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant on June 30, 2023, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, based on the closing price on that date of $0.17, was $11,222,444.

As of March 26, 2024, the registrant had 98,935,025 shares of common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain information required in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated from the Registrant’s Proxy Statement for the 2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I

Item 1. Business 1

Item 1A. Risk Factors 28

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 46

Item 1C. Cybersecurity 46

Item 2. Properties 47

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 47

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 47

PART II

Item 6. [Reserved] 48

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 59

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 59

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 59

Item 9B. Other Information 59

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 59

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 60

Item 11. Executive Compensation 60

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services 60

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 61

Table of Contents

Forward-Looking Statements

This annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, or this Annual Report on Form 10-K, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that involve risks and uncertainties, principally in the sections titled “Business,” “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” All statements other than statements of historical fact contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding future events, our ability to maximize capture of future milestones payments, our workforce reduction and related restructuring activities, our future financial and operating performance, anticipated timing and amounts of milestone and other payments under collaboration agreements, business strategy and plans, objectives of management for future operations, timing and outcome of legal and other proceedings and our ability to finance our operations are forward-looking statements. We have attempted to identify forward-looking statements by using terms such as including “anticipates,” “approach,” “believes,” “can,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “look forward,” “ongoing,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “intends,” “may,” “appears,” “suggests,” “future,” “likely,” “goal,” “plans,” “potential,” “possibly,” “projects,” “predicts,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “would” or “will” and other similar words or expressions or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. Although we do not make forward-looking statements unless we believe we have a reasonable basis for doing so, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. These statements are only predictions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors that may cause our or our industry's actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements, to differ materially. The description of our Business set forth in Item 1, the Risk Factors set forth in Item 1A and our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations set forth in Item 7 as well as other sections in this report, discuss some of the factors that could contribute to these differences. These forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements about:

• our workforce reduction and related restructuring activities;

• our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of our corporate strategy;

• the rate and degree of market acceptance of any future products;

• the success of competing drugs that are or may become available;

• regulatory developments in the United States and other countries; and

• any restrictions on our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards.

Table of Contents

Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time and it is not possible for us to predict all risk factors, nor can we address the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from our forward-looking statements due to a number of factors, including, without limitation,risks related to: our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of our strategy; our ability to achieve anticipated cost savings and capital preservation as a result of our workforce reduction and related restructuring, including implementation of any potential potential changes leadership structure; the early stage of our partnered drug candidates presently under development; our partners' continued progress, if any, in the areas of co-stimulatory bispecifics and the results of their research and development activities including uncertainties relating to the ongoing or planned clinical testing of our partnered product candidates; our potential need for substantial additional funds in order to continue our operations and the uncertainty of whether we will be able to obtain the funding we need; our ability to meet the minimum bid price requirement for our common stock for continued inclusion on the Nasdaq Capital Market or otherwise maintain the listing of our common stock on Nasdaq; the possibility that Nasdaq treats us as a public shell which may lead to delisting of our common stock on Nasdaq; our future financial performance; our ability to protect our intellectual property rights that are valuable to our business, including patent and other intellectual property rights; the success of our collaborations with third parties; our partners’ ability to meet milestones; the receipt of royalty and milestone payments provided for in our collaboration agreements; our partners' ability to successfully market and sell our drug candidates in the future as needed; the size and growth of the potential markets for any of our product candidates for which we or our partners may obtain regulatory approval,and the rate and degree of market acceptance of such product candidates; competition in our industry; regulatory developments in the United States and foreign countries, including with respect to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA; Servier's ability to advance the phase 1 study for S095012 (also known as PRS-344); Pfizer’s ability to continue to advance SGN-BB228 (also known as PRS-346) and the other drug candidates licensed to them; Boston Pharmaceuticals' ability to continue to advance BOS-342 (also known as PRS-342); the expected impact of new accounting standards; and the delays or disruptions due to geopolitical issues, including the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East on our company.

You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement, each of which applies only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Before you invest in our securities, you should be aware that the occurrence of the events described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could negatively affect our business, operating results, financial condition and stock price. All forward-looking statements included in this document are based on information available to us on the date hereof, and except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to conform our statements to actual results or changed expectations.

We have registered trademarks for Pieris®, Anticalin® and Duocalin®. All other trademarks, trade names and service marks included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Use or display by us of other parties’ trademarks, trade dress or products is not intended to and does not imply a relationship with, or endorsements or sponsorship of, us by the trademark, trade dress or product owner.

As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, unless the context indicates or otherwise requires, “our Company”, “the Company”, “Pieris”, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and its consolidated subsidiary, Pieris Pharmaceuticals GmbH (formerly known as Pieris AG), a company organized under the laws of Germany, Pieris Australia Pty Ltd., a company organized under the laws of Australia that is a consolidated subsidiary of Pieris Pharmaceuticals GmbH and Pieris Pharmaceuticals Securities Corporation, a Massachusetts securities corporation, a consolidated subsidiary of Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Effective as of August 26, 2015 and with notification from the Amtsgericht München as of September 29, 2015, Pieris AG was transformed to Pieris Pharmaceuticals GmbH as a result of a change in the legal entity.

Currency Presentation and Currency Translation

Unless otherwise indicated, all references to “dollars,” “$,” “US $” or “U.S. dollars” are to the lawful currency of the United States. All references in this Annual Report to “euro” or “€” are to the currency introduced at the start of the third stage of the European Economic and Monetary Union pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Community, as amended. We prepare our financial statements in U.S. dollars.

The functional currency for our operations is primarily the euro. With respect to our financial statements, the translation from the euro to U.S. dollars is performed for balance sheet accounts using exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date and for revenue and expense accounts using a weighted average exchange rate during the period. The resulting translation adjustments are recorded as a component of accumulated other comprehensive loss.

Where in this Annual Report we refer to amounts in euros, we have for your convenience also, in certain cases, provided a conversion of those amounts to U.S. dollars in parentheses. Where the numbers refer to a specific balance sheet account date or financial statement account period, we have used the exchange rate that was used to perform the conversions in connection with the applicable financial statement. In all other instances, unless otherwise indicated, the conversions have been made using the noon buying rate of €1.00 to U.S. $1.1038 based on Thomson Reuters as of December 31, 2023.

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. BUSINESS

Corporate History

General

Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Nevada in May 2013 under the name “Marika Inc.” Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. began operating the business of Pieris Pharmaceuticals GmbH, or Pieris GmbH, through a reverse acquisition on December 17, 2014. Pieris GmbH (formerly Pieris AG, a German company which was founded in 2001) continues as an operating subsidiary of Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is the sole stockholder of Pieris GmbH.

Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s corporate headquarters is located at 225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. The office of Pieris GmbH is located in Hallbergmoos, Germany. Pieris Australia Pty Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pieris GmbH, was formed on February 14, 2014 to conduct research and development activities in Australia. Pieris Pharmaceuticals Securities Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was formed on December 14, 2016 to buy, sell, deal in, or hold securities on its own behalf and not as a broker, and engages in its activities exclusively for investment purposes.

Business Overview

The Company is a biotechnology company that historically discovered and developed Anticalin® protein-based drugs to target validated disease pathways in unique and transformative ways. On March 27, 2024, the Company implemented measures to maximize its ability to collect potential milestones from its clinical pipeline of partnered drug candidates and maintain its capability to consider other strategic options. The Company's clinical pipeline consists of immuno-oncology, or IO, bispecifics in partnership with collaborators, including S095012 (also referred to as PRS-344) targeting PD-L1 and 4-1BB, SGN-BB228 (also referred to as PRS-346) targeting CD228 and 4-1BB, and BOS-342 (also referred to as PRS-342) targeting GPC3 and 4-1BB. Proprietary to the Company, Anticalin proteins are a novel class of therapeutics validated in the clinic and through partnerships with leading pharmaceutical companies.

Anticalin proteins are a class of low molecular-weight therapeutic proteins derived from lipocalins, which are naturally occurring proteins typically found in human blood plasma and other bodily fluids. Anticalin proteins function similarly to monoclonal antibodies by binding tightly and specifically to a diverse range of targets. An antibody is a large protein used by the immune system to recognize a target molecule, called an antigen. The Company believes Anticalin proteins possess numerous advantages over antibodies in certain applications. For example, Anticalin proteins are relatively small in size and comprised of a single polypeptide chain whereas antibodies are much bigger and comprised of four polypeptide chains. The Anticalin technology is modular, which allows us to design multimeric Anticalin based bi- and multi- specific proteins to bind with specificity to two or more targets at the same time. This multispecificity offers advantages in biological settings where binding to multiple targets can enhance the ability of a drug to achieve its desired effects, such as facilitating the killing of cancer cells.

The Company has intellectual property rights directed to various aspects of the Anticalin technology platform and Anticalin-based drug candidates. The Company believes that its ownership or exclusive license of intellectual property related to the Anticalin platform provides it with a strong intellectual property position.

The core Anticalin technology and platform were developed in Germany, and the Company has collaborations with multiple major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as follows:

Table of Contents

As part of the Company's March 27, 2024 announcement, it indicated it would implement a new strategy along with relevant cost-saving measures that are expected to extend its cash runway into at least 2027, while maximizing its ability to capture the potential milestones from its partnered 4-1BB bispecific Mabcalin protein IO assets. To support the Company's new strategy, it plans to discontinue all of its research and development efforts that it expects will be completed by the middle of 2024, implement a workforce reduction that will impact additional employees and the executive leadership team which is expected to be implemented in the second quarter of 2024, and reduce the size of its Board of Directors, which the Company also expects to have implemented in the second quarter of 2024. This decision follows the Company's strategic transaction review that began in July 2023, under which the Company, with the assistance of its strategic advisor, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, conducted a robust process to identify and assess various potential strategic transactions. The Company ultimately determined that its new strategy offers the best opportunity to maximize stockholder value, in part by allowing it to maximize its partnered 4-1BB bispecific Mabcalin protein assets, and further preserving its capability to obtain value for its products in prior development, including cinrebafusp alfa as well as proprietary platform capabilities, by pursuing potential out-licensing or sale transactions. The Company may be entitled to aggregate milestones of up to $20 million upon first patient dosed in the phase 2 trials for SGN-BB228, S095012 (formerly PRS-344) and BOS-342, which are all currently in phase 1 clinical development, and aggregated milestones of up to $55 million upon first patient dosed in pivotal clinical trials for SGN-BB228, S095012 (formerly PRS-344) and BOS-342.

Table of Contents

The Company has several 4-1BB bispecific Mabcalin IO assets in partnership with other major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

In January 2017, the Company initiated a strategic collaboration with Servier to discover and develop multiple Anticalin-based bispecific therapeutics in IO. S095012, a PD-L1/4-1BB bispecific Mabcalin compound is a clinical-stage program being developed within this alliance. The Company and Servier presented preclinical data and the phase 1/2 study design for S095012 at the American Association for Cancer Research, or AACR, medical meeting in April 2022. The first-in-human phase 1/2 multicenter open-label dose escalation study is being conducted in multiple countries and is designed to determine the safety and preliminary activity of S095012 in patients with advanced and/or metastatic solid tumors. In July 2023, the Company notified Servier that it was opting out of co-development and commercialization of S095012 in the U.S. Servier continues to advance the program. Servier retains exclusive, even as to the Company, worldwide rights to the program including the right to advance development and potential commercialization in the U.S. As a result of the election to opt out, the Company is entitled to increased royalty rates and potential royalties and milestones, if any, for S095012.

In February 2018, the Company initiated a strategic collaboration with Pfizer (formerly Seagen) to discover and develop up to three Anticalin-based tumor-targeted bispecific therapeutics in IO. The first program, SGN-BB228 (also referenced as PRS-346), a CD228/4-1BB bispecific antibody-Anticalin (i.e. MabcalinTM) compound, is currently being advanced in the clinic by Pfizer, which is responsible for further advancement and funding of the asset. In January 2023, the first patient was dosed in a Pfizer-sponsored phase 1 study of SGN-BB228, which triggered a $5.0 million payment from Pfizer to us. Pfizer presented preclinical data for this program at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer 37th Annual Meeting in November 2022 and at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting in April 2023. In June 2023, Pfizer presented the study design of the phase 1 study of SGN-BB228 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting. The Company believes the achievement of a clinical development milestone for this program offers validation our approach in IO bispecifics, complementing the encouraging clinical data seen with cinrebafusp alfa. At the end of 2023, the Company handed over the second and third programs, which were initiated in the third quarter of 2021 and fourth quarter of 2022, respectively, to Pfizer which is responsible for further advancement and funding of these assets. The Company retains a co-promotion option for one of the programs in the United States.

BOS-342 (also referenced as PRS-342) is a GPC3/4-1BB bispecific Mabcalin compound that the Company exclusively licensed to Boston Pharmaceuticals. Boston Pharmaceuticals continues to advance BOS-342 in the clinic. In August 2023, the first patient was dosed in a Boston Pharmaceuticals sponsored phase 1/2 study of BOS-342 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), for which the Company received a $2.5 million milestone payment and is entitled to receive up to approximately $350 million in potential development, regulatory and sales-based milestone payments, and tiered royalties on potential sales of BOS-342.

Formerly the lead IO Anticalin-based drug candidate in its pipeline, cinrebafusp alfa is a bispecific Mabcalin compound comprising a HER2-targeting antibody genetically linked to 4-1BB-targeting Anticalin proteins. Cinrebafusp alfa is designed to drive tumor localized T cell activation through tumor-targeted drug clustering mediated by HER2 expressed on tumor cells. This program was the first 4-1BB bispecific T cell co-stimulatory agonist to enter clinical development. In August 2022, we announced the decision to cease further enrollment in the two-arm, multicenter, open-label phase 2 study of cinrebafusp alfa as part of a strategic pipeline prioritization to focus our resources. Cinrebafusp alfa has demonstrated clinical benefit in phase 1 studies, including single agent activity in a monotherapy setting, and in the phase 2 study in HER2-expressing gastric cancer, providing evidence of clinical activity for our broader 4-1BB franchise. In April 2023, clinical data showing an unconfirmed 100% objective response rate and promising emerging durability profile were presented at the American Association of Cancer Research annual meeting. The Company continues to remain committed to obtaining value for cinrebafusp alfa either through out-licensing or sale transaction.

The Company's clinical pipeline formerly included respiratory assets as well. Elarekibep (previously known as PRS-060/AZD1402) was a clinical stage Anticalin drug candidate being developed in partnership with AstraZeneca under a license and collaboration agreement, or the AstraZeneca Collaboration Agreement, and a non-exclusive Anticalin platform technology license agreement, or AstraZeneca Platform License, and together with the AstraZeneca Collaboration Agreement, the AstraZeneca Agreements, with AstraZeneca AB, or AstraZeneca, which was entered into on May 2, 2017 and became effective on June 10, 2017, following expiration of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. Elarekibep targets IL-4Rα, a cell surface receptor expressed on immune cells in the lung. IL-4Rα is specific for the cytokine IL-4 and the closely related cytokine IL-13, both key drivers of the immune system. The Company sponsored the phase 1 single ascending dose/multiple ascending dose studies for elarekibep, after which AstraZeneca took responsibility for further clinical development of elarekibep. The phase 2a study was a two-part, multi-center, placebo-controlled clinical study of elarekibep to evaluate elarekibep at three dose levels, 1, 3 and 10 mg, using a dry powder formulation administered via inhalation twice daily.

On June 21, 2023, the Company issued a press release announcing that AstraZeneca had communicated to the Company its decision to discontinue and cease dosing in the ongoing clinical studies of elarekibep. This decision was based on lung findings from a non-clinical 13-week GLP toxicology study in non-human primates with dry powder inhaler-formulated elarekibep, which did not support long-term use and progression to later-stage development. AstraZeneca’s decision was made independent of any data from the phase 2a study. On July 17, 2023, AstraZeneca notified the Company of its intention to terminate the AstraZeneca Agreements, effective October 15, 2023. AstraZeneca’s decision to terminate the AstraZeneca Agreements was based on non-clinical safety findings in a 13-week toxicology study of elarekibep in non-human primates previously disclosed by the Company. With the termination of the AstraZeneca Agreements, there are no more active programs or performance obligations related to the collaboration. Following the Company's review of the data, the Company determined that it would not continue to advance the program for scientific reasons.

The Company's fully proprietary respiratory asset, PRS-220, an orally inhaled Anticalin protein targeting connective tissue growth factor, or CTGF, was being developed as a local treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, or IPF, and other fibrotic lung diseases. In August 2023, the Company completed a phase 1 healthy volunteer study in of PRS-220 in healthy volunteers in Australia, which was a randomized, two-part, blinded, placebo-controlled study, designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of single and multiple ascending doses of PRS-220 when administered by oral inhalation to healthy subjects. CTGF, a matricellular protein, is a driver of fibrotic tissue remodeling and the protein has been found over-expressed in lung tissue from patients suffering from IPF. Data from the single and multiple ascending doses of PRS-220, when administered by oral inhalation to healthy subjects, demonstrated that PRS-220 was safe and generally well tolerated at all administered doses by subjects in this study. With the completion of the phase 1 healthy volunteer study, the Company intends to winddown PRS-220 and does not plan to continue to advance the program for scientific reasons.

Table of Contents

Strategy

On March 27, 2024, we announced the implementation of a new strategy along with relevant cost-saving measures that are expected to extend our cash runway into at least 2027, while maximizing our ability to capture the potential milestones from our partnered 4-1BB bispecific Mabcalin protein IO assets. We may be entitled to aggregate milestones of up to $20 million upon first patient dosed in the phase 2 trials for SGN-BB228, S095012 and BOS-342, which are all currently in phase 1 clinical development, and aggregated milestones of up to $55 million upon first patient dosed in pivotal clinical trials for SGN-BB228, S095012 and BOS-342. To support the new strategy, we plan to discontinue all of our research and development efforts which we expect will be completed by the middle of 2024, implement a workforce reduction that will impact additional employees and the executive leadership team that is expected to be implemented in the second quarter of 2024, and reduce the size of our Board of Directors, which we also expect to have implemented in the second quarter of 2024. In addition to the alliance management activities for our partnered programs, we remain committed to obtaining value for our products in prior development, including cinrebafusp alfa as well as our proprietary platform capabilities, by pursuing potential out-licensing or sales transactions. In addition to these potential transactions, we may also, from time-to-time, consider strategic opportunities that we believe may increase stockholder value.

Anticalin Platform Technology

Our platform technology focuses on low molecular-weight Anticalin proteins that can bind tightly and specifically to a diverse range of targets. Anticalin proteins are derived from human proteins called lipocalins, which are naturally occurring low-molecular weight human proteins of approximately 17 to 21 kDa molecular mass typically found in blood plasma and other bodily fluids. The lipocalin class of proteins defines a group of specific extracellular binding proteins that, collectively, exhibit extremely high structural homology, yet have a low amino acid sequence identity (less than 20%), making them attractive “templates” for amino acid diversification. Lipocalins naturally bind to, store and transport a wide spectrum of molecules. The defining attributes of the human lipocalin class and, by extension, Anticalin proteins, engineered from the lipocalin class of proteins, are a rigidly conserved beta-barrel backbone with four flexible loops, which, together, form a cup-like binding pocket.

The graphic below shows the tear lipocalin (left) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, or NGAL (right).

Our Anticalin proteins were developed from two scaffolds, namely the tear lipocalin, found primarily in human tear fluid as well as the lung epithelium, and NGAL, a protein involved in the innate immune system, by selection from diverse libraries with mutations in the genetic code of the ligand binding regions and regions of the proteins that are amenable for amino acid exchanges. These mutations have the potential to lead to highly specific, high-affinity binding proteins for both small and large molecular targets. Mutations are introduced at pre-defined positions, creating exponentially diverse pools of Anticalin proteins, the most potent and well-behaved of which are selected and optimized in a customized manner through in vitro selection using techniques such as phage and yeast display, which are successful techniques in antibody-based drug discovery. The ability to generate highly-diverse and high-quality Anticalin libraries and to select for the best binders among the large pool of Anticalin proteins by display technologies gives us the opportunity to select highly specific and high affinity Anticalin proteins for a wide variety of targets. The flexibility inherent in the Anticalin proteins’ cup-like structure allows us to choose both small-molecule targets that are capable of binding inside the ‘cup’ as well as larger protein targets that are predominantly bound by the flexible loop region outside of the ‘cup’. Our prior clinical studies of intravenously-administered Anticalin-based drug candidates, including the phase 1 studies of cinrebafusp alfa, the phase 1 and 2 studies of PRS-080, the phase 1 study of PRS-050, as well as the phase 1 study of a PCSK9-specific Anticalin protein, indicate that these proteins appear to have the potential to exhibit a favorable safety profile.

The below graphic illustrates Anticalin proteins binding to a small molecule (left), a small protein target (hepcidin, center) and a large protein target (CTLA4, right):

To obtain a specific Anticalin protein, we took advantage of the breadth of our proprietary Anticalin libraries, generated through our protein engineering expertise. We created proprietary Anticalin libraries by rationally diversifying certain lipocalin regions, thereby generating Anticalin libraries suitable for identifying binders to different types of targets. By utilizing bacterial and mammalian expression platforms from the earliest stages of drug discovery through current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, manufacturing, we created seamless platforms that facilitate the selection of high-quality and cost-effective drug candidates. Anticalin-based drug candidates have been proven to be suitable for expression in standard mammalian expression systems. Thus, Anticalin protein manufacturing is not limited to bacterial systems, and the expression system can be selected on a program-by-program basis. See “—Manufacturing” below.

Table of Contents

Anticalin proteins share many of the favorable qualities of antibodies, including:

While often compared to antibodies, we believe Anticalin proteins offer several advantages over antibodies, including:

Implementation of the Anticalin Platform Technology: Our Drug CandidatePipeline

All of our drug candidates are in the early stage of development with our partners, and we anticipate that it will likely be several years before any of our drug candidates could be commercialized. Our current collaborations include:

Table of Contents

Servier Collaboration

S095012 (also known as PRS-344) consists of a PD-L1-targeting antibody and 4-1BB-targeting Anticalin proteins genetically fused to each arm of the C-terminal heavy chain of the antibody, and is currently being developed by Servier under our collaboration agreement with them. The first patient was dosed in November 2021 and the first-in-human study consists of evaluating the safety and tolerability profile of S095012 and determining its maximum tolerated dose, or MTD, and/or the recommended phase 2 dose, or RP2D, in patients with solid tumors. In addition, the PK profile as well as pharmacodynamic effects of S095012 will be characterized in the study and any initial signs of anti-tumoral activity will be correlated to safety and PK and further explored in expansion cohorts.

In July 2023, we notified Servier that we were opting out of co-development and commercialization of S095012 in the U.S. Servier continues to advance the program, and is fully responsible for any further advancement and funding of this program. Servier retains exclusive, even as to us, worldwide rights to the program including the right to advance development and potential commercialization in the U.S. As a result of our election to opt out, we are entitled to increased royalty rates and potential royalties and milestones, if any, for S095012.

Pfizer Collaboration

In addition, our collaboration with Pfizer (formerly Seagen) to discover and develop Anticalin-based tumor-targeted bispecific antibody-Anticalin therapeutics in IO includes three programs.

We achieved a key development milestone for one of the programs, a CD228 x 4-1BB, or SGN-BB228, bispecific tumor-targeted costimulatory agonist, in the Pfizer collaboration in 2020, triggering a $5 million milestone payment. We handed the program over to Pfizer, which is responsible for further advancement and funding of the asset. Pfizer presented preclinical data for this program at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer 37th Annual Meeting. In January 2023, we announced that the first patient was dosed in a Pfizer-sponsored phase 1 study of SGN-BB228, which triggered a $5 million milestone payment from Pfizer to us. The program is one of three current programs in the Pfizer alliance.

In March 2021, Pfizer made a $13.0 million equity investment in Pieris as part of an ongoing collaboration between the companies. The companies also amended their existing immuno-oncology collaboration whereby Pieris' option to co-develop and co-commercialize the second of three programs in the collaboration was converted to a co-promotion option for one of the three programs in the United States. During the third quarter of 2021, we initiated the second program, and during the fourth quarter of 2022, we initiated the third program within the collaboration with Pfizer.

In September 2023, we and Pfizer entered into an amendment of the Second Pfizer Amendment that provides Pfizer with collaboration product licenses with no changes to the amounts achievable under the collaboration agreement. The effect of the September 2023 amendment was to transfer responsibility for substantially all activities previously performed by the Company to Pfizer. Furthermore, in December 2023, we officially handed over the remaining programs to Pfizer, and it is responsible for any further advancement and funding of these assets.

Table of Contents

Boston Pharmaceuticals Collaboration

In April 2021, we and Boston Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Boston Pharma Holdings, LLC, entered into an exclusive product license agreement to develop BOS-342, a GPC3/4-1BB preclinical immuno-oncology bispecific Mabcalin protein.

In August 2023, the first patient was dosed in a Boston Pharmaceuticals sponsored phase 1/2 study of BOS-342 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), for which we received a $2.5 million milestone payment and are entitled to receive up to approximately $350 million in potential development, regulatory and sales-based milestone payments, and tiered royalties on potential sales of BOS-342. Boston Pharmaceuticals is responsible for any further advancement and funding of this asset.

Our drug candidate pipeline formerly included:

Elarekibep Targeting IL-4Rα in Asthma

Elarekibep (previously known as PRS-060/AZD1402) was a clinical stage Anticalin drug candidate targeting IL-4Rα, a cell surface receptor expressed on immune cells in the lung. IL-4Rα is specific for the cytokine IL-4 and the closely related cytokine IL-13, both key drivers of the immune system. Elarekibep was derived from human tear lipocalin, and has a 20 pM affinity for human IL-4Rα. We sponsored the phase 1 single ascending dose/multiple ascending dose studies for elarekibep, after which AstraZeneca took responsibility for further clinical development of elarekibep. The phase 2a study was a two-part, multi-center, placebo-controlled clinical study of elarekibep to evaluate elarekibep at three dose levels, 1, 3 and 10 mg, using a dry powder formulation administered via inhalation twice daily. On June 21, 2023, we announced that AstraZeneca had communicated to us its decision to discontinue and cease dosing in the ongoing clinical studies of elarekibep. This decision was based on lung findings from a non-clinical 13-week GLP toxicology study with dry powder inhaler-formulated elarekibep, which did not support long-term use and progression to later-stage development. AstraZeneca’s decision was made independent of any data from the phase 2a study. Following our review of the data, we decided to not continue to advance the program for scientific reasons.

PRS-220 Targeting Connective Tissue Growth Factor (CTGF) in IPF

Our former lead fully proprietary respiratory asset, PRS-220, an orally inhaled Anticalin protein targeting CTGF, was being developed as a local treatment for IPF and other fibrotic diseases, and passed the drug candidate nomination stage in 2021.

We completed the phase 1 clinical study in healthy volunteers in August 2023, and finalized the clinical study report in December 2023. The first-in-human study was a randomized, two-part, blinded, placebo-controlled study, designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of single and multiple ascending doses of PRS-220 when administered by oral inhalation to healthy subjects. Data from the single and multiple ascending doses of PRS-220, when administered by oral inhalation to healthy subjects, demonstrated that PRS-220 was safe and generally well tolerated at all administered doses by subjects in this study. We received a €14.2 million grant from the Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs, Regional Development and Energy supporting research and development of the program. With the completion of the phase 1 healthy volunteer study, we intend to wind down PRS-220 and do not plan to continue to advance the program for scientific reasons.

Table of Contents

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We do not expect that we will manufacture any drug candidates in the future. We have historically relied on third party contract manufacturer organizations, or CMOs, and if we ever decide to manufacture any drug candidates in the future, we expect we will rely on CMOs, for the manufacture of any drug candidates for larger scale preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial quantities of any drug candidates that may be approved for marketing.

We believe that Anticalin-branded drug candidates, including Mabcalin proteins, can be manufactured in reliable and reproducible biologic processes from readily available starting materials as they are produced using mammalian expression systems similar to those systems that are widely used in the industry for the production of antibodies. We believe that the manufacturing process is amenable to scale-up and will not require unusual or expensive equipment. As previously disclosed, our partners are fully responsible for any further advancement and funding of these assets.

Intellectual Property and Exclusivity

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain exclusivity of our proprietary Anticalin-based technologies through intellectual property protection for our drug candidates, libraries of different protein scaffolds and consensus sequences, the fundamental Anticalin platform technology, including novel therapeutic and diagnostic discoveries, as well as other proprietary know-how and trade secrets, and to operate without infringing on the intellectual property rights of others.

We seek to protect our exclusive position of Anticalin technologies by, among other means, prosecuting our own international, U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We have established intellectual property protection in relation to our Anticalin technologies in key global markets, including in North America, Europe and Asia. We also rely on trade secrets for confidential know-how, which we generally seek to protect through contractual (for example, confidentiality) agreements with employees and third parties.

We have protected the goodwill of our Company and our drug candidates, created through innovation and development, by putting in place trademark registrations of the Pieris and Anticalin marks as well as several defensive registrations.

We historically have, and may continue to, file and prosecute patent applications and maintain granted patents directed to our key drug candidates in an effort to establish intellectual property positions relating to new compositions of matter for these drug candidates, as well as novel medical applications of these compounds in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of various indications.

We own, or are the exclusive licensee of, a patent portfolio consisting of several issued U.S. patents, and their respective counterparts in a number of foreign jurisdictions, including pending patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, pending U.S. patent applications and corresponding pending patent applications in a number of foreign jurisdictions as well as pending provisional patent applications, as described in further detail below.

Table of Contents

In applicable jurisdictions, such as the United States, we will seek patent term extensions for certain issued patents of ours. If we obtain marketing approval for our drug candidates in the United States or certain jurisdictions outside of the United States, we may be eligible for regulatory protection, such as 4 years of data exclusivity and 12 years of market exclusivity for new biological entities in the United States and as mentioned below, up to five years of patent term extension potentially available in the United States, eight to 11 years of data and marketing exclusivity potentially available for new drugs in the European Union, up to five and a half years of patent extension in Europe (supplemental protection certificate) and eight years of exclusivity, similar to data exclusivity in the United States, potentially available in Japan under its re-examination system. 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.”

We hold issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States and other foreign jurisdictions, which patents or patent applications are related to libraries of different scaffolds and consensus sequences such as human NGAL and human tear lipocalin, and are expiring or expected to expire between 2024 and 2043, subject to any patent term adjustments and terminal disclaimers in the United States. We also own a number of patents and patent applications at various stages of prosecution directed towards compositions of matter and in some cases, formulations or methods of use, of our preclinical and clinical drug candidates. Where possible, we will pursue patent term adjustments in the United States and any applicable foreign jurisdictions.

As a result of our research and licensing agreement, or the TUM License, with Technische Universität München, or TUM, we hold a worldwide exclusive license to multiple issued patents and pending patent applications. These patents and patent applications relate to Anticalin proteins derived from hNGAL lipocalin muteins and/or a library of an hNGAL scaffold of a certain consensus sequence, which patent is expected to expire in 2029, subject to any patent term adjustments or terminal disclaimers in the United States. We also hold an exclusive license to issued patents or pending patent applications related to bacterial lipocalin muteins and a1m lipocalin muteins.

We hold a number of issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States and foreign jurisdictions directed to newly-discovered or improved scaffold libraries of lipocalin muteins, compounds derived therefrom (i.e., specific drug candidates) or the uses of such compounds to treat, prevent and mitigate certain diseases and conditions whose pathological development involve the targets of interest as well as to diagnose, prognose and select treatments for the diseases and conditions. We would expect that these patents and any patents that may issue from pending applications would likely expire between 2029 and 2043 without taking into account possible patent term adjustments or other extensions. However, any and all of these pending patent applications may not result in issued patents, and not all issued patents may be maintained in force for their entire term.

In addition to issued patents, we hold trademarks in the United States for the Pieris and Anticalin marks. Similarly, we hold their respective counterparts, as registered trademarks, in a number of foreign jurisdictions.

We also rely upon unpatented trade secrets and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive advantage. We strive to protect our proprietary information, in part, by using confidentiality agreements and/or invention assignment agreements with our collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants. The confidentiality agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of agreements requiring invention assignment, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. We also actively manage our publication and patent applications in that we only disclose information necessary to stir scientific interest or demonstrate patentability without materially compromising the secrecy of our valuable trade secrets and know-how. While we consider trade secrets and know-how to be a critical component of our intellectual property, trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. In particular, with respect to our technology platform, we anticipate that these trade secrets and know-how will, over the course of time, be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles describing the methodology and the movement of personnel skilled in the technology from academic to industry positions and vice versa. As a result, those proprietary trade secrets and know-how may lose their value to us over a period of time, and we may lose any competitive advantage afforded by them, as they become public knowledge.

Strategic Partnerships

Since inception, we have entered into several strategic partnerships and other license or option agreements to complement our drug discovery and development. Specifically, we entered into strategic partnerships with Servier, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Genentech, or collectively, the Strategic Partnerships. Under the Strategic Partnerships, we have developed and conducted selection and screening of drug candidates, as well as in vitro potency and efficacy testing, using our Anticalin-brand drug discovery platform, our Anticalin libraries and other proprietary methods to generate, identify and characterize drug candidates against certain biological targets associated with several diseases. The Strategic Partnerships as well as the former AstraZeneca collaboration have provided us with approximately $179.7 million in cash from upfront and milestone payments through December 31, 2023. With respect to discontinued agreements, we have no ongoing performance obligations and do not expect to receive any significant additional consideration pursuant to those agreements.

Under our ongoing Strategic Partnerships, our partners are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize drug candidates identified in the course of the collaboration. We are entitled to receive from our partners’ research, development and regulatory milestone payments and, in some cases, including in the Servier, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer and Genentech collaborations, royalties on net sales for products developed and commercialized under these collaborations. With respect to the Pfizer partnership, we have the option to co-promote one or more therapeutic programs with our partners.

Table of Contents

The Strategic Partnerships represent collaborations primarily in IO. Certain terms and conditions of these Strategic Partnerships are summarized below.

Our collaboration with Servier

On January 4, 2017, we entered into the Servier Collaboration Agreement and a non-exclusive Anticalin platform license agreement with Servier, or the Servier Platform License, collectively referred to as the Servier Agreements. Pursuant to the terms of the Servier Agreements, we, along with Servier, initially pursued five bispecific therapeutic programs. Servier has terminated four of the five bispecific therapeutic programs, and is focusing on continued development of the most advanced program, S095012 (also referred to as PRS-344).

In July 2023, we notified Servier that we were opting out of co-development and commercialization of S095012 in the U.S., which Servier continues to advance. Servier retains exclusive, even as to us, worldwide rights to the program including the right to advance development and potential commercialization in the U.S. As a result of our election to opt out, we are entitled to increased royalty rates and potential royalties and milestones, if any, for S095012.

Under the Servier Agreements, we received an upfront payment of €30.0 million (approximately $32.0 million) and have achieved two preclinical milestones related to S095012 as well as one clinical milestone related to S095012 and one preclinical milestone related to PRS-352, which has been discontinued by Servier. We may also receive additional development-dependent and commercial milestone payments for S095012. In addition, we will be entitled to receive tiered royalties up to low double digits on the sales of commercialized products in the Servier territories.

The term of each of the Servier Agreements ends upon the expiration of all of Servier’s payment obligations under such Servier Agreement. The Servier Agreements may be terminated by either of us for material breach upon 90 days’ or 120 days’ notice of a material breach, with respect to the Servier Collaboration Agreement and the Servier Platform License, respectively, provided that the applicable party has not cured such breach by the applicable 90-day or 120-day permitted cure period, and dispute resolution procedures specified in the applicable Servier Agreement have been followed. The Servier Agreements may also be terminated due to the other party’s insolvency or for a safety issue, and may in certain instances be terminated on a product-by-product and/or country-by-country basis. The Servier Platform License will terminate upon termination of the Servier Collaboration Agreement, on a product-by-product and/or country-by-country basis.

Our collaboration with Pfizer

On February 8, 2018, we entered into the Pfizer Collaboration Agreement and a non-exclusive Anticalin platform technology license agreement with Seagen, now referenced as Pfizer, or the Pfizer Platform License (formerly the Seagen Platform License), collectively referred to as the Pfizer Agreements (formerly the Seagen Agreements), pursuant to which the parties agreed to develop multiple targeted bispecific IO treatments for solid tumors and blood cancers.

Under the terms of the Pfizer Agreements, Pfizer paid us a $30 million upfront fee and will pay tiered royalties on net sales up to the low double-digits. Additionally, Pfizer will pay us up to $1.2 billion in total success-based payments, as of December 31, 2023, across three product candidates. The companies will pursue multiple antibody-Anticalin proteins during a research phase, and Pfizer has the option to select up to three therapeutic programs for further development. On March 25, 2021 we announced an amendment to the Pfizer Collaboration Agreement whereby our option to co-develop and co-commercialize the second of three programs in the collaboration was converted to a co-promotion option for one of the three programs in the United States, with Pfizer solely responsible for the development and overall commercialization of that program. We will be entitled to increased royalties in the event that we choose to exercise the co-promotion option for that program. As a result of this amendment, Pfizer will solely develop, fund and commercialize all three programs. Pfizer may also decide to select additional candidates from the initial research phase for further development in return for the payment to us of additional fees, milestone payments and royalties.

The term of each of the Pfizer Agreements ends upon the expiration of all of Pfizer’s payment obligations under such Pfizer Agreement. The Pfizer Collaboration Agreement may be terminated by Pfizer on a product-by-product basis for convenience beginning 12 months after its effective date upon 90 days’ notice or, for any program where a pivotal study has been initiated, upon 180 days’ notice. Any program may be terminated at Pfizer’s option. If any program is terminated by Pfizer after a pre-defined pre-clinical stage, we will have full rights to continue such program. If any program is terminated by Pfizer prior to such pre-defined pre-clinical stage, we will have the right to continue to develop such program but will be obligated to offer a co-development option to Pfizer for such program. The Pfizer Collaboration Agreement may also be terminated by Pfizer or us for an uncured material breach by the other party upon 90 days’ notice, subject to extension for an additional 90 days if the material breach relates to diligence obligations and subject, in all cases, to dispute resolution procedures. The Pfizer Collaboration Agreement may also be terminated due to the other party’s insolvency and may in certain instances, including for reasons of safety, be terminated on a product-by-product basis. Each party may also terminate the Pfizer Agreements if the other party challenges the validity of any patents licensed under the Pfizer Agreements, subject to certain exceptions. The Pfizer Platform License will terminate upon termination of the Pfizer Collaboration Agreement, whether in its entirety or on a product-by-product basis.

In June 2020, we and Pfizer entered into amendments to the Pfizer Agreements, or together, the Amendment. The Amendment extended the deadline for Pfizer to nominate a second and third antibody target, both of which have since been nominated, and triggered a $5.0 million milestone payment due from Pfizer as Pfizer made a go decision on SGN-BB228. In January 2023, we announced that the first patient was dosed in SGN-BB228 and Pfizer paid us a $5.0 million milestone fee in connection with this achievement. Additionally, as part of this transaction, we entered into a subscription agreement pursuant to which we agreed to issue to Pfizer 3,706,174 shares of our common stock for a total purchase price of $13.0 million, or $3.51 per share, in a private placement transaction.

Finally, in September 2023, we and Pfizer entered into an amendment of the Pfizer Collaboration Agreement, as amended, that provides Pfizer with collaboration product licenses with no changes to the amounts achievable under the Pfizer Collaboration Agreement, as amended. The effect of the September 2023 amendment was to transfer responsibility for substantially all activities previously performed by the Company to Pfizer. Furthermore, in December 2023, we officially handed over the remaining programs to Pfizer, and it is responsible for any further advancement and funding of these assets.

Table of Contents

Our collaboration with Boston Pharmaceuticals

On April 24, 2021, we and BP Asset XII, Inc., or Boston Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Boston Pharma Holdings, LLC, entered into an exclusive product license agreement, or the BP Agreement, to develop BOS-342, a 4-1BB/GPC3 preclinical immuno-oncology Mabcalin bispecific protein.

Under the terms of the BP Agreement, Boston Pharmaceuticals exclusively licensed worldwide rights to BOS-342. We received an upfront payment of $10.0 million and are further entitled to receive up to $352.5 million in development, regulatory and sales-based milestone payments, tiered royalties up to low double-digits on sales of PRS-342 and a percentage of consideration received by Boston Pharmaceuticals in the event of a sublicense of a program licensed under the BP Agreement or a change of control of Boston Pharmaceuticals. We will also contribute up to $4.0 million toward manufacturing activities.

The term of the BP Agreement ends upon the expiration of all of Boston Pharmaceuticals’ payment obligations thereunder. The BP Agreement may be terminated by Boston Pharmaceuticals in its entirety for convenience beginning nine months after its effective date upon 60 days’ notice or, for any program under the BP Agreement which has received marketing approval, upon 120 days’ notice. If any program is terminated by Boston Pharmaceuticals, we will have full rights to continue such program. The BP Agreement may also be terminated by Boston Pharmaceuticals or us for an uncured material breach by the other party upon 180 days’ notice (60 days in the case of non-payment of undisputed amounts due and payable), subject to extension for an additional 180 days in certain cases and subject, in all cases, to dispute resolution procedures. The Agreement may also be terminated due to the other party’s insolvency. We may also terminate the BP Agreement if Boston Pharmaceuticals challenges the validity of any patents licensed under the BP Agreement, subject to certain exceptions.

We do not have any obligations to assist in the research and development efforts of Boston Pharmaceuticals under the BP Agreement. However, we had an obligation to fund up to $4.0 million in costs, including out-of-pocket costs incurred by Boston Pharmaceuticals, in connection with the manufacture of products under the BP Agreement. The arrangement with Boston Pharmaceuticals provides for the transfer of the following: (i) exclusive license of BOS-342, (ii) non-exclusive Pieris platform license, (iii) initial know-how, (iv) product cell line license, and (v) materials (as each such term is defined under the BP Agreement).

Our collaboration with Genentech

On May 19, 2021, we and Genentech, Inc., or Genentech, entered into a Research Collaboration and License Agreement, or the Genentech Agreement, to discover, develop and commercialize locally delivered respiratory and ophthalmology therapies that leverage the Company’s proprietary Anticalin technology. Upon signing the Genentech Agreement, Genentech paid the Company a $20 million upfront fee. In addition, the Genentech Agreement provides for us to be eligible to receive additional milestone payments across multiple programs, as well as tiered royalty payments on net sales at percentages ranging from the mid-single to low double-digits, subject to certain standard reductions and offsets.

Under the terms of the Genentech Agreement, we would be responsible for discovery and preclinical development of two initial programs. We would be responsible for research activities following target nomination through the late-stage research go decision. We and Genentech would then collaborate on drug candidate characterization until the development go decision. After the development go decision, Genentech would be responsible for pursuing the preclinical and clinical development of each program, and thereafter, the commercialization efforts. Each party would be responsible for the costs incurred to perform their respective responsibilities. Genentech has an option to expand the collaboration to encompass two additional programs with the payment of a $10 million fee per additional program. If Genentech exercises its option to start additional programs, payment to us of additional fees, milestone payments and royalties would result.

Unless earlier terminated, the term of the Genentech Agreement continues until no royalty or other payment obligations are or will become due under the Genentech Agreement. The Genentech Agreement may be terminated (i) by either party based on insolvency or breach by the other party and such insolvency proceeding is not dismissed or such breach is not cured within 90 days; or (ii) after nine months from the effective date of the Genentech Agreement, by Genentech as a whole or on a product-by-product and/or country-by-country basis upon 90 days’ prior written notice before the first commercial sale of a product or upon 180 days’ prior written notice after the first commercial sale of a product.

Table of Contents

While the Genentech Agreement allows for up to four research programs, only two research programs were initially identified and committed in the Genentech Agreement. To reach a total of up to four research programs, we have granted Genentech options to nominate an additional two collaboration targets of their choosing, subject to the legal availability of the target to be researched. Genentech will have three years after the effective date to nominate the subsequent targets. We have also granted Genentech options to replace any of the collaboration targets identified with another target. However, at no point will there be more than four identified collaboration targets for which there are ongoing research programs. In April and May 2023, Genentech and the Company decided to discontinue the discovery-stage programs in ophthalmology and respiratory, respectively, for scientific reasons.

Our collaboration with AstraZeneca

On May 2, 2017, we entered into the AstraZeneca Collaboration Agreement and a Non-exclusive Anticalin Platform Technology License Agreement with AstraZeneca, or the AstraZeneca Platform License, collectively referred to as the AstraZeneca Agreements, which became effective on June 10, 2017, which were subsequently amended on March 29, 2021. In connection with the amendments, we entered into a Subscription Agreement pursuant to which we agreed to issue to AstraZeneca 3,584,230 shares of our common stock for a total purchase price of $10.0 million in a private placement transaction. In August 2022, we entered into another amendment to the License and Collaboration Agreement.

On July 17, 2023, AstraZeneca notified the Company of its intention to terminate the AstraZeneca Collaboration Agreement and the AstraZeneca Platform License, and the termination became effective October 15, 2023. AstraZeneca’s decision to terminate the AstraZeneca Agreements was based on non-clinical safety findings in a 13-week toxicology study of elarekibep in non-human primates previously disclosed by the Company. With the termination of the AstraZeneca Agreements, there are no more active programs or performance obligations related to the collaboration. Since the termination of the AstraZeneca Agreements, the Company has decided it would not pursue further development of the programs from the AstraZeneca Agreements.

In-License Agreements

In addition to the Strategic Licenses and Other License Agreements, we have in-licensed a number of technologies and therapeutics, hereinafter referred to as the In-License Agreements, to advance our pipeline and programs, some of which are described below.

TUM License

On July 4, 2003, we entered into our TUM License which was subsequently renewed and amended on July 26, 2007. The TUM License established a joint research effort led by Professor Arne Skerra, Chair of Biological Chemistry of TUM, to optimize Anticalin technologies for use in therapeutic, prophylactic and diagnostic applications and as research reagents, and to gain fundamental insights in lipocalin scaffolds. We provided certain funding for TUM research efforts performed under the agreement. The research phase of this collaboration ended on February 28, 2013.

Under the terms of the TUM License, TUM assigned to us certain materials and records resulting from the research. We retained rights to inventions made by our employees, and TUM assigned to us all inventions made under the agreement jointly by our employees and TUM personnel, provided that our employees made certain inventive contributions. With respect to all other inventions made in the course of the research, TUM granted to us worldwide exclusive license rights under patents and patent applications claiming such inventions. TUM retained rights to practice these inventions for research and teaching purposes.

As a result of research efforts to date under the TUM License, we hold a worldwide exclusive license under our agreement with TUM to multiple patents and patent applications related to certain Anticalin proteins and libraries. We bear the costs of filing, prosecution and maintenance of patents assigned or licensed to us under the agreement.

As consideration for the assignments and licenses, we are obliged to pay to TUM license payments on development of our proprietary products claimed by patents assigned or licensed to us by TUM. For each of such proprietary products developed by us, we could be required to pay up to an aggregate of approximately €0.2 million ($0.2 million) in license payments to TUM under the agreement.

We also are obliged to pay low single-digit royalties, including annual minimum royalties, on sales of such products. Should we grant licenses or sublicenses to those patents to third parties, we are obliged to share a percentage of resulting revenue with TUM, which percentage of resulting revenue is creditable against our annual license payments to TUM. Our payment obligations are reduced by our proportionate contribution to a joint invention. Payment obligations terminate on expiration or annulment of the last patent covered by the agreement.

We can terminate the licenses to any or all licensed patents upon specified advance notice to TUM. TUM may terminate the license provisions of the agreement only for cause. Termination of the agreement does not terminate our rights in patents assigned to us.

Table of Contents

Pieris and TUM initiated discussions in the second quarter of 2018 to clarify, expand and restructure the TUM License, including the parties’ obligations under such license agreement. The parties’ discussions relate to revised commercial terms and to re-initiating additional collaborations between faculty at TUM and Pieris. While an amended and restated license agreement has not yet been completed, the Company may enter into an amendment reflecting the parties' discussions.

Kelun License Agreement

In connection with our efforts to develop multispecific Anticalin-based proteins designed to engage immunomodulatory targets, during the second quarter of 2017, we entered into a license and transfer agreement, or the Kelun Agreement, with Sichuan Kelun-Biotech Biopharmaceutical Co. Ltd., or Kelun. Under the Kelun Agreement, Kelun has granted to us a non-exclusive worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) under certain intellectual property owned or controlled by Kelun to research, develop, manufacture and commercialize bi- and multi- specific fusion proteins that include an antibody developed by Kelun specific for an undisclosed target and one or more Anticalin proteins.

Government Regulation

The research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, sales, among other things, of drug products are extensively regulated by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries.

U.S. Government regulation of drug and biological products

In the United States, the FDA regulates human drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and in the case of biologics, also under the Public Health Service Act, or the PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending new drug applications, or NDAs, or biologics license applications, or BLAs, or the agency’s issuance of warning letters, or the imposition of fines, civil penalties, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions and/or criminal prosecution brought by the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice or other governmental entities.

The process required by the FDA before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Preclinical studies

Before testing any drug or biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. The preclinical developmental stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals and potential for other adverse events, which support subsequent clinical testing and rationale for subsequent therapeutic use.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, signed into law on December 29, 2022, (P.L. 117-328) amended both the FDCA and PHSA to specify that nonclinical testing for drugs and biologics, respectively, may, but is not required to, include

in vivo animal testing. According to the amended language, a sponsor may fulfill nonclinical testing requirements by completing various

in vitro assays (e.g., cell-based assays, organ chips, or microphysiological systems),

in silico studies (i.e., computer modeling), other human or non-human biology-based tests (e.g., bioprinting), or

in vivo animal tests. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin.

The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices, or GLP, regulations for safety and toxicology studies. Some long-term nonclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after an IND for an investigational drug candidate is submitted to the FDA and human clinical trials have been initiated.

Human clinical trials in support of an NDA or BLA

All clinical trials must be conducted 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 the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Study subjects must sign an informed consent form before participating in a clinical trial. There are also requirements governing the reporting of on-going clinical trials and clinical trial results to public registries. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. Clinical holds may also be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during studies due to safety concerns or non-compliance.

Table of Contents

In addition, an IRB representing each institution that is participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must thereafter conduct a continuing review and re-approve the trial at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the trial protocol and informed consent information to be provided to clinical trial subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations.

Information about certain clinical trials, including details of the protocol and eventually study results, also must be submitted within specific time frames to the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, for public dissemination on the ClinicalTrials.gov data registry. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Failure to timely register a covered clinical study or to submit study results as provided for in the law can give rise to civil monetary penalties and also prevent the non-compliant party from receiving future grant funds from the federal government. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Final Rule and NIH's complementary policy on ClinicalTrials.gov registration and reporting requirements became effective in 2017, and the government has brought enforcement against clinical trial sponsors that fail to comply with such requirements.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA.

Congress also recently amended the FDCA, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, in order to require sponsors of a phase 3 clinical trial, or other “pivotal study” of a new drug to support marketing authorization, to design and submit a diversity action plan for such clinical trial. The action plan must include the sponsor’s diversity goals for enrollment, as well as a rationale for the goals and a description of how the sponsor will meet them. Sponsors must submit a diversity action plan to the FDA by the time the sponsor submits the relevant clinical trial protocol to the agency for review. The FDA may grant a waiver for some or all of the requirements for a diversity action plan. It is unknown at this time how the diversity action plan may affect phase 3 trial planning and timing or what specific information FDA will expect in such plans, but if the FDA objects to a sponsor’s diversity action plan, it may delay trial initiation.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events, or SAEs, occur. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the clinical protocol, cGCP, or other IRB requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

During the development of a new drug or biological product, sponsors have the opportunity to meet with the FDA at certain points, including prior to submission of an IND, at the end of phase 2, and before submission of an NDA or BLA. 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 agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end of phase 2 meeting to discuss their phase 2 clinical results with the agency and to present their plans for the pivotal phase 3 studies that they believe will support approval of the new drug or biological product.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional nonclinical studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the drug or biological product and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final drug or biological product. For biological products in particular, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined in order to help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Table of Contents

Marketing application submission and FDA review

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, and controls and proposed labeling, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. Our Anticalin-based product candidates are proteins that will be regulated as biological products subject to the BLA marketing pathway. BLAs must contain proof of the biological product candidate’s safety, purity, potency and efficacy for its proposed indication or indications. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. Under federal law, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee, and the sponsor of an approved NDA or BLA is also subject to an annual program fee. These fees are typically adjusted annually, but exemptions and waivers may be available under certain circumstances.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs and BLAs within 60 days of receipt and informs the sponsor by the 74th day after the FDA’s receipt of the submission whether an application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA or BLA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

After the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review. As noted above, the FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs and BLAs. Applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date it is accepted for submission or filing, and the applications for “priority review” products are meant to be reviewed within six months from the date the application is accepted for submission or filing, as discussed in more detail below. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or in the case of a clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date for an application with "priority review." For all BLAs and new molecular entity, or NME, NDAs, the ten and six-month time periods run from the filing date; for all other original applications, the ten and six-month time periods run from the submission date. Despite these review goals, it is not uncommon for FDA review of an NDA or BLA to extend beyond the goal date.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with cGCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

Additionally, the FDA may refer any NDA or BLA, including applications for novel biologic candidates which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee. Typically, 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 recommendation of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making final decisions on approval. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The FDA also may require the development of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the drug or biological product. The REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans and/or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, as amended, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and efficacy of the product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric populations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric population for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or the FDASIA, enacted in 2012, made permanent the PREA to require a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration to submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within sixty days of an end-of-phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the phase 3 or phase 2/3 clinical trial. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from pre-clinical studies, early phase clinical trials or other clinical development programs.

Table of Contents

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. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things whether the product is safe, pure and potent and that the facility (or facilities) in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. The approval process is lengthy and often difficult, and the FDA may refuse to approve an NDA or BLA if the applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied or may require additional clinical or other data and information. On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA or BLA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue either an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. The CRL may require additional clinical or other data, additional pivotal phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may choose to either resubmit the NDA or BLA addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter or withdraw the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA or BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in response to an issued CRL in either two or six months depending on the type of information included. Even with the submission of this additional information, however, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval from the FDA, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the application. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval trials, including phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited development or review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. These programs include fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review designation.

To be eligible for a fast track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need by providing a therapy where none exists or a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors. Fast track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the NDA or BLA for a fast track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA or BLA. In addition, fast track designation may be withdrawn by the sponsor or rescinded by the FDA if the designation is no longer supported by data emerging from the clinical trial process.

In addition, with the enactment of FDASIA in 2012, Congress created a new regulatory program for product candidates designated by FDA as “breakthrough therapies” upon a request made by the IND sponsors. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Drugs or biologics designated as breakthrough therapies may also be eligible for accelerated approval of their respective marketing applications. The FDA must take certain actions with respect to breakthrough therapies, such as holding timely meetings with and providing advice to the product sponsor, which are intended to expedite the development and review of an application for approval of a breakthrough therapy.

Table of Contents

Finally, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a drug or biologic that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines at the time that the marketing application is submitted, on a case-by-case basis, whether the proposed drug represents a significant improvement in treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting drug reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, or evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months for an original BLA or for an NME NDA from the date of filing.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Accelerated approval pathway

In addition, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval from the FDA and may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a drug or biologic when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM 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 and describe the predicted effect on IMM or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures. Drugs and biologics granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval when the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate long-term clinical benefit of a drug.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a drug, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. For example, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of drugs for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large clinical trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post-approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint.

In addition, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress provided FDA additional statutory authority to mitigate potential risks to patients from continued marketing of ineffective drugs previously granted accelerated approval. Under these recent amendments to the FDCA, the agency may require a sponsor of a product granted accelerated approval to have a confirmatory trial underway prior to approval. The sponsor must also submit progress reports on a confirmatory trial every six months until the trial is complete, and such reports will be published on FDA’s website.

Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or to confirm the predicted clinical benefit of the product during post-marketing studies, allows the FDA to withdraw approval of the drug.

Congress also recently amended the FDCA law to give the agency the option of using expedited procedures to withdraw product approval if the sponsor’s confirmatory trial fails to verify the claimed clinical benefits of the product.

All promotional materials for product candidates being considered and approved under the accelerated approval program are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Patent term restoration

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our drugs, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension. These patent term extensions permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for any patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND, and the submission date of an NDA or BLA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension, and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Table of Contents

Pediatric exclusivity

Pediatric exclusivity is a type of non-patent marketing exclusivity available in the United States and, if granted, it provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity or listed patents. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a Written Request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application. The issuance of a Written Request by the FDA does not require the sponsor to undertake the described studies.

Reference product exclusivity for biological products

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted in the United States and included the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA. The BPCIA amended the PHSA to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Since that time, the FDA has approved approximately 40 biosimilars, including the first interchangeable monoclonal antibody biosimilar in 2021. The FDA has also issued several guidance documents outlining its approach to reviewing and approving biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilar, and has created a public database that contains information on all FDA-licensed biological products, including biosimilars, called the Purple Book.

A biosimilar product is defined as one that is highly similar to a reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product. An interchangeable product is a biosimilar product that can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Upon licensure by the FDA, an interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product.

The biosimilar applicant must demonstrate that the product is biosimilar based on data from (1) analytical studies showing that the biosimilar product is highly similar to the reference product; (2) animal studies (including toxicity); and (3) one or more clinical studies to demonstrate safety, purity and potency in one or more appropriate conditions of use for which the reference product is approved. In addition, the applicant must show that the biosimilar and reference products have the same mechanism of action for the conditions of use on the label, route of administration, dosage and strength, and the production facility must meet standards designed to assure product safety, purity and potency.

A reference biological product is granted 12 years of market exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the first approved interchangeable biologic product will be granted an exclusivity period of up to one year after it is first commercially marketed.

As part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, Congress amended the PHSA in order to permit multiple interchangeable products approved on the same day to receive and benefit from this one-year exclusivity period.

If pediatric studies are performed and accepted by the FDA as responsive to a Written Request, the 12-year exclusivity period will be extended for an additional six months. In addition, the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a supplement for the reference product for a subsequent application filed by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the reference product (or licensor, predecessor in interest or other related entity) for a change that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

The BPCIA is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA and by federal judges. In addition, recent government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA continues to be subject to uncertainty.

Table of Contents

Orphan drug designation and exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan drug designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States a drug for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication, except in very limited circumstances, for seven years. Orphan drug exclusivity, however, also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug as defined by the FDA for treatment of the same indication. Recent court cases have challenged FDA’s approach to determining the scope of orphan drug exclusivity; however, at this time the agency continues to apply its long-standing interpretation of the governing regulations and has stated that it does not plan to change any orphan drug implementing regulations.

Post-approval requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or an NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional nonclinical studies and clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMPs. The cGMP regulations include requirements relating to organization of personnel, buildings and facilities, equipment, control of components and drug product containers and closures, production and process controls, packaging and labeling controls, holding and distribution, laboratory controls, records and reports and returned or salvaged products. The manufacturing facilities for our product candidates must meet cGMP requirements and satisfy the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities’ satisfaction before any product is approved and our commercial products can be manufactured. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Future inspections by the FDA and other regulatory agencies may identify compliance issues at the facilities of our CMOs that may disrupt production or distribution or require substantial resources to correct. In addition, the discovery of conditions that violate these rules, including failure to conform to cGMPs, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA or BLA, including voluntary recall and regulatory sanctions as described below.

Table of Contents

Once an approval of a drug is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in mandatory revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-market surveillance studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks, or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

• injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties;

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution. The Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA, was enacted with the aim of building an electronic system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs distributed in the United States, including most biological products. The DSCSA mandates phased-in and resource-intensive obligations for pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors and dispensers over a 10‐year period, which culminated in November 2023.

Most recently, the FDA announced a one-year stabilization period to November 2024, giving entities subject to the DSCSA additional time to finalize interoperable tracking systems and to ensure supply chain continuity.

From time to time, new legislation and regulations may be implemented that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA.

For example, FDA released proposed regulations in February 2022 to amend the national standards for licensing of wholesale drug distributors by the states; establish new minimum standards for state licensing third-party logistics providers; and create a federal system for licensure for use in the absence of a state program, each of which is mandated by the DSCSA.

It is impossible to predict whether further legislative or regulatory changes will be enacted, or FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations changed or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be.

Regulation outside of the United States

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our products outside of the United States. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we must obtain approval from the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the 27-member European Union, before we may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. With the United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union on January 31, 2020, UK licensing decisions were transferred from EMA to The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK Regulatory Body. For a period of three years following January 1, 2021, the UK continued to adopt decisions taken by the European Commission on the approval of new marketing authorizations. However, companies will be required to submit an identical application to the MHRA upon the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, positive opinion of the application. The MHRA will then wait for the European Commission decision on approval. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

European Union drug development, review and approval

In the European Union, our product candidates also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. Similar to the United States, the various phases of pre-clinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls.

The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP, and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States previously governed the system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. Under this system, an applicant had to obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant could only start a clinical trial at a specific study site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion.

Table of Contents

In 2014, the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, Clinical Trials Regulation, was adopted and it became effective on January 31, 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation is directly applicable in all of the EU Member States, as it repealed the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The extent to which ongoing clinical trials will be governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation depends on when the Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable and on the duration of the individual clinical trial. If a clinical trial continues for more than three years from the day on which the Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable, the Clinical Trials Regulation will at that time begin to apply to the clinical trial.

The Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single entry point, the “EU portal” or Clinical Trial Information System, or CTIS; a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation. Use of the CTIS became mandatory for new clinical trial application submissions as of February 1, 2023.

To obtain a marketing authorization of a drug in the European Union, we may submit marketing authorization applications, or MAA, either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures.

Centralized procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, that is valid in all EU member states, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced-therapy medicines (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.

National authorization procedures

There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several EU countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

Under the above-described procedures, before granting the marketing authorization, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Table of Contents

Conditional approval

In specific circumstances, EU legislation (Article 14(7) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables applicants to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if (1) the risk-benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) the product fulfills unmet medical needs and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk-benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Pediatric studies

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are set forth in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, which is referred to as the Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine in children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine in children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population.

Before a marketing authorization application can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP.

European Union regulatory exclusivity

In the European Union, new products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period 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 marketing authorization in the European Union during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the European Union. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

European Union orphan designation and exclusivity

The criteria for designating an orphan medicinal product in the European Union, are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Table of Contents

The ten-year market exclusivity in the European Union may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:

• the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or

• the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

PRIME designation

The EMA grants access to the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, program to investigational medicines for which it determines there to be preliminary data available showing the potential to address an unmet medical need and bring a major therapeutic advantage to patients. As part of the program, the EMA provides early and enhanced dialogue and support to optimize the development of eligible medicines and speed up their evaluation, aiming to bring promising treatments to patients sooner.

Periods of authorization and renewals

A marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five-year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the EU market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Rest of the world regulation

For other countries outside of the European Union and the United States, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with cGCP 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.

Coverage, pricing and reimbursement

Sales of pharmaceutical products approved by the FDA will depend in significant part on the availability of third-party coverage and reimbursement for the products. Third-party payors include government healthcare programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. These third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services. In addition, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved healthcare products. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. Moreover, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development. Our product candidates may not be considered cost-effective. It is time consuming and expensive to seek reimbursement from third-party payors. Reimbursement may not be available or sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a competitive and profitable basis.

Table of Contents

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to currently available therapies (so-called health technology assessment, or HTA) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally tend to by significantly lower.

The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various EU member states and parallel distribution (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states) can further reduce prices. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

In the United States, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022. Among other things, the IRA has multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the U.S. Starting in 2023, a manufacturer of drugs or biological products covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. This calculation is made on a drug product by drug product basis and the amount of the rebate owed to the federal government is directly dependent on the volume of a drug product that is paid for by Medicare Parts B or D. Additionally, starting for payment year 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will negotiate drug prices annually for a select number of single source Part D drugs without generic or biosimilar competition. CMS will also negotiate drug prices for a select number of Part B drugs starting for payment year 2028. If a drug product is selected by CMS for negotiation, it is expected that the revenue generated from such drug will decrease. CMS has begun to implement these new authorities

and entered into the first set of agreements with pharmaceutical manufacturers to conduct price negotiations in October 2023. However, the IRA’s impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing the program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.

Other U.S. health care laws and regulations

If our product candidates are approved in the United States, we will have to comply with various U.S. federal and state laws, rules and regulations pertaining to health care fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback laws and physician self-referral laws, rules and regulations. Violations of the fraud and abuse laws are punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including, in some instances, exclusion from participation in federal and state health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. These laws include:

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines, or the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, in addition to requiring drug manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other health care providers or marketing expenditures to the extent that those laws impose requirements that are more stringent than the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Table of Contents

Health care reform in the United States and potential changes to health care laws

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

As previously mentioned, a primary trend in the U.S. health care industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other health care funding and applying new payment methodologies. For example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; introduced a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans; imposed mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries as a condition for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs coverage under Medicare Part D; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

In addition to the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions summarized above, President Biden’s Executive Order 14087, issued in October 2022, called for the CMS Innovation Center to prepare and submit a report to the White House on potential payment and delivery modes that would complement IRA, lower drug costs, and promote access to innovative drugs.

In February 2023, CMS published its report which described three potential models focusing on affordability, accessibility and feasibility of implementation for further testing by the CMS Innovation Center. As of December 31, 2023, the CMS Innovation Center's testing of the proposed models is still in progress.

We expect that future changes or additions to the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and changes stemming from other health care reform measures, especially with regard to health care access, financing or other legislation in individual states, could have a material adverse effect on the health care industry in the United States.

There also has been heightened governmental scrutiny in recent years over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical and biologic products. For example, the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act signed into law on December 27, 2020 incorporated extensive health care provisions and amendments to existing laws, including a requirement that all manufacturers of drug products covered under Medicare Part B report the product’s average sales price to CMS beginning on January 1, 2022, subject to enforcement via civil money penalties.

At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

For example, in recent years, several states have formed prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs). Much like the IRA’s drug price negotiation program, these PDABs have attempted to implement upper payment limits (UPLs) on drugs sold in their respective states in both public and commercial health plans. For example, in August 2023, Colorado’s PDAB announced a list of five prescription drugs that would undergo an affordability review. The effects of these efforts remain uncertain pending the outcomes of several federal lawsuits challenging state authority to regulate prescription drug payment limits. In December 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that federal law does not preempt the states’ ability to regulate pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, and other members of the health care and pharmaceutical supply chain, an important decision that appears to be leading to further and more aggressive efforts by states in this area.

In mid-2022, the Federal Trade Commission also launched sweeping investigations into the practices of the PBM industry that could lead to additional federal and state legislative or regulatory proposals targeting such entities’ operations, pharmacy networks, or financial arrangements. Significant efforts to change the PBM industry as it currently exists in the U.S. may affect the entire pharmaceutical supply chain and the business of other stakeholders, including biopharmaceutical developers like us.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal health care reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services.

Table of Contents

Corporate Information

On December 17, 2014, Pieris, Pieris GmbH and the former stockholders of Pieris GmbH entered into an acquisition agreement, or the Acquisition Agreement. Pursuant to the Acquisition Agreement, the stockholders of Pieris GmbH contributed all of their equity interests in Pieris GmbH to Pieris in exchange for shares of Pieris common stock, which resulted in Pieris GmbH becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pieris, which we refer to as the Acquisition. Upon the closing of the Acquisition on December 17, 2014, Pieris ceased to be a “shell company” under applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.

Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act establishes a class of company called a “smaller reporting company,” which effective September 10, 2018, was amended to include companies with a public float of less than $250 million as of the last business day of their most recently completed second fiscal quarter or, if such public float is less than $700 million, had annual revenues of less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year for which audited financial statements are available. For the year ended December 31, 2023, we qualify as a smaller reporting company.

As a smaller reporting company, we are eligible to and have taken advantage of certain extended accounting standards and exemptions from various reporting requirements that are not available to public reporting companies that do not qualify for those classifications. These exemptions include, but are not limited to, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic and annual reports, exemption from the requirement to provide a compensation discussion and analysis describing compensation practices and procedures, and reduced financial statement disclosure in our registration statements, which must include two years of audited financial statements rather than the three years of audited financial statements that are required for other public reporting companies. Smaller reporting companies are also eligible to provide such reduced financial statement disclosure in annual reports on Form 10-K.

For as long as we continue to be a smaller reporting company, we expect that we will take advantage of the reduced disclosure obligations available to us as a result of this classification. We will remain a smaller reporting company until we have (i) a public float of more than $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, if we have annual revenues of less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year, or (ii) a public float of $250 million or more as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter, if we have annual revenues of at least $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year, and we could retain our smaller reporting company status indefinitely depending on the size of our public float.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

On July 18, 2023, our Board of Directors approved a reduction in our workforce by approximately 70%. Since July of 2023, and through December 31, 2023, we took additional steps to reduce our operating footprint including terminating our remaining lease obligations in Germany and winding down our proprietary inhaled respiratory programs. We also opted out of and terminated programs where possible to reduce operating costs. Further reductions in the workforce have occurred based upon these actions. In connection with our announcement on March 27, 2024, we intend to conduct a workforce reduction, which would impact additional employees and the current executive leadership team, and would be implemented in the second quarter of 2024.

PVLA US Equity

PVLA · 10-K · period ended 2023-12-31

Item 1. BUSINESS

PVLA US Equity☆

PVLA · 10-K · period ended 2023-12-31

Item 1. BUSINESS

PVLA US Equity