Form 10-Q

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company

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 x No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

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

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

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value, outstanding as of October 30, 2012 was 154,317,078.

Dendreon Corporation (referred to as “Dendreon,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our”), a Delaware corporation, is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeutics that may significantly improve cancer treatment options for patients. Our product portfolio includes active cellular immunotherapies and a small molecule product candidate that could be applicable to treating multiple types of cancers.

PROVENGE^® (sipuleucel-T), is our first commercialized product licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and is a first in class autologous cellular immunotherapy for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, castrate-resistant (hormone-refractory) prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among men in the United States, with over one million men currently diagnosed with the disease, and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men in the United States. We own worldwide rights for PROVENGE.

The consolidated financial statements for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 include the accounts of Dendreon and its direct and indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries. All material intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

The accompanying unaudited financial statements reflect, in the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of only normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of our financial position, results of operations and cash flows for each period presented in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, certain information and disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted from the accompanying statements. These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and related notes thereto, included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “2011 Form 10-K”). The accompanying financial information as of December 31, 2011 has been derived from the Company’s audited 2011 consolidated financial statements included in our 2011 Form 10-K. Operating results for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of future results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2012, or any other future period. Certain prior period balances have been reclassified in order to conform to the current period presentation.

We recognize revenue primarily from the sale of PROVENGE. Revenue from the sale of PROVENGE is recorded net of product returns and estimated price discounts, including rebates and chargebacks offered pursuant to mandatory federal and state government programs and to members of Group Purchasing Organizations (“GPOs”) with which we have contracts. Revenue from sales of PROVENGE is recognized upon confirmed product delivery to and issuance of a product release form to the physician. Product returns are limited to those instances in which the physician receives the product but does not infuse the product prior to expiry, either due to timing or the failure of the product to meet specifications and pass site inspection. Due to the limited usable life of PROVENGE of approximately 18 hours from the completion of the manufacturing process to patient infusion, actual return information is known and credited against sales in the month incurred.

PROVENGE sales are direct to the physician; however we have entered into distribution agreements with three credit-worthy third party wholesalers (the “Wholesalers”) whereby we manufacture and ship the product direct to the physician and transfer the sale of PROVENGE to the Wholesalers. Under the distribution agreements, the Wholesalers assume all bad debt risk from the physician or institution, and no allowance for bad debt is recorded. In addition, under the terms of our distribution agreements, our return policy allows for the return of product that has expired or has a defect prior to delivery, product that is damaged during delivery and product that cannot be infused because it does not otherwise meet specified requirements.

Our product is subject to certain required pricing discounts via rebates and/or chargebacks pursuant to mandatory federal and state government programs, and accordingly revenue recognition requires estimates of rebates and chargebacks. We have agreements with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) providing for a rebate on sales to eligible Medicaid patients. For sales of our product to eligible Medicaid patients, the physician purchases our product at full price, and then receives reimbursement from the applicable state. The state, in turn, invoices us for the amount of the Medicaid rebate. Estimated rebates payable under Medicaid are recognized in the same period that the related revenue is recognized, resulting in a reduction in gross product revenue, and are classified as other accrued liabilities until paid. Our estimate of rebates payable is based on information we gather related to the physician site as well as health insurance information related to the patient being treated. We recorded estimated rebates of approximately $0.5 million for the nine month period ended September 30, 2012 and no estimated rebates for the three month period ended September 30, 2012. We recorded estimated rebates of approximately $0.1 million for both the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011.

We also have agreements with the Public Health Service (“PHS”), providing for a chargeback on sales to PHS-eligible Providers, and Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) customers, including the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Defense, providing for a chargeback on sales to eligible patients. Chargebacks occur when a contracted physician purchases our product at fixed contract prices that are lower than the price we charge the Wholesalers. Each Wholesaler, in turn, charges us back for the difference between the price initially paid by the Wholesaler and the contract price paid to the Wholesaler by the physician. These chargebacks are estimated and recorded in the period that the related revenue is recognized, resulting in a reduction in gross product revenue and trade accounts receivable. We recorded estimated chargebacks of approximately $3.8 million and $12.9 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, we recorded estimated chargebacks of approximately $4.3 million and $8.9 million, respectively. The following table is a roll forward of our chargebacks reserve:

In the fourth quarter of 2011, we entered into agreements with certain GPOs that contract for the purchase of PROVENGE on behalf of their members and provide contract administration services. Eligible members of the GPOs purchase PROVENGE at contracted prices, and may be entitled to receive a rebate on eligible purchases at the end of each quarter. Estimated rebates and administrative fees payable to GPOs are recognized in the same period that the related revenue is recognized, resulting in a reduction in product revenue, and are classified as other accrued liabilities until paid. We recorded rebates of approximately $0.6 million and $2.6 million and administrative fees of approximately $1.1 million and $3.1 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, we recorded no rebates or administrative fees related to GPOs. The following table is a roll forward of our accrued GPO rebates and GPO administrative fees balance:

Inventories are determined at the lower of cost or market value with cost determined under the specific identification method. We began capitalizing raw material inventory in mid-April 2009, in anticipation of the potential approval for marketing of PROVENGE in the first half of 2010. At this time, our expectation of future benefits became sufficiently high to justify capitalization of these costs, as regulatory approval was considered probable and the related costs were expected to be recoverable through the commercialization of the product. Costs incurred prior to mid-April 2009 were recorded as research and development expense in our statements of operations. As of April 2009, we had approximately $26.4 million in zero-cost inventory, which had been previously expensed and could be used for the commercial and clinical manufacture of PROVENGE, training or additional research and development efforts.

As of December 31, 2011, approximately $4.7 million of zero-cost inventory remained on hand. For the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, we used $4.7 million of zero-cost inventory and no zero-cost inventory remained on hand as of September 30, 2012. For the three month period ended September 30, 2012, no zero-cost inventory was used. Cost of product revenue includes antigen expense of approximately $6.4 million and $14.6 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, cost of product revenue does not include antigen expense as we used zero-cost inventory during these periods. As a result, cost of product revenue reflects a lower average per unit cost of antigen prior to mid-2012.

We utilize a third-party supplier, Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies, formerly Diosynth RTP, Inc., (“Fujifilm”), to manufacture the recombinant antigen used in the manufacture of PROVENGE. We take title to this material when accepted from Fujifilm and store it as raw material inventory for manufacturing and eventual sale. The prepaid costs of these materials are transferred to inventory as antigen is received.

Losses from impairment of long-lived assets used in operations are recognized when indicators of impairment are present and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the assets’ carrying amount. We periodically evaluate the carrying value of long-lived assets to be held and used when events and circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recovered. Refer to Note 7 – Property and Equipment and Note 13 – Restructuring, Contract Termination and Asset Impairment for details of losses from impairment of long-lived assets recorded in the third quarter of 2012. The determination of fair value of the assets evaluated for impairment required the use of judgmental assumptions surrounding the amount and timing of future cash flows and the highest and best use of the assets.

Stock-based compensation cost is estimated at the grant date based on the award’s fair value and is recognized on the accelerated method as expense over the requisite service period. The fair value of stock options is calculated using the Black-Scholes-Merton (“BSM”) option pricing model. The BSM model requires judgmental assumptions including volatility, forfeiture rates and expected option life. If any of the assumptions used in the BSM model change significantly, stock-based compensation expense for new awards may differ materially from that recorded for existing awards.

Restricted stock awards generally vest and are expensed over two to four year periods. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, we granted restricted stock awards and options with certain performance conditions to certain executive officers and key employees. At each reporting date, we evaluate whether achievement of the performance conditions is probable. Compensation expense is recorded over the appropriate service period based upon our assessment of accomplishing each performance provision or the occurrence of other events which may have caused the awards or options to accelerate and vest.

We determine the fair value of awards under our Employee Stock Purchase Plan using the BSM model.

Basic net loss per share is calculated by dividing net loss by the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding. Because we reported a net loss for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share. We have excluded all outstanding stock options, unvested restricted stock and shares issuable upon potential conversion of the 2.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2016 (the “2016 Notes”) and the 4.75% Convertible

Senior Subordinated Notes due 2014 (the “2014 Notes”) from the calculation of diluted net loss per common share because all such securities are anti-dilutive to the computation of net loss per share. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, approximately 23.1 million shares and 19.9 million shares, respectively, were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share.

Comprehensive income (loss) includes charges and credits to stockholders’ equity that are not the result of transactions with stockholders. Our comprehensive loss consisted of net loss plus changes in unrealized gain or loss on investments for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011.

In 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued two Accounting Standard Updates (“ASUs”) which amended guidance for the presentation of comprehensive income. The amended guidance requires an entity to present components of net income and other comprehensive income in one continuous statement, referred to as the statement of comprehensive income, or in two separate, but consecutive statements. The previous option to report other comprehensive income and its components in the statement of stockholders’ equity was eliminated. Although the new guidance changed the presentation of comprehensive income, no changes were made to the components that are recognized in net income or other comprehensive income under existing guidance. These ASUs were effective for us in the first quarter of 2012 and retrospective application was required. Accordingly, we changed our financial statement presentation of comprehensive income in our 2012 Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, which had no impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

For a more detailed listing of our significant accounting policies, see Note 2 of our consolidated financial statements included in our 2011 Form 10-K.

Securities available-for-sale at cost or amortized cost and fair market value by contractual maturity were as follows:

Our gross realized gains and losses on sales of available-for-sale securities were not material for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011.

Securities available-for-sale, short-term and long-term, consisted of the following:

None of our securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position for more than 12 months as of September 30, 2012.

Market values were determined for each individual security in the investment portfolio. We utilize third-party pricing services for all of our security valuations. We review the pricing methodology used by the third-party pricing services including the collection of market information. On a periodic basis, we also review and validate the pricing information received from the third-party providers. These procedures help ensure that the fair value information used is determined in accordance with applicable accounting guidance.

The declines in value of these investments are primarily related to changes in interest rates and are considered to be temporary in nature. We evaluate, among other things, the duration and extent to which the fair value of a security is less than its cost, the financial condition of the issuer, and our intent to sell, or whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery of the amortized cost basis. We have the ability and intent to hold these securities to maturity; therefore we do not consider these investments to be other-than-temporarily impaired as of September 30, 2012. See Note 4 – Fair Value Measurements for further discussion.

We had $8.0 million in secured deposits for various letters of credit as of September 30, 2012 and $8.0 million as of December 31, 2011, which are classified as long-term investments.

We measure and report at fair value cash equivalents and investment securities (financial assets). Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability, an exit price, in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The hierarchy of fair value measurements is described below:

Level 1 — Observable inputs for identical assets or liabilities such as quoted prices in active markets;

Level 2 — Inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or indirectly observable, such as quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability (i.e., interest rates, yield curves, etc.), and inputs that are derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data by correlation or other means (market corroborated inputs); and

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exists, therefore determined using estimates and assumptions developed by us, which reflect those that a market participant would use.

The following table summarizes financial assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis:

As further discussed in Note 7 – Property and Equipment, in July 2012 we announced the closure of our Morris Plains, New Jersey manufacturing facility (the “New Jersey Facility”) as part of a strategic restructuring plan. As a result, we recorded an impairment charge in the third quarter of 2012 to reduce the net book value of the property and equipment at the New Jersey Facility to estimated fair value. This non-recurring fair value measurement was based on Level 3 inputs in the fair value hierarchy.

The fair value of the 2016 Notes as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was approximately $406.1 million and $428.6 million, respectively, based on the last trading prices as of the respective period end. The fair value of the 2014 Notes as of September 30, 2012 was approximately $26.3 million based on the last trading price as of period end. The fair value of the 2014 Notes as of December 31, 2011 was approximately $38.8 million based on the average trading prices near period end. Estimates of fair value for the 2016 Notes and 2014 Notes are based on Level 2 inputs.

The carrying amounts reflected in the consolidated balance sheets for cash, prepaid expenses, other current assets, accounts payable, accrued expenses and other liabilities approximate fair value due to their short-term nature. In addition, our capital lease obligations approximate fair value based on current interest rates, which contain an element of default risk.

Inventories, stated at the lower of cost or market, consisted of raw materials of $67.7 million and finished goods of $0.9 million as of September 30, 2012. Inventories consisted of raw materials of $69.5 million as of December 31, 2011.

As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there was $1.0 million and $7.5 million, respectively, of prepaid costs associated with the purchase of the antigen used in the manufacture of PROVENGE, which Fujifilm is obligated to manufacture.

In addition, as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there was $9.1 million and $5.2 million, respectively, included in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” on our consolidated balance sheets related to costs associated with agreements to develop second source suppliers for materials used in the manufacture of PROVENGE, and to qualify a contract manufacturer for production. In addition, as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there was $0.2 million and $0.7 million, respectively, included in “Other assets” on our consolidated balance sheets related to these agreements.

On July 30, 2012, we announced a strategic restructuring plan that includes re-configuring our manufacturing model with the closure of our New Jersey Facility, restructuring administrative functions and strengthening our commercial functions, which we anticipate will lower our overall cost structure. As a result of our decision to close our New Jersey Facility, we recorded an impairment charge of $60.0 million in the third quarter of 2012 to reduce the net book value of the property and equipment at the New Jersey Facility to estimated fair value. The estimate of the fair value of our facility utilized an expected present value cash flow model, which included probability-weighted cash flows, requiring judgments and estimates related to the amount and timing of the cash flows and the highest and best use of the facility for a market participant. We applied a risk adjusted discount rate to our estimated cash flows in determining the net present value. Because of the unique nature of the facility, the fair value we ultimately realize after we vacate the facility may differ materially from our current estimate and could result in additional asset impairment charges.

Also as a result of the strategic restructuring plan, we discontinued development of a non-essential computer software project and recorded an impairment charge of $5.3 million in the third quarter of 2012 to reduce the net book value of the construction in progress to estimated fair value. The total non-cash impairment charge of $65.3 million is included in “Restructuring, contract termination and asset impairment” on our consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012. Refer to Note 13 – Restructuring, Contract Termination and Asset Impairment for further details.

We have three facility leases with provisions requiring that we restore the buildings to original condition upon lease termination. Accordingly, we have accrued the estimated costs of dismantlement and restoration associated with these obligations. The asset retirement obligations related to our manufacturing facilities in Atlanta, Georgia (the “Atlanta Facility”) and in Orange County, California (the “Orange County Facility”) are included in “Long-term accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheets. The asset retirement obligation related to the New Jersey Facility is included in “Accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2012, and is included in “Long-term accrued liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2011. In the third quarter of 2012, we increased our asset retirement obligation for the New Jersey Facility by $0.7 million, as we anticipate we will incur the dismantlement and restoration costs associated with this obligation in 2013. For further description of the facility leases, see Note 9 – Financing Obligations and Debt. The following table is a roll forward of our asset retirement obligations:

In December 2010, we entered into an industrial development revenue bond transaction related to our Atlanta Facility. Pursuant to the terms of the industrial revenue bonds, we transferred title to certain of our fixed assets with costs of $63.3 million as of December 31, 2010, to a local governmental authority in the United States to receive a property tax abatement related to economic development. The title to these assets will revert back to us upon retirement or cancellation of the applicable bonds. These fixed assets are still recognized in our consolidated balance sheets as all risks and benefits remain with us.

Depreciation expense, including depreciation of assets acquired through capital leases, for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 was $9.5 million and $31.2 million, respectively, and for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011 was $9.8 million and $25.8 million, respectively.

In August 2005, we entered into an agreement to lease commercial manufacturing space for our New Jersey Facility and, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 840-40, Sale-Leaseback Transactions, were deemed the owner of the New Jersey Facility during the construction period, as we were responsible for the construction costs. Therefore, we capitalized approximately $8.6 million, which represented the estimated fair value of the building, and recorded a related facility lease obligation of approximately $8.6 million at the commencement of construction. Accordingly, the lease payments are allocated to the building and land based on their estimated relative fair values. The portion of the lease related to land is treated as an operating lease. The New Jersey Facility lease obligation has, as amended, an extended term of 17 years expiring in November 2022, with an effective interest rate of 7.64%. The estimated lease term is based on the initial 7-year term of the New Jersey Facility lease and a 10-year renewal, which was executed in November 2011. The New Jersey Facility lease may be renewed for up to an additional 15 years beyond the 17-year term. The remaining facility lease obligation related to this facility was $7.2 million as of September 30, 2012. Refer to Note 13 – Restructuring, Contract Termination and Asset Impairment for further details regarding the closure of this facility.

In August 2009, we entered into a lease for existing building space in Orange County, California (the “Orange County Facility”) for use as a manufacturing facility following build-out and, in accordance with ASC 840-40, Sale-Leaseback Transactions, were deemed the owner of the facility during the construction period, as we were responsible for the construction costs. Therefore, we capitalized approximately $6.7 million, which represented the estimated fair value of the building, and recorded a related facility lease obligation of approximately $6.7 million upon taking possession of the facility and subsequently beginning construction. The lease payments are allocated to the building and land based on their estimated relative fair values. The portion of the lease related to land is treated as an operating lease. The Orange County Facility lease obligation has an extended term of 15.5 years with an effective interest rate of 1.46%. The estimated lease term is based on the initial 10.5 year term of the Orange County lease and a 5-year renewal. The Orange County lease may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years beyond the estimated 15.5 year term. The remaining facility lease obligation related to this facility was $5.8 million as of September 30, 2012.

In July 2009, we entered into a lease for building space in Atlanta, Georgia for use as a manufacturing facility following build-out and, in accordance with ASC 840-40, Sale-Leaseback Transactions, were deemed the owner of the facility during the construction

period, as we were responsible for the construction costs. Therefore, upon taking possession of the building in March 2010, we capitalized approximately $6.4 million, which represented the estimated fair value of the building, and recorded a related facility lease obligation of approximately $6.4 million. The lease payments are allocated to the building and land based on their estimated relative fair values. The portion of the lease related to land is treated as an operating lease. The Atlanta Facility lease obligation has an extended term of 15.5 years with an effective interest rate of 3.37%. The estimated lease term is based on the initial 10.5-year term of the Atlanta Facility lease and a 5-year renewal. The Atlanta lease may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years beyond the estimated 15.5-year term. The remaining facility lease obligation related to this facility was $5.8 million as of September 30, 2012.

On January 14, 2011, we entered into an underwriting agreement with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (the “Underwriter”) relating to the offer and sale of $540 million aggregate principal amount of the 2016 Notes. Under the terms of the underwriting agreement, we granted the Underwriter an option, exercisable within 30 days of the date of the agreement, to purchase up to an additional $80 million aggregate principal amount of 2016 Notes to cover overallotments. We issued $540 million in aggregate principal amount of the 2016 Notes upon the closing of the offering on January 20, 2011. Net proceeds, after payment of underwriting fees and other offering expenses, were approximately $528.8 million. On January 31, 2011, the Underwriter exercised the overallotment option in full, and we closed on the sale of the additional $80 million in principal amount of the 2016 Notes on February 3, 2011. Net proceeds from the exercise of the overallotment option, after deducting underwriting fees and other offering expenses, were approximately $78.3 million.

On January 20, 2011, we entered into the First Supplemental Indenture (the “Supplemental Indenture”) with The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the “Trustee”), to our existing Base Indenture (the “Base Indenture” and, together with the Supplemental Indenture, the “2016 Indenture”), dated as of March 16, 2007. The 2016 Indenture sets forth the rights and provisions governing the 2016 Notes. Interest at 2.875% per annum is payable on the 2016 Notes semi-annually in arrears on January 15 and July 15 of each year, beginning on July 15, 2011. Record dates for payment of interest on the 2016 Notes are each January 1 and July 1.

The 2016 Notes are convertible at the option of the holder, and we may choose to satisfy conversions, if any, in cash, shares of our common stock, or a combination of cash and shares of our common stock, based on a conversion rate initially equal to 19.5160 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of the 2016 Notes, which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $51.24 per share. The conversion rate will be increased under certain circumstances described in the 2016 Indenture; however, the number of shares of common stock issued upon conversion of a 2016 Note will not exceed 27.3224 per $1,000 principal amount of 2016 Notes, subject to adjustment in accordance with the 2016 Indenture. Should a holder exercise the conversion option during the next twelve-month period, it is our intention to satisfy the conversion with shares of common stock. Consequently, the 2016 Notes are classified as a long-term liability as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

The conversion rate will be adjusted upon the occurrence of certain events, including stock dividends or share splits, the issuance of rights, options or warrants, spin-offs or other distribution of property, cash dividends or distributions, or tender offers or exchange offers. We will not make an adjustment to the conversion rate for any transaction described above (other than share splits or share combinations) if each holder of the 2016 Notes has the right to participate in such transaction at the same time and upon the same terms as holders of common stock, and solely as a result of holding the 2016 Notes, without having to convert the 2016 Notes and as if a number of shares of common stock were held equal to the applicable conversion rate multiplied by the principal amount of 2016 Notes held.

The 2016 Notes are subject to repurchase by us at the option of the holders following a “fundamental change,” as defined in the 2016 Indenture. If a fundamental change occurs, holders of the 2016 Notes may require us to repurchase all or a portion of their 2016 Notes for cash at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2016 Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest and other amounts due thereon. However, if a fundamental change occurs and a holder elects to convert the 2016 Notes, we will, under certain circumstances, increase the applicable conversion rate for the 2016 Notes surrendered for conversion by a number of additional shares of common stock, based on the date on which the fundamental change occurs or becomes effective and the price paid per share of common stock in the fundamental change as specified in the 2016 Indenture. At our option, we will satisfy our conversion obligation with cash, shares of common stock or a combination of cash and shares, unless the consideration for common stock in any fundamental change is comprised entirely of cash, in which case the conversion obligation will be paid in cash. The number of additional shares of common stock was determined such that the fair value of the additional shares would be expected to approximate the fair value of the convertible option at the date of the fundamental change.

increase the conversion rate if the Board of Directors determines that such increase would avoid or diminish United States federal income tax to holders of common stock in connection with a dividend or distribution. The 2016 Indenture contains customary covenants.

The 2016 Notes are accounted for in accordance with ASC 470-20, Debt with Conversion and Other Options, under which issuers of certain convertible debt instruments that may be settled in part in cash upon conversion, are required to separately account for the liability (debt) and equity (conversion option) components of the instrument. The liability component of the 2016 Notes, as of the issuance date, was calculated by estimating the fair value of a similar liability issued at an 8.1% effective interest rate, which was determined by considering the rate of return investors would require in the Company’s debt structure. The amount of the equity component was calculated by deducting the fair value of the liability component from the principal amount of the 2016 Notes and resulted in a corresponding increase to debt discount. The debt discount is being amortized as interest expense through the earlier of the maturity date of the 2016 Notes or the date of conversions, if any.

We incurred debt issuance costs of approximately $12.9 million related to the 2016 Notes. In accordance with ASC 470-20, we allocated approximately $10.1 million of debt issuance costs to the liability component of the 2016 Notes, and are amortizing these costs to interest expense through the earlier of the maturity date of the 2016 Notes or the date of conversion. The remaining $2.8 million of debt issuance costs was allocated to the equity component of the 2016 Notes and recorded as an offset to additional paid-in capital.

Amortization of the debt discount and debt issuance costs resulted in non-cash interest expense of $6.6 million and $19.5 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $6.0 million and $16.8 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. In addition, interest expense recognized on the 2.875% stated coupon rate was $4.5 million and $13.4 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $4.5 million and $12.3 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively.

We have identified other embedded derivatives associated with the 2016 Notes and are accounting for these embedded derivatives accordingly. These embedded derivatives meet certain criteria and are therefore not required to be accounted for separately from the 2016 Notes.

In 2007, an aggregate of $85.3 million of the 2014 Notes was sold in a private placement to qualified institutional buyers. Proceeds from the offering, after deducting placement fees and expenses of approximately $3.0 million, were approximately $82.3 million. The 2014 Notes were issued at face principal amount and pay interest at 4.75% per annum on a semi-annual basis in arrears on June 15 and December 15 of each year. Record dates for payment of interest on the 2014 Notes are each June 1 and December 1. In certain circumstances, additional amounts may become due on the 2014 Notes as additional interest. We can elect that the sole remedy for an event of default for our failure to comply with the “reporting obligations” provisions of the indenture under which the 2014 Notes were issued (the “2014 Indenture”) for the first 180 days after the occurrence of such event of default would be for the holders of the 2014 Notes to receive additional interest on the 2014 Notes at an annual rate equal to 1% of the outstanding principal amount of the 2014 Notes.

The 2014 Notes are convertible into our common stock at the option of the holder, initially at the conversion price of $10.28 per share, equal to a conversion rate of approximately 97.2644 shares per $1,000 principal amount of the 2014 Notes, subject to adjustment. There may be an increase in the conversion rate of the 2014 Notes under certain circumstances described in the 2014 Indenture; however, the number of shares of common stock issued will not exceed 114.2857 per $1,000 principal amount of the 2014 Notes.

The 2014 Notes are subject to repurchase by us at the option of the holders following a “fundamental change,” as defined in the 2014 Indenture. If a fundamental change occurs, holders of the 2014 Notes may require us to repurchase all or a portion of their 2014 Notes for cash at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2014 Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest and other amounts due thereon. However, a holder that converts 2014 Notes in connection with a fundamental change, as defined in the 2014 Indenture, may in some circumstances be entitled to an increased conversion rate (i.e., a lower per share conversion price) as a make whole premium. The increased conversion rates were determined such that the fair value of the additional shares would be expected to approximate the fair value of the convertible option at the date of the fundamental change.

In addition, the conversion rate will be adjusted upon the occurrence of certain events, including stock dividends or share splits, the issuance of rights or warrants, other distribution of property, cash dividends or distributions, or tender offers or exchange offers. We will not make an adjustment to the conversion rate for any transaction described above (other than share splits or share combinations) if each holder of the 2014 Notes has the right to participate in such transaction at the same time and upon the same terms as holders of common stock, and solely as a result of holding the 2014 Notes, without having to convert the 2014 Notes and as if a number of shares of common stock were held equal to the applicable conversion rate multiplied by the principal amount of 2014 Notes held.

In addition, we may from time to time increase the conversion rate, to the extent permitted by law, by any amount for any period of time if the period is at least 20 business days and we provide 15 business days prior written notice of such increase. We may increase the conversion rate if the Board of Directors determines that such increase would avoid or diminish United States federal income tax to holders of common stock in connection with a dividend or distribution. The 2014 Indenture contains customary covenants.

As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the aggregate principal amount of the 2014 Notes outstanding was $27.7 million. We recorded interest expense, including the amortization of debt issuance costs, related to the 2014 Notes of $0.4 million during each of the three month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, and $1.1 million during each of the nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011.

We have identified embedded derivatives associated with the 2014 Notes. These embedded derivatives meet certain criteria and are therefore not required to be accounted for separately from the 2014 Notes.

As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had equity-based employee incentive plans, which are described more fully in Note 12 in our 2011 Form 10-K, and in our Definitive Proxy Statement for our 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

In 2010, 2011 and 2012, we granted restricted stock awards and stock options with certain performance conditions to certain executive officers and key employees. At each reporting date, we evaluate whether achievement of the performance conditions is probable. Compensation expense is recorded over the appropriate service period based upon our assessment of accomplishing each performance provision or the occurrence of other events which may cause the awards or options to accelerate and vest. For the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, we recognized $0.3 million of compensation expense related to awards and options granted in 2012 with performance conditions. For the three month period ended September 30, 2012, compensation expense recognized related to awards and options with performance conditions was not material. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, we recognized $1.6 million in compensation expense related to awards granted in 2011 with performance conditions. The remaining restricted stock awards granted in 2010 and 2011 with performance conditions were forfeited in January 2012.

The fair value of stock awards was estimated at the date of grant using the BSM model with the following weighted average assumptions for awards granted during the period:

As of September 30, 2012 we had approximately $9.3 million of unrecognized compensation expense related to our unvested stock options. We expect to recognize this compensation expense over a weighted-average period of approximately 1.4 years.

We also grant restricted stock awards that generally vest and are expensed over two to four year periods. The following table summarizes restricted stock award activity:

As of September 30, 2012, we had approximately $27.0 million in total unrecognized compensation expense related to our restricted stock awards, which will be recognized over a weighted-average period of approximately 1.2 years.

We have a supply agreement with Fujifilm covering the commercial production of the recombinant antigen used in the manufacture of PROVENGE. The second amendment to the supply agreement extended the term of the agreement through December 31, 2018. Unless terminated, the agreement will renew automatically thereafter for additional 5-year terms. The agreement may be terminated upon written notice by us or Fujifilm at least 24 months before the end of a renewal term or by either party in the event of an uncured material breach or default by the other party.

We currently have remaining commitments with Fujifilm to purchase antigen in 2012 of $40.8 million and in 2013 of $43.8 million. Payments on these commitments will likely continue through 2014.

The majority of our operating lease payments relate to two leases entered into in 2011 in Seattle, Washington, which collectively cover our principal corporate offices in Seattle, and the manufacturing facility leases in Morris Plains, New Jersey, Orange County, California and Atlanta, Georgia. In addition, in July 2012 we entered into a lease in Bridgewater, New Jersey, which will be used for office space.

approximately $15.4 million as of September 30, 2012. The lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit as a security deposit. We provided the bank that issued the letter of credit on our behalf with an initial security deposit of $2.2 million to guarantee the letter of credit. The lessor reduced the security deposit during the three month period ended June 30, 2012, resulting in a decrease in the deposit securing the letter of credit to $1.1 million. The security deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 on our consolidated balance sheets.

Also in February 2011, we entered into a sublease for laboratory and office space of 97,365 square feet in Seattle, Washington. The lease term is for eight years. The remaining rent payable under the lease term was $22.7 million as of September 30, 2012. The lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit which we have secured with a $1.1 million security deposit. The security deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 on our consolidated balance sheets.

In July 2012, we entered into a lease for office space of 39,937 square feet in Bridgewater, New Jersey. We currently anticipate taking occupancy in January 2013. The initial lease term is for ten years, with one renewal term of five years. The aggregate rent payable under the initial lease term is approximately $12.5 million. The lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit which we have secured with a $1.6 million security deposit. The security deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 on our consolidated balance sheet.

In August 2005, we entered into an agreement to lease the New Jersey Facility, consisting of approximately 158,000 square feet of commercial manufacturing space. The lease agreement originally expired in November 2012; however in November 2011 we entered into an amendment to this lease agreement to extend the lease through November 2022. This lease may be extended at our option for an additional ten-year period and a five-year period, with the same terms and conditions except for rent, which adjusts upon renewal to market rate. The remaining rent payable under the current ten-year extension was $12.8 million as of September 30, 2012. During 2010, we supported commercial sale of PROVENGE from the initial available capacity at the New Jersey Facility. On March 10, 2011, the FDA approved the remainder of the New Jersey Facility for the commercial manufacture of PROVENGE. Refer to Note 13 – Restructuring, Contract Termination and Asset Impairment for details regarding the closure of this facility.

The New Jersey Facility lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit. We have provided the bank that issued the letter of credit on our behalf a security deposit of $2.0 million to guarantee the letter of credit. The deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 on our consolidated balance sheets. As part of an agreement with the Township of Hanover relating to the permitting of the expansion of our New Jersey Facility, substantially completed in May 2010, we had $0.3 million in long-term investments on our consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 being held as a security deposit to ensure completion of certain improvements at the property.

In August 2009, we entered into an agreement to lease the Orange County Facility, consisting of approximately 184,000 square feet, for use as a manufacturing facility following build-out. The initial lease term is ten and a half years, expiring in December 2019, with five renewal terms of five years each. The remaining rent payable under the initial lease term was $10.1 million as of September 30, 2012. On June 29, 2011 the FDA approved the Orange County Facility for the commercial manufacture of PROVENGE.

The Orange County Facility lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit of $2.1 million as a security deposit. We provided the bank that issued the letter of credit on our behalf an initial security deposit of $2.2 million to guarantee the letter of credit. The lessor reduced the security deposit during the three month period ended June 30, 2012, resulting in a decrease in the deposit securing the letter of credit to $1.7 million. The security deposit is recorded as a long-term investment on our September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 consolidated balance sheets.

In July 2009, we entered into an agreement to lease the Atlanta Facility, consisting of approximately 156,000 square feet, for use as a manufacturing facility following build-out. The lease commenced when we took possession of the building upon substantial completion of construction of the building shell in March 2010. The initial lease term is ten and a half years, with five renewal terms of five years each. The remaining rent payable for the Atlanta Facility under the initial lease term was $5.4 million as of September 30, 2012. On August 26, 2011 the FDA approved the Atlanta Facility for the commercial manufacture of PROVENGE.

We account for the New Jersey Facility, the Orange County Facility and the Atlanta Facility as assets with related facility lease obligations due to our significant investment in the build-out of the facilities. The lease payments are allocated to the building and land based on their estimated relative fair values. The portion of the lease related to land is treated as an operating lease. The portion of the lease related to the building is treated as a facility lease obligation as further discussed in Note 9 – Financing Obligations and Debt.

Future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases, including the land portion of our manufacturing facilities and the maintenance component of capital leases, at September 30, 2012, were as follows:

The Company and three current and former officers are named defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the “District Court”) under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR. Lead Plaintiff, San Mateo County Employees Retirement Association purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 24, 2012. In general, the complaints allege that the defendants issued materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects with a focus on the market launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE as reflected in the Company’s August 3, 2011 release of its financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on April 27, 2012, and that motion is fully briefed and awaiting further action by the Court. We cannot predict the outcome of that motion or of these lawsuits; however, the Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to defend the claims vigorously.

Related to the securities lawsuits, the Company also is the subject of stockholder derivative complaints first filed in August 2011 generally arising out of the facts and circumstances that are alleged to underlie the securities action. Derivative suits filed in the District Court were consolidated in December 2011 into a proceeding captioned In re Dendreon Corp. Derivative Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1345 JLR; others were filed in the Superior Court of Washington for King County and were consolidated by order dated November 9, 2011 into a proceeding captioned In re Dendreon Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 11-2-29626-1 SEA. On June 22, 2012, another derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Herbert Silverberg, derivatively on behalf of Dendreon Corporation v. Mitchell H. Gold, et al., Case No. 7646-VCP. The complaints filed in Washington all name as defendants the three individuals who are defendants in the securities action together with the other members of the Company’s Board of Directors. While the complaints filed in Washington assert various legal theories of liability, the lawsuits generally allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the launch of PROVENGE and by purportedly subjecting the Company to potential liability for securities fraud. The complaints also include claims against certain of defendants for supposed misappropriation of Company information and insider trading; the Silverberg complaint, which names one additional former officer of the Company as a defendant, asserts only this claim. The derivative actions pending in Washington are all the subject of stipulated orders staying proceedings until the District Court rules on the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the securities action. The parties in the Delaware action remain in discussions over preliminary procedural matters and there are no pending deadlines. While the Company has certain indemnification obligations, including obligations to advance legal expense to the named defendants for defense of these lawsuits, the purported derivative lawsuits do not seek relief against the Company. Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has commenced a formal investigation, which the Company believes may relate to some of the same issues raised in the securities and derivative actions. The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC investigation. The ultimate financial impact of these various proceedings if any is not yet determinable and therefore, no provision for loss, if any, has been recorded in the financial statements. The Company has insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated costs of these proceedings, subject to the policies’ terms and conditions.

The Company received notice in November 2011 of a lawsuit filed in the Durham County Superior Court of North Carolina against the Company by GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”). The lawsuit purports claims for monies due and owing and breach of the Company’s obligations under the Development and Supply Agreement (the “GSK Agreement”) terminated as of October 31, 2011. The Company does not believe the lawsuit has merit, filed a Counterclaim and Answer on January 6, 2012, and intends to defend its position vigorously. The Company expects to pay approximately $4.0 million in fees in connection with the termination of the Development and Supply Agreement. The ultimate financial impact of the lawsuit is not yet determinable. Therefore, no additional provision for loss has been recorded in the financial statements.

On July 30 2012, we announced that our Board of Directors approved a strategic restructuring plan that includes re-configuring our manufacturing model with the closure of our New Jersey Facility, restructuring administrative functions and strengthening our commercial functions, which we anticipate will lower our overall cost structure. The restructuring initiatives include a reduction in workforce of approximately 600 full-time and contractor positions. The employees affected by the workforce reduction were notified the week of September 17, 2012.

As a result of our workforce reduction, we recorded a charge of approximately $10.5 million during the third quarter of 2012 related to severance, other termination benefits, outplacement services and non-cash stock-based compensation due to the accelerated vesting of options and restricted stock awards of certain employees with employment agreements. We expect to incur and record an additional $13.9 million in restructuring charges related to employee severance benefits through the second quarter of 2013, as employees who were notified the week of September 17, 2012 continue to transition out of the Company. We expect the implementation of the restructuring initiatives will be substantially completed by June 2013.

In addition, we recorded restructuring charges of $5.2 million and $6.3 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, related to fees associated with planning and developing the restructuring plan, relocation benefits offered to employees, expenses associated with the closure of the New Jersey Facility and other related expenses.

As a result of our decision to close our New Jersey Facility, we recorded an impairment charge of $60.0 million in the third quarter of 2012 to reduce the net book value of the property and equipment at the New Jersey Facility to estimated fair value. The determination of fair value of the New Jersey Facility assets required the use of judgmental assumptions surrounding the estimated future cash flows related to the highest and best use of the assets and estimated salvage values.

For the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, the total non-cash impairment charge of $65.3 million and total restructuring charges of $16.8 million are included in “Restructuring, contract termination and asset impairment” on our consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012.

The following table summarizes the utilization of the 2012 restructuring liability:

On August 3, 2011, as a result of a decrease in anticipated revenue growth in 2011, we announced plans to reduce expenses, including workforce-related expenses, to align with our near-term manufacturing requirements. On September 2, 2011, our Board of Directors approved a reduction in force of approximately 25% of our total workforce, or approximately 500 employees. The employees affected by the reduction in force were notified the week of September 6, 2011.

As a result of our workforce reduction, we recorded a charge of $19.4 million during the third quarter of 2011 related to severance, other termination benefits, outplacement services and non-cash stock-based compensation due to the accelerated vesting of options and restricted stock awards of certain employees with employment agreements. During the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, we decreased our restructuring liability by $0.1 million related to other termination benefits, including outplacement services and COBRA benefits, not used by employees.

On September 1, 2011 we provided written notice to GSK of termination of the GSK Agreement effective on October 31, 2011. We entered into the GSK Agreement for the commercial production and supply of the antigen used in the manufacture of PROVENGE. We exercised our right to terminate the GSK Agreement when, after unforeseen delays, GSK failed to complete the process implementation phase on or before September 1, 2011 pursuant to the terms of the GSK Agreement. Assets included in our prepaid expense and other current assets balance related to the GSK Agreement were deemed unusable and, as such, we incurred an expense of $19.1 million during the third quarter of 2011.

The following table summarizes the utilization of the 2011 restructuring and contract termination liabilities:

The 2012 and 2011 restructuring and contract termination liabilities are separately recorded as current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets at September 30, 2012, as we expect to pay the amounts owed within the next 12 months.

We do not expect to incur additional restructuring charges in 2012 related to severance and other termination benefits in connection with the September 2011 restructuring. See Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies for disclosure of a lawsuit filed against the Company by GSK in November 2011, purporting claims for monies due and owing and breach of the Company’s obligations under the GSK Agreement. Although the ultimate financial impact of the lawsuit is not yet determinable, the Company expects to pay approximately $4.0 million in fees in connection with the termination of the GSK Agreement, which is included in the “Restructuring and contract termination liabilities” on the consolidated balance sheets at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements concerning matters that involve risks and uncertainties. The statements contained in this report that are not purely historical are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These forward-looking statements concern matters that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Words such as “believes,” “expects,” “likely,” “may” and “plans” are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words.

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. Moreover, neither we nor any other person assumes responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the forward-looking statements. We are under no duty to update any of the forward-looking statements after the date hereof to conform such statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes thereto included in Item 1 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. In addition, readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by us regarding important factors that affect our business, including without limitation the disclosures set forth under the heading “Risk Factors” in this report, as well as the disclosures in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “2011 Form 10-K”), including the audited financial statements and the notes thereto and disclosures made under the captions “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

We are a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel therapeutics that may significantly improve cancer treatment options for patients. Our product portfolio includes active cellular immunotherapies and a small molecule product candidate that could be applicable to treating multiple types of cancers.

PROVENGE^® (sipuleucel-T) is our only commercialized product licensed by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and is a first in class autologous cellular immunotherapy for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, metastatic, castrate-resistant (hormone-refractory) prostate cancer. Commercial sale of PROVENGE began in May 2010. Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer among men in the United States, with over one million men currently diagnosed with the disease, and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men in the United States. We own worldwide rights for PROVENGE.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. As of September 30, 2012, our accumulated deficit was $1.9 billion. We have incurred net losses as a result of research and development expenses, clinical trial expenses, contract manufacturing and facility expenses, costs associated with the commercial launch of PROVENGE and general and administrative expenses in support of our operations and research efforts. We anticipate that near term we will continue to fund our ongoing research, development and general operations from available cash, including proceeds from our January 2011 convertible notes offering, and revenue generated from commercial sales of PROVENGE. However, there can be no assurance that available cash and cash generated through current operations will be sufficient to continue to conduct our operations and expand according to our business plans. The majority of our resources continue to be used in support of the commercialization of PROVENGE. Even if we are able to successfully realize our commercialization goals for PROVENGE, because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with commercialization of a biologic, we are unable to predict when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we achieve profitability, we may not be able to maintain or increase profitability.

We generated net revenue from sales of PROVENGE of $77.9 million and $239.9 million during the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, compared to $61.4 million and $136.5 million during the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011. Approximately 741 parent accounts, some of which have multiple sites, had infused the product as of the end of September 2012. Commercial sale of PROVENGE is currently supported by our three manufacturing facilities in Morris Plains, New Jersey (the “New Jersey Facility”), Orange County, California (the “Orange County Facility”), and Atlanta, Georgia (the “Atlanta Facility”). On July 30 2012, we announced a strategic restructuring plan that includes re-configuring our manufacturing model with the closure of our New Jersey Facility. We anticipate that with the closure of our New Jersey Facility, the manufacturing of PROVENGE can be handled in the volumes that we expect to require through our Atlanta and Orange County facilities.

On June 30, 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the “CMS”) issued a final National Coverage Determination (“NCD”) for PROVENGE, completing the analysis commenced one year prior and requiring Medicare contractors to cover the use of PROVENGE for on-label use. The NCD standardized coverage processes across the country for all Medicare patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castrate-resistant (hormone-refractory) prostate cancer and provides the local Medicare Administrative Contractors (“MACs”) specific criteria, consistent with the label, on how PROVENGE should be covered. PROVENGE was issued a product specific Q-code effective July 1, 2011, which allows for electronic submission of claims. During November 2011, CMS also updated their coverage policy for PROVENGE to cover the infusion costs associated with the administration of PROVENGE, making coverage for PROVENGE consistent with all other infused biologics.

In January 2011, we announced plans to seek marketing authorization for the sale of PROVENGE in Europe. Following a number of pre-submission meetings with European Union National Agencies, we expect that data from our Phase 3 D9902B IMPACT (IMmunotherapy for Prostate AdenoCarcinoma Treatment) study, supported by data from our D9901 and D9902A studies, will be sufficient to seek regulatory approval for PROVENGE in the E.U. Using clinical data described in our United States Biologics License Application, we filed our marketing authorization application (“MAA”) with the European Medicines Agency, which was validated on January 25, 2012. To accelerate the regulatory timeline, we plan to initially manufacture product for our MAA through a contract manufacturing organization. We anticipate a regulatory decision from the E.U. in mid-2013.

As of September 30, 2012, our manufacturing operations employed approximately 700 individuals, a decrease from 840 individuals at June 30, 2012 due to the Company’s 2012 restructuring and workforce reduction. Our commercial team included approximately 180 individuals employed in sales, marketing, and market access support as of September 30, 2012, an increase of 25 individuals from June 30, 2012, due to realignment of individuals from other departments in the current quarter. As a result of the restructuring announced on July 30, 2012, we will be closing the New Jersey Facility, which employed approximately 200 individuals in manufacturing operations as of September 30, 2012.

Other potential product candidates we have under development include our investigational active cellular immunotherapy, DN24-02, which may be used to treat solid tumors expressing HER2/neu such as bladder, breast and ovarian. In December 2010, we filed an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application with the FDA for DN24-02 for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma, including bladder cancer, following surgical resection, and we enrolled our first patient in a trial under this IND in September 2011. Active cellular immunotherapies directed at carbonic anhydrase 9 (“CA-9”), an antigen highly expressed in renal cell carcinoma, and carcinoembryonic antigen (“CEA”), an antigen expressed in colorectal and other cancers, are in preclinical development. We are also developing an orally-available small molecule targeting TRPM8 that could be applicable in treating multiple types of cancer. We completed our Phase 1 clinical trial initiated in 2009 to evaluate TRPM8.

As discussed above, on July 30, 2012, we announced that our Board of Directors approved a strategic restructuring plan that includes re-configuring our manufacturing model with the closure of the New Jersey Facility, restructuring administrative functions and strengthening our commercial functions, which we anticipate will lower our overall cost structure. As a result of the restructuring, we expect to reduce costs by approximately $150 million annually, including a reduction in headcount of approximately 600 full-time and contractor positions. We expect the implementation of the restructuring initiatives will be substantially completed by June 2013.

As a result of our workforce reduction, we recorded restructuring charges of $16.8 million for the nine month period ended September 30, 2012 related to severance and other termination benefits, including non-cash stock-based compensation, fees associated with planning and developing the restructuring plan, relocation benefits offered to employees, expenses associated with the closure of the New Jersey Facility and other related expenses. In addition, we recorded impairment charges of $65.3 million in the third quarter of 2012 related to property and equipment at the New Jersey Facility and as the result of the discontinued development of a non-essential computer software project as a result of the restructuring plan. We expect to incur and record an additional $13.9 million in restructuring charges related to employee severance benefits through the second quarter of 2013. Certain projects are subject to a variety of labor and employment laws, rules, and regulations which could result in a delay in implementing these projects.

We make judgmental decisions and estimates with underlying assumptions when applying accounting principles to prepare our consolidated financial statements. Certain critical accounting policies requiring significant judgments, estimates, and assumptions are detailed below. We consider an accounting estimate to be critical if (1) it requires assumptions to be made that are uncertain at the time the estimate is made and (2) changes to the estimate or different estimates that could have reasonably been used would have materially changed our consolidated financial statements. The development and selection of these critical accounting policies have been reviewed with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

We believe the current assumptions and other considerations used to estimate amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements are appropriate. However, should our actual experience differ from these assumptions and other considerations used in estimating these amounts, the impact of these differences could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

For a more detailed listing of our critical accounting estimates, refer to our 2011 Form 10-K.

Our product is subject to certain required pricing discounts via rebates and/or chargebacks pursuant to mandatory federal and state government programs, and accordingly revenue recognition requires estimates of rebates and chargebacks. We have agreements with the CMS providing for a rebate on sales to eligible Medicaid patients. For sales of our product to eligible Medicaid patients, the physician purchases our product at full price, and then receives reimbursement from the applicable state. The state, in turn, invoices us for the amount of the Medicaid rebate. Estimated rebates payable under Medicaid are recognized in the same period that the related revenue is recognized, resulting in a reduction in gross product revenue, and are classified as other accrued liabilities until paid. Our estimate of rebates payable is based on information we gather related to the physician site as well as health insurance information related to the patient being treated. Since there is often a delay between product sale and the processing and payment of the Medicaid rebates, we evaluate our estimates regularly, and adjust our estimates as necessary.

We also have agreements with the Public Health Service (“PHS”), providing for a chargeback on sales to PHS-eligible Providers, and Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) customers, including the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Defense, providing for a chargeback on sales to eligible patients. Chargebacks occur when a contracted physician purchases our product at fixed contract prices that are lower than the price we charge the Wholesalers. Each Wholesaler, in turn, charges us back for the difference between the price initially paid by the Wholesaler and the contract price paid to the Wholesaler by the physician. These chargebacks are estimated and recorded in the period that the related revenue is recognized, resulting in a reduction in gross product revenue and trade accounts receivable. Our estimate of chargebacks is based on information we gather related to the physician site.

As of December 31, 2011, approximately $4.7 million of zero-cost inventory remained on hand. For the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, we used $4.7 million of zero-cost inventory, and no zero-cost inventory remained on hand as of September 30, 2012. Cost of product revenue includes antigen expense of approximately $6.4 million and $14.6 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, cost of product revenue does not include antigen expense as we used zero-cost inventory during these periods. As a result, cost of product revenue reflects a lower average per unit cost of antigen prior to mid-2012.

Losses from impairment of long-lived assets used in operations are recognized when indicators of impairment are present and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the assets’ carrying amount. We periodically evaluate the carrying value of long-lived assets to be held and used when events and circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recovered. Refer to Note 7 – Property and Equipment and Note 13 – Restructuring, Contract Termination and Asset Impairment to our consolidated financial statements for details of losses from impairment of long-lived assets recorded in the third quarter of 2012. The determination of fair value of the assets evaluated for impairment required the use of judgmental assumptions surrounding the amount and timing of future cash flows and the highest and best use of the assets.

The Company’s 2.875% Convertible Senior Notes due 2016 (the “2016 Notes”), issued in the first quarter of 2011, are convertible at the option of the holder, and we may choose to satisfy conversions, if any, in cash, shares of our common stock, or a combination of cash and shares of common stock, based on a conversion rate initially equal to 19.5160 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of the 2016 Notes, which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $51.24 per share. Should a holder exercise the conversion option during the next twelve-month period, it is our intention to satisfy the conversion with shares of common stock.

The 2016 Notes are accounted for in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 470-20, Debt with Conversion and Other Options, under which issuers of certain convertible debt instruments that may be settled in part in cash upon conversion, are required to separately account for the liability (debt) and equity (conversion option) components of the instrument. The liability component of the 2016 Notes, as of the issuance date, was calculated by estimating the fair value of a similar liability issued at an 8.1% effective interest rate, which was determined by considering the rate of return investors would require in the Company’s debt structure. The amount of the equity component was calculated by deducting the fair value of the liability component from the principal amount of the 2016 Notes and resulted in a corresponding increase to debt discount. The debt discount is being amortized as interest expense through the earlier of the maturity date of the 2016 Notes or the date of conversions, if any.

We measure and report at fair value cash equivalents and investment securities. Fair value is defined as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability, an exit price, in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.

Assets and liabilities typically recorded at fair value on a non-recurring basis include long-lived assets measured at fair value due to an impairment assessment under ASC 360-10, Property, Plant and Equipment, and asset retirement obligations initially measured under ASC 410-20, Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations.

We determine the fair value of awards under our Employee Stock Purchase Plan using the BSM model.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012 AND 2011

Net product revenue from the commercial sale of PROVENGE was $77.9 million and $239.9 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $61.4 million and $136.5 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. The increase in product revenue is due to our commercialization efforts following the approval of PROVENGE for commercial sale in May 2010. We expect product revenue to increase in future periods as we expand commercialization and as market acceptance grows.

Revenue from the sale of PROVENGE is recorded net of product returns and estimated pricing discounts via rebates and/or chargebacks, offered pursuant to mandatory federal and state government programs and to members of GPOs. Our revenue recognition policy requires estimates of rebates and chargebacks each period.

We recorded estimated rebates of approximately $0.5 million for the nine month period ended September 30, 2012 and no estimated rebates for the three month period ended September 30, 2012. We recorded estimated rebates of approximately $0.1 million for both the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011.

We recorded estimated chargebacks of approximately $3.8 million and $12.9 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $4.3 million and $8.9 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. The following table is a roll forward of our chargebacks reserve:

In addition, for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, we recorded GPO rebates of approximately $0.6 million and $2.6 million, respectively, and GPO administrative fees of approximately $1.1 million and $3.1 million, respectively. No rebates or administrative fees were recorded for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011 related to GPOs. The following table is a roll forward of our accrued GPO rebates and GPO administrative fees balance:

Royalty revenue for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 resulted from the recognition of royalties pursuant to a license agreement. In the third quarter of 2011, we began receiving royalties on Merck’s sales of VICTRELIS^TM (boceprevir), for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, which was approved in May 2011. We received royalties on worldwide net sales of boceprevir pursuant to the terms of a license and collaboration agreement. We recorded $2.9 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, related to second quarter and estimated third quarter sales of the product. In the fourth quarter of 2011, we sold this royalty to an unrelated third-party for $125.0 million. No revenue will be recorded related to this royalty in periods beginning after December 31, 2011.

Collaborative revenue for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 resulted from the recognition of deferred revenue related to a license agreement.

The decrease in cost of product revenue for the three month period ended September 30, 2012 as compared to the same period of 2011 was due to certain one-time adjustments recorded as a result of the strategic restructuring plan announced on July 30, 2012. These adjustments include the reversal of accrued bonus for terminated employees and the reversal of stock compensation expense related to unvested awards of terminated employees. In addition, cost of product revenue for the three month period ended September 30, 2012 includes reduced depreciation expense related to the New Jersey Facility due to the impairment of property and equipment at this facility in the third quarter of 2012 as a result of its planned closure in the fourth quarter.

The increase in cost of product revenue for the nine month period ended September 30, 2012 as compared to the same period of 2011 was due to increased sales of PROVENGE and additional FDA approved manufacturing capacity. Cost of product revenue includes the costs of manufacturing and distributing PROVENGE. Prior to FDA approval of these facilities, these costs were classified as selling, general and administrative expense. Upon FDA approval of the remaining capacity of the New Jersey Facility in March 2011, the Orange County Facility in June 2011 and the Atlanta Facility in August 2011, all commercial manufacturing costs at these facilities are included in cost of product revenue. Costs related to the manufacture of PROVENGE for clinical patients are classified as research and development expense.

We began capitalizing raw material inventory in mid-April 2009, in anticipation of the potential approval for marketing of PROVENGE in the first half of 2010. At this time, our expectation of future benefits became sufficiently high to justify capitalization of these costs, as regulatory approval was considered probable and the related costs were expected to be recoverable through the commercialization of the product. Costs incurred prior to mid-April 2009 were recorded as research and development expense in our statements of operations. As of April 2009, we had approximately $26.4 million in zero-cost inventory, which had been previously expensed and could be used for the commercial and clinical manufacture of PROVENGE, training or additional research and development efforts.

As of December 31, 2011, approximately $4.7 million of zero-cost inventory remained on hand. For the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, we used $4.7 million of zero-cost inventory, and no zero-cost inventory remained on hand as of September 30, 2012. Cost of product revenue includes antigen expense of approximately $6.4 million and $14.6 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, cost of product revenue does not include antigen expense as we used our zero-cost inventory during these periods. As a result, cost of product revenue reflects a lower average per unit cost of antigen prior to mid-2012.

Gross margins on new product introductions generally increase over the life of the product as utilization of capacity increases and manufacturing efforts on product cost reduction are successful. As product sales increase, we anticipate cost of product revenue as a percentage of product revenue will decline in future years. We also anticipate our cost of product revenue as a percentage of revenue will decrease in future periods as a result of the strategic restructuring plan announced on July 30, 2012, as further discussed in the Overview section.

Research and development expenses were $18.6 million and $55.7 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, compared to $20.4 million and $56.6 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Expenses related to our research and development activities are categorized as either costs associated with clinical programs, research or supplier development expenses. Our research and development expenses were as follows:

Direct research and development costs associated with our clinical programs include clinical trial site costs, clinical manufacturing costs, costs incurred for consultants and other outside services such as data management and statistical analysis support, materials and supplies used in support of clinical programs, and employee-related expenses of departments directly supporting our clinical programs. Indirect costs of our clinical programs include employee-related expenses and other expenses incurred by departments indirectly supporting our clinical programs. Costs attributable to supplier development expenses include technology transfer and process development costs related to developing second source suppliers. Costs attributable to our research programs represent our efforts to develop and expand our product pipeline and other research efforts. The costs in each category may change in the future and new categories may be added.

Our current product candidates and potential targets for the focus of new product candidates in research and development include:

Research and development costs incurred related to these product candidates and potential targets were as follows:

Research and development costs associated with CEA for each period presented were not material.

The significant majority of our historical research and development expense has been in connection with PROVENGE in the United States. In 2011, we commenced work in connection with our intention to seek approval of PROVENGE for marketing in the European Union. Research and development costs associated with PROVENGE in the United States and in the European Union for each period presented were as follows:

The nature and efforts required to complete a prospective research and development project are typically indeterminable at very early stages when research is primarily conceptual and may have multiple applications. Once a focus towards developing a specific product candidate has been developed, we obtain more visibility into the efforts that may be required to reach conclusion of the development phase. However, there are inherent risks and uncertainties in developing novel biologics in a rapidly-changing industry environment. To obtain approval of a product candidate from the FDA, we must, among other requirements, submit data supporting safety and efficacy as well as detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product candidate. In most cases, this entails extensive laboratory tests and preclinical and clinical trials. The collection of this data, as well as the preparation of applications for review by the FDA and other regulatory agencies outside the United States, is costly in time and effort, and may require significant capital investment.

We may encounter significant difficulties or costs in our efforts to obtain FDA approvals or approvals to market products in foreign markets. For example, the FDA or the equivalent in jurisdictions outside the United States may determine our data is not sufficiently compelling to warrant marketing approval and may require that we engage in additional clinical trials or provide further analysis which may be costly and time-consuming. Regardless of the nature of our efforts to complete development of our products and receive marketing approval, we may encounter delays that render our product candidates uncompetitive or otherwise preclude us from marketing products.

We may be required to obtain additional funding to complete development of product candidates or in order to commercialize approved products. However, such funding may not be available to us on terms we deem acceptable or at all. Our ability to access additional capital is dependent on the success of our business and the perception by the market of our future business prospects. In the event we were unable to obtain necessary funding, we might halt or temporarily delay ongoing development projects.

We anticipate our research and development expenses will decrease in future periods as a result of the strategic restructuring plan announced on July 30, 2012, as further discussed in the Overview section.

Selling, general and administrative expenses were $68.1 million and $243.6 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, compared to $84.9 million and $285.3 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Selling, general and administrative expenses primarily consisted of salaries and wages, stock-based compensation, consulting fees, sales and marketing fees and administrative costs to support our operations. In addition, selling, general and administrative expenses in 2011 included the expenses associated with the portion of the New Jersey Facility which was not commercially operational during the first quarter of 2011, the Orange County Facility for the first half of 2011 and the Atlanta Facility into the third quarter of 2011, including related costs of personnel in training.

Selling, general and administrative expenses for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 decreased as compared to the respective periods in the prior year primarily due to manufacturing facility-related costs. These costs were included in selling, general and administrative expenses prior to FDA approval of the facilities for commercial manufacture in 2011, and included in cost of product revenue upon FDA approval. Pre-operational costs incurred at the facilities and for start-up activities were approximately $14.8 million and $87.0 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. In addition, selling, general and administrative expenses decreased in the third quarter of 2012 due to certain one-time adjustments recorded as a result of the strategic restructuring plan announced on July 30, 2012. These adjustments include the reversal of accrued bonus for terminated employees and the reversal of stock compensation expense related to unvested awards of terminated employees. Offsetting these decreases in selling, general and administrative expenses were increased payroll and non-cash stock-based compensation costs, primarily due to certain executive separations in the first and second quarters of 2012, and increased sales and marketing costs for PROVENGE.

We anticipate our selling, general and administrative expenses will decrease in future periods, which will all be realized in general and administrative functions, as a result of the strategic restructuring plan announced on July 30, 2012, as further discussed in the Overview section.

As a result of our decision to close our New Jersey Facility, we recorded an impairment charge of $60.0 million in the third quarter of 2012 to reduce the net book value of the property and equipment at the New Jersey facility to estimated fair value. The determination of fair value of the New Jersey Facility assets required the use of judgmental assumptions surrounding the estimated future cash flows related to the highest and best use of the assets and estimated salvage values.

On September 1, 2011 we provided written notice to GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) of termination of the Development and Supply Agreement (the “GSK Agreement”) effective on October 31, 2011. We entered into the GSK Agreement for the commercial production and supply of the antigen used in the manufacture of PROVENGE. We exercised our right to terminate the GSK Agreement when, after unforeseen delays, GSK failed to complete the process implementation phase on or before September 1, 2011 pursuant to the terms of the GSK Agreement. Assets included in our prepaid expense and other current assets balance related to the GSK Agreement were deemed unusable and, as such, we incurred an expense of $19.1 million during the third quarter of 2011.

See Note 12 – Commitments and Contingencies to our unaudited financial statements included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for disclosure of a lawsuit filed against the Company by GSK in November 2011, purporting claims for monies due and owing and breach of the Company’s obligations under the GSK Agreement. Although the ultimate financial impact of the lawsuit is not yet determinable, the Company expects to pay approximately $4.0 million in fees in connection with the termination of the GSK Agreement, which is included in the “Restructuring and contract termination liabilities” on our consolidated balance sheets at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

Interest income was $0.3 million and $1.1 million for each of the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively. We receive interest income primarily from holdings of cash and investments.

Interest expense increased to $13.7 million and $41.3 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, from $12.9 million and $34.0 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. The increase was due in part to a full nine months of interest and amortization of debt discount and debt issuance costs related to the 2016 Notes in 2012, as the 2016 Notes were issued during the first quarter of 2011. Amortization of the debt discount and debt issuance costs for the 2016 Notes resulted in non-cash interest expense of $6.6 million and $19.5 million for the three and nine month periods

ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $6.0 million and $16.8 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. In addition, interest expense recognized on the 2.875% stated coupon rate was $4.5 million and $13.4 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $4.5 million and $12.3 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Refer to Liquidity and Capital Resources: Financings from the Issuance of Convertible Notes for further discussion of the accounting for the 2016 Notes.

We also recorded interest expense, including the amortization of debt issuance costs, related to the 4.75% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2014 (the “2014 Notes”) of $0.4 million during each of the three month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, and $1.1 million during each of the nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011.

In addition, interest expense increased in the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 as compared to the respective periods of 2011 due to increased financing fees paid to the Wholesalers as a result of increased sales of PROVENGE. We capitalized interest expense of $0.2 million and $1.1 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. Interest capitalized for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 was not material.

As of September 30, 2012, we had approximately $445.1 million in cash, cash equivalents and short-term and long-term investments. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through proceeds from the sale of equity and convertible debt securities, cash receipts from collaborative agreements, interest income, commercial sale of PROVENGE and the sale of the boceprevir royalty in the fourth quarter of 2011 for $125.0 million.

Net cash used in operating activities for the nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 was $154.6 million and $301.0 million, respectively. Expenditures related to operating activities in these periods were a result of costs associated with the commercial launch of PROVENGE, research and development expenses, including clinical trial costs and contract manufacturing costs, and selling, general and administrative expenses in support of our operations. The decrease in net cash used in operating activities in the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, as compared to the same period in 2011, primarily resulted from increased revenue and decreased operating expenditures associated with pre-FDA approval activities.

Net cash used in investing activities for the nine month periods ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 was $44.3 million and $66.5 million, respectively. Since our inception, investing activities, other than purchases and maturities of short-term and long-term investments, have consisted primarily of purchases of property and equipment. Expenditures related to investing activities for the nine month period ended September 30, 2012 consisted primarily of purchases of investments of $222.1 million and purchases of property and equipment, primarily software development and facilities-related expenditures, of $14.5 million, offset by maturities and sales of investments of $192.3 million. The decrease in net cash used in investing activities for the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, as compared to the nine month period ended September 30, 2011, was primarily related to a decrease in investment purchases.

Net cash used in financing activities was $1.5 million for the nine month period ended September 30, 2012, compared with net cash provided by financing activities of $608.1 million for the nine month period ended September 30, 2011. Cash provided by financing activities in 2011 was due to the offering of the 2016 Notes, from which we realized net proceeds of approximately $607.1 million.

We believe that our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term and long-term investments as of September 30, 2012, together with revenue generated from commercial sales of PROVENGE and giving effect to the reduced levels of spending following the restructurings in 2011 and 2012, will be sufficient to meet our anticipated expenditures for at least the next 12 months as we continue to invest in our commercial operations, continue our clinical trials, apply for regulatory approvals, potentially invest in commercial infrastructure outside the United States and invest in research and product development. The majority of our resources continue to be used in support of the commercialization of PROVENGE in the United States. We expect that continued revenue from PROVENGE product sales will be a significant source of cash. However, we may need to raise additional funds to meet potential long-term liquidity needs including:

In February 2011, we entered into a lease for office space of 179,656 square feet in Seattle, Washington. In July 2012, we amended the lease to reduce the premises to 158,081 square feet. The initial lease term is for five and a half years, with one renewal term of two and a half years. The remaining rent payable for the amended lease agreement under the initial lease term was approximately $15.4 million as of September 30, 2012. The lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit as a security deposit. We provided the bank that issued the letter of credit on our behalf with an initial security deposit of $2.2 million to guarantee the letter of credit. The lessor reduced the security deposit during the three month period ended June 30, 2012, resulting in a decrease in the deposit securing the letter of credit to $1.1 million. The deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 on our consolidated balance sheets.

Also in February 2011, we entered into a sublease for laboratory and office space of 97,365 square feet in Seattle, Washington. The lease term is for eight years. The remaining rent payable under the lease term was approximately $22.7 million as of September 30, 2012. The lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit which we have secured with a $1.1 million security deposit. The security deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 on our consolidated balance sheets.

In August 2005, we entered into an agreement to lease the New Jersey Facility, consisting of approximately 158,000 square feet of commercial manufacturing space. The lease agreement originally expired in November 2012; however, in November 2011 we entered into an amendment to this lease agreement to extend the lease through November 2022. This lease may be extended at our option for an additional ten-year period and a five-year period, with the same terms and conditions except for rent, which adjusts upon renewal to market rate. The remaining rent payable under the current ten-year extension was $12.8 million as of September 30, 2012. On July 30 2012, we announced a strategic restructuring plan that includes re-configuring our manufacturing model with the closure of our New Jersey Facility.

The New Jersey Facility lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit. We have provided the bank that issued the letter of credit on our behalf a security deposit of $2.0 million to guarantee the letter of credit. The deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 on our consolidated balance sheets. As part of an agreement with the Township of Hanover relating to the permitting of the expansion of our New Jersey Facility, substantially completed in May 2010, we had $0.3 million in long-term investments on our consolidated balance sheets at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 being held as a security deposit to ensure completion of certain improvements at the property.

The Orange County Facility lease required us to provide the landlord with a letter of credit of $2.1 million as a security deposit. We provided the bank that issued the letter of credit on our behalf an initial security deposit of $2.2 million to secure the letter of credit. The lessor reduced the security deposit during the three month period ended June 30, 2012, resulting in a decrease in the deposit securing the letter of credit to $1.7 million. The security deposit is recorded as a long-term investment as of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011 on our consolidated balance sheets.

In July 2009, we entered into an agreement to lease the Atlanta Facility, consisting of approximately 156,000 square feet, for use as a manufacturing facility following build-out. The lease commenced when we took possession of the building upon substantial completion of construction of the building shell in March 2010. The initial lease term is ten and a half years, expiring in August 2020, with five renewal terms of five years each. The remaining rent payable for the Atlanta Facility under the initial lease term was $5.4 million as of September 30 2012.

The three manufacturing facility leases have provisions requiring that we restore the buildings to original condition upon lease termination. Accordingly, we have accrued the estimated costs of dismantlement and restoration associated with these obligations. In the third quarter of 2012, we increased our asset retirement obligation for the New Jersey Facility by $0.7 million, as we anticipate we will incur the dismantlement and restoration costs associated with this obligation in 2013.

We have a supply agreement with Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies, formerly Diosynth RTP, Inc., (“Fujifilm”) covering the commercial production of the recombinant antigen used in the manufacture of PROVENGE. The second amendment to the supply agreement extended the term of the agreement through December 31, 2018. Unless terminated, the agreement will renew automatically thereafter for additional 5-year terms. The agreement may be terminated upon written notice by us or Fujifilm at least 24 months before the end of a renewal term or by either party in the event of an uncured material breach or default by the other party.

We currently have commitments with Fujifilm to purchase antigen in 2012 for a remaining total of $40.8 million and in 2013 for a total of $43.8 million. Payments on these commitments will likely continue through 2014.

On January 14, 2011, we entered into an underwriting agreement with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (the “Underwriter”) relating to the offer and sale of $540 million aggregate principal amount of the 2016 Notes. Under the terms of the underwriting agreement, we granted the Underwriter an option, exercisable within 30 days of the date of the agreement, to purchase up to an additional $80 million aggregate principal amount of 2016 Notes to cover overallotments. We issued $540 million in aggregate principal amount of the 2016 Notes upon the closing of the offering on January 20, 2011. Net proceeds, after payment of underwriting fees and estimated expenses, were approximately $528.8 million. On January 31, 2011, the Underwriter exercised the overallotment option in full, and we closed on the sale of the additional $80 million in principal amount of the 2016 Notes on February 3, 2011. Net proceeds from the exercise of the overallotment option, after deducting underwriting fees and other offering expenses, were approximately $78.3 million.

The 2016 Notes are subject to repurchase by us at the option of the holders following a “fundamental change,” as defined in the 2016 Indenture. If a fundamental change occurs, holders of the 2016 Notes may require us to repurchase all or a portion of their 2016 Notes for cash at a repurchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2016 Notes to be repurchased, plus any accrued and unpaid interest and other amounts due thereon. However, if a fundamental change occurs and a holder elects to convert the 2016 Notes, we will, under certain circumstances, increase the applicable conversion rate for the 2016 Notes surrendered for conversion by a number of additional shares of common stock, based on the date on which the fundamental change occurs or becomes effective and the price paid per share of common stock in the fundamental change as specified in the 2016 Indenture. At our option, we will satisfy our conversion obligation with cash, shares of our common stock or a combination of cash and shares, unless the consideration for our common stock in any fundamental change is comprised entirely of cash, in which case the conversion obligation will be paid in cash. The number of additional shares of common stock was determined such that the fair value of the additional shares would be expected to approximate the fair value of the convertible option at the date of the fundamental change.

The 2016 Notes are accounted for in accordance with ASC 470-20 under which issuers of certain convertible debt instruments that may be settled in part in cash upon conversion, are required to separately account for the liability (debt) and equity (conversion option) components of the instrument. The liability component of the 2016 Notes, as of the issuance date, was calculated by estimating the fair value of a similar liability issued at an 8.1% effective interest rate, which was determined by considering the rate of return investors would require in the Company’s debt structure. The amount of the equity component was calculated by deducting the fair value of the liability component from the principal amount of the 2016 Notes and resulted in a corresponding increase to debt discount. The debt discount is being amortized as interest expense through the earlier of the maturity date of the 2016 Notes or the date of conversions, if any.

The application of ASC 470-20 resulted in the initial recognition of $132.9 million as the debt discount recorded in additional paid-in capital for the 2016 Notes. As of September 30, 2012, the net carrying amount of the liability component, which is recorded as a long-term liability in the consolidated balance sheet, was $526.5 million, and the remaining unamortized debt discount was $93.5 million. Amortization of the debt discount and debt issuance costs resulted in non-cash interest expense of $6.6 million and $19.5 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $6.0 million and $16.8 million of the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively. In addition, interest expense recognized on the 2.875% stated coupon rate was $4.5 million and $13.4 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2012, respectively, and $4.5 million and $12.3 million for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2011, respectively.

unpaid interest and other amounts due thereon. However, a holder that converts 2014 Notes in connection with a fundamental change, as defined in the 2014 Indenture, may in some circumstances be entitled to an increased conversion rate (i.e., a lower per share conversion price) as a make whole premium. The increased conversion rates were determined such that the fair value of the additional shares would be expected to approximate the fair value of the convertible option at the date of the fundamental change.

In addition, we may from time to time increase the conversion rate, to the extent permitted by law, by any amount for any period of time if the period is at least 20 business days and we provide 15 business days prior written notice of such increase. We may increase the conversion rate if the Board of Directors determines that such increase would avoid or diminish United States federal income tax to holders of the common stock in connection with a dividend or distribution. The 2014 Indenture contains customary covenants.

Our investment portfolio is maintained in accordance with our investment policy, which specifies credit quality standards, limits credit exposure to any single issuer or security issuance and defines allowable investments. Pursuant to our policy, auction rate or asset-backed securities without a guarantee by the United States government are not permitted to be purchased. The fair value of cash equivalents and marketable securities is subject to change as a result of changes in market interest rates and investment risk related to the issuers’ credit worthiness.

As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, we had short-term investments of $163.5 million and $111.5 million, respectively, and long-term investments of $54.9 million and $79.1 million, respectively. Our short-term and long-term investments are subject to interest rate risk and will decline in value if market interest rates increase. The estimated fair value of short-term and long-term investments at September 30, 2012, assuming a 100 basis point increase in market interest rates, would decrease by approximately $1.5 million, which would not materially impact results of operations, cash flows or financial position. While changes in interest rates may affect the fair value of our investment portfolio, any gains or losses will not be recognized in our statements of operations until the investment is sold or if the reduction in fair value is determined to be an other-than-temporary impairment.

We actively monitor and manage our portfolio. If necessary, we believe that we are able to liquidate investments within the next year without significant loss. We currently believe these securities are not significantly impaired; however, it could take until the final maturity of the underlying notes to realize our investments’ recorded values. Based on expected operating cash flows and other sources of cash, we do not anticipate the potential lack of liquidity on these investments to affect our ability to execute our current business plan.

Our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, based on their evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act) as of September 30, 2012, have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective for ensuring that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2012 that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

The Company received notice in November 2011 of a lawsuit filed in the Durham County Superior Court of North Carolina against the Company by GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”). The lawsuit purports claims for monies due and owing and breach of the Company’s obligations under the Development and Supply Agreement terminated as of October 31, 2011. The Company does not believe the lawsuit has merit, filed a Counterclaim and Answer on January 6, 2012, and intends to defend its position vigorously. The Company expects to pay approximately $4.0 million in fees in connection with the termination of the Development and Supply Agreement. The ultimate financial impact of the lawsuit is not yet determinable. Therefore, no additional provision for loss, has been recorded in the financial statements.

The risks described below may not be the only ones relating to our company. Additional risks that we currently believe are immaterial may also impair our business operations. Our business, financial condition, and future prospects and the trading price of our common stock could be harmed as a result of any of these risks. These risks and uncertainties may be interrelated or co-related,

and as a result, the occurrence of one risk might directly affect other risks described below, make them more likely to occur or magnify their impact. Investors should also refer to the other information contained or incorporated by reference in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes, and information contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”), and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The risk factors set forth below with an asterisk (*) next to the title are new risk factors or risk factors containing changes from the risk factors previously disclosed in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2012.

If we fail to achieve and sustain commercial success for PROVENGE, our business will suffer, our future prospects may be harmed and our stock price would likely decline.

Prior to the launch of PROVENGE in May 2010, we had never sold or marketed a pharmaceutical product. Unless we can successfully commercialize another product candidate or acquire the right to market other approved products, we will continue to rely on PROVENGE to generate substantially all of our revenue and fund our operations from product sales. Our ability to maintain or increase our revenues for PROVENGE will depend on, and may be limited by, a number of factors, including the following:

If for any reason we become unable to continue selling or manufacturing PROVENGE, our business would be seriously harmed and could fail.

If PROVENGE were to become the subject of problems related to its efficacy, safety, or otherwise, our revenues from PROVENGE could decrease.

PROVENGE, in addition to any other of our drug candidates that may be approved by the FDA, will be subject to continual review by the FDA, and we cannot assure you that newly discovered safety issues will not arise. With the use of any newly marketed drug by a wider patient population, serious adverse events may occur from time to time that initially do not appear to relate to the drug itself. Any safety issues could cause us to suspend or cease marketing of our approved products, cause us to modify how we market our approved products, subject us to substantial liabilities, and adversely affect our revenues and financial condition. In the event of a withdrawal of PROVENGE from the market, our revenues would decline significantly and our business would be seriously harmed and could fail.

Adoption of PROVENGE for the treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancer may be slow or limited for a variety of reasons including competing therapies and perceived difficulties in the treatment process or delays in obtaining reimbursement. If PROVENGE is not successful in broad acceptance as a treatment option for advanced prostate cancer, our business would be harmed.

The rate of adoption of PROVENGE for advanced prostate cancer and the ultimate market size will be dependent on several factors, including the education of treating physicians on the patient treatment process with PROVENGE and immunotherapies generally. As a first in class therapy, PROVENGE utilizes a unique treatment approach, which can have associated challenges in practice for treating physicians. A significant portion of the prospective patient base for treatment with PROVENGE may be under the care of urologists who may be less experienced with infusion treatments than oncologists. Acceptance by urologists of PROVENGE as a treatment option may be measurably slower than adoption by oncologists of PROVENGE as a therapy and may require more

educational effort by us. In addition, the tight manufacturing and infusion timelines required for treatment with PROVENGE require educating physicians to adjust practice mechanics, which may result in delay in market adoption of PROVENGE as a preferred therapy.

PROVENGE is presently approved for the treatment of metastatic asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer in the United States. Earlier diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer will be increasingly important, and screening, diagnostic and treatment practices can vary significantly by geographic region. To achieve global success for PROVENGE as a treatment, we will need to obtain approvals by foreign regulatory authorities. Data from our completed clinical trials of PROVENGE may not be sufficient to support approval for commercialization by regulatory agencies governing the sale of drugs outside of the United States. This could require us to spend substantial sums to develop sufficient clinical data for licensure by foreign authorities. Submissions for approval by foreign regulatory authorities may not result in marketing approval by these authorities for the requested indication. In addition, certain countries require pricing to be established before reimbursement for the specific indication may be obtained. We may not receive or maintain marketing approvals at favorable pricing levels or at all, which could harm our ability to market PROVENGE globally. Prostate cancer is common in many regions where the healthcare support systems are limited and reimbursement for PROVENGE may be limited or unavailable, which will likely limit or slow adoption in these regions. If we are unable to successfully achieve the full global market potential of PROVENGE due to diagnosis practices or regulatory hurdles, our future prospects would be harmed and our stock price could decline.

Products we may potentially commercialize and market may be subject to promotional limitations.

The FDA has the authority to impose significant restrictions on an approved product through the product label and allowed advertising, promotional and distribution activities. The FDA also may require us to undertake post-marketing clinical trials. If the results of such post-marketing studies are not satisfactory, the FDA may withdraw marketing authorization or may condition continued marketing on commitments from us that may be expensive and/or time consuming to fulfill. Even if we receive FDA and other regulatory approvals, if we or others identify adverse side effects after any of our products are on the market, or if manufacturing problems occur, regulatory approval may be suspended or withdrawn and reformulation of our products, additional clinical trials, changes in labeling of our products and additional marketing applications may be required, any of which could harm our business and cause our stock price to decline.

We announced the closure of one of our manufacturing facilities and we may close more of our manufacturing facilities which could limit our ability to supply the market and may limit our product sales.

On July 30, 2012, we announced the closure of our Morris Plains, New Jersey manufacturing facility in connection with our strategic restructuring plan. We may decide to close more of our manufacturing facilities in the future. Manufacturing PROVENGE is very complex and time-sensitive. With fewer manufacturing facilities, it may be difficult for us to meet the commercial demand for PROVENGE, especially in certain parts of the country. If we cannot meet demand, we could lose product sales and our revenue and reputation with physicians would suffer. In addition, our business could be materially harmed and our results of operations would be adversely impacted.

We have rapidly expanded our operations to support commercial launch of PROVENGE, and we may encounter unexpected costs or difficulties.

Since 2010, we have increased investment in commercial infrastructure. We will need to effectively manage our expanded operations and facilities to successfully grow sales of PROVENGE and pursue development of our other product candidates. We must effectively manage our supply chain, third-party vendors and distribution network, all of which requires strict planning to meet production timelines for PROVENGE. If we fail to manage the growth in our systems and personnel appropriately and successfully to achieve our commercialization plans for PROVENGE our revenues could suffer and our business could be harmed.

We and our contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing of our products.

All of those involved in the preparation of a therapeutic drug for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing (and any future) supply contract manufacturers and clinical trial investigators, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices, or equivalent cGMP regulations developed by authorities in other countries. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Our facilities and quality systems and the facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must be inspected and audited routinely for compliance with applicable

United States and other country regulations. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulation occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we, the FDA, or governmental authorities in other countries may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third-party to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension or change of a clinical trial or commercial sales, recalls, market withdrawals, seizures or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

Manufacturing difficulties, disruptions or delays could limit supply of our products and limit our product sales.

Manufacturing biologic human therapeutic products is difficult, complex and highly regulated. We currently manufacture PROVENGE in the United States and plan to manufacture any other product candidates ourselves. We have contracted with a third-party manufacturer in order to commence clinical trials in the European Union, and we are presently reliant on the ability of the third-party to adequately support our initial clinical trials in the E.U. Our ability to adequately and in a timely manner manufacture and supply our products is dependent on the uninterrupted and efficient operation of our facilities and those of our third-party contract manufacturers, which may be impacted by:

If the efficient manufacture and supply of our products is interrupted, we may experience delayed shipments or supply constraints. If we are at any time unable to provide an uninterrupted supply of our products to patients, we may have to notify the FDA, we may lose patients, and physicians may elect to prescribe competing therapeutics, all of which could materially and adversely affect our product sales and results of operations.

Our manufacturing processes and those of our third-party contract manufacturers must undergo a potentially lengthy FDA or other country regulatory approval process and are subject to continued review by the FDA and other country regulatory authorities.

If regulatory authorities determine that we or our third-party contract manufacturers or certain of our third-party service providers have violated regulations or if they restrict, suspend or revoke our prior approvals, they could prohibit us from manufacturing our products or conducting clinical trials or selling our marketed products until we or the affected third-party contract manufacturers or third-party service providers comply, or indefinitely. Because our third-party contract manufacturers and certain of our third-party service providers are subject to FDA and foreign regulatory authorities, alternative qualified third-party contract manufacturers and third-party service providers may not be available on a timely basis or at all. If we or our third-party contract manufacturers or third-party service providers cease or interrupt production or if our third-party contract manufacturers and third-party service providers fail to supply materials, products or services to us, we may experience delayed shipments, and supply constraints for our products.

We rely on complex IT systems for various critical purposes, including timely delivery of product and maintaining patient confidentiality.

We have developed a comprehensive, integrated IT system for the intake of physician orders for PROVENGE, to track product delivery, and to store patient-related data we obtain for purposes of manufacturing PROVENGE. We rely on this system to maintain the chain of identity for each patient-specific dose of PROVENGE, and to ensure timely delivery of product prior to expiration. PROVENGE has a limited usable life of approximately 18 hours from the completion of the manufacturing process to patient infusion and accordingly maintaining accurate scheduling logistics is critical. In addition, this IT system stores and protects the privacy of the required patient information for the manufacture of PROVENGE. If our systems were to fail or be disrupted for an extended period of time we could lose product sales and our revenue and reputation would suffer. In the event our systems were to be breached by an unauthorized third-party, they could potentially access confidential patient information we obtain in manufacturing PROVENGE, which could cause us to suffer reputational damage and loss of customer confidence. Any one of these events could cause our business to be materially harmed and our results of operations would be adversely impacted.

*Our operating results may be harmed if our 2012 restructuring plan does not achieve the anticipated results or causes undesirable consequences.

On July 30, 2012, we announced a restructuring plan which will result in a reduction in headcount of approximately 600 full-time and contractor positions, and the closing of our Morris Plains, New Jersey facility. Restructuring plans may yield unintended consequences, such as attrition beyond our intended reduction in workforce and reduced employee morale, which may cause our employees who were not affected by the reduction in workforce to seek alternate employment. Additional attrition could impede our ability to meet our operational goals, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial performance. In addition, as a result of the reductions in our workforce, we may face an increased risk of employment litigation. Furthermore, employees whose positions will be eliminated in connection with these restructuring plans may seek future employment with our competitors. Although all our employees are required to sign a confidentiality agreement with us at the time of hire, we cannot assure you that the confidential nature of our proprietary information will be maintained in the course of such future employment. We cannot assure you that we will not undertake additional restructuring activities, that any of our restructuring efforts will be successful, or that we will be able to realize the cost savings and other anticipated benefits from our previous or any future restructuring plans. In addition, if we continue to reduce our workforce, it may adversely impact our ability to respond rapidly to any new growth or revenue opportunities.

*We have a history of operating losses. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we may never become profitable.

As of September 30, 2012, our accumulated deficit was $1.9 billion and our net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2012 was $354.9 million. We have incurred net losses as a result of research and development expenses, clinical trial expenses, contract manufacturing and facility expenses, costs associated with the commercial launch of PROVENGE and general and administrative expenses in support of our operations and research efforts. There can be no assurance that available cash and cash generated through current operations will be sufficient to continue to conduct our operations and expand according to our business plans. The majority of our resources continue to be used in support of the commercialization of PROVENGE, including outside the United States. Even if we are able to successfully realize our commercialization goals for PROVENGE, because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with commercialization of a biologic, we may still require additional funding. And in any event, we are unable to predict when we will become profitable, if at all. Even if we do produce revenues and achieve profitability, we may not be able to maintain or increase profitability.

Forecasting sales of PROVENGE may continue to be difficult. If our revenue projections are inaccurate and our business forecasting and planning decisions are not reflected in our actual results, our business may be harmed and our stock price may be adversely affected.

Our original forecasting model for 2011 revenue for PROVENGE did not adequately take into account factors that have led to slower than anticipated physician adoption of PROVENGE. These factors include cautionary prescribing behavior due to lack of reimbursement history for the product, difficulty in identifying appropriate patients for treatment with PROVENGE, the cost of the product, which is purchased by the physician on a buy and bill basis, and incurred over a short time period, and other aspects of physician education due to the novelty of the treatment process. The extent to which any of these or other factors individually or in the aggregate may impact future sales of PROVENGE is uncertain and difficult to predict. Our management must make forecasting decisions regarding future revenue in the course of business planning despite this uncertainty, and actual results of operations may deviate materially from projected results. This may lead to inefficiencies and increased difficulties in operational planning. Our general and administrative expenses are relatively fixed in the short term. If our revenues from PROVENGE sales are lower than we anticipate, we will incur costs in the short term that will result in losses that are unavoidable. A shortfall in our revenue has a direct impact on our cash flow and on our business generally. In addition, as reflected in our recent stock price, fluctuations in our quarterly results can adversely and significantly affect the market price of our common stock.

We may require additional funding, and our future access to capital is uncertain.

It is expensive to develop and commercialize cancer immunotherapy and small molecule product candidates. We plan to continue to simultaneously conduct clinical trials and pre-clinical research for a number of product candidates while pursuing commercial acceptance and our marketing goals for PROVENGE. Our product development efforts may not lead to commercial products, either because our product candidates fail to be found safe or effective in clinical trials or because we lack the necessary financial or other resources or relationships to pursue our programs through commercialization. Even if commercialized, a product may not achieve revenues that exceed the costs of producing and selling it. Our capital and future cash flow may not be sufficient to support the expenses of our operations and we may need to raise additional capital depending on a number of factors, including but not limited to the following:

We may not be able to obtain additional financing if and when needed. If we are unable to raise additional funds on terms we find acceptable, we may have to delay, reduce or eliminate some of our clinical trials and our development programs. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity or equity-linked securities, further dilution to our existing stockholders will result. In addition, the expectation of future dilution as a result of our offering of securities convertible into equity securities may cause our stock price to decline.

Our existing indebtedness includes an aggregate of $27.7 million in outstanding Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2014 (the “2014 Notes”) which bear interest at 4.75% and an aggregate of $620 million in outstanding Convertible Senior Notes due 2016 (the “2016 Notes”) which bear interest at 2.875%. Our indebtedness and annual debt service requirements may adversely impact our business, operations and financial condition in the future. For example, it could:

The accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash, such as the 2016 Notes, could have a material effect on our net loss, net working capital or other financial results.

Under the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Section 470-20, Debt with Conversion and other Options (“ASC 470-20”), an entity must separately account for the liability and equity components of the convertible debt instruments (such as the 2016 Notes) that may be settled entirely or partially in cash upon conversion in a manner that reflects the issuer’s economic interest cost. The effect of ASC 470-20 on the accounting for our 2016 Notes is that the equity component is required to be included in the additional paid-in capital section of stockholders’ equity on our consolidated balance sheets and the value of the equity component is treated as original issue discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of the notes. As a result, we are required to record non-cash interest expense as a result of the amortization of the discounted carrying value of the 2016 Notes to their face amount over the term of the 2016 Notes. We report higher interest expense in our financial results because ASC 470-20 requires interest to include both the current period’s amortization of the debt discount and the instrument’s coupon interest, which could adversely affect our reported or future financial results, the trading price of our common stock and the trading price of the 2016 Notes.

Our stockholders may be diluted by the conversion of our outstanding convertible notes.

The holders of the 2014 Notes may choose at any time to convert their notes into common stock prior to maturity in June 2014. The holders of the 2016 Notes may choose at any time to convert their notes prior to maturing in January 2016, and upon conversion we may issue cash, stock, or a combination thereof at our option. Should a holder of the 2016 Notes exercise their conversion option during the next twelve month period, it is our intention to satisfy the conversion with shares of our common stock.

The 2014 Notes are convertible into our common stock, initially at the conversion price of $10.28 per share, equal to a conversion rate of approximately 97.2644 shares per $1,000 principal amount of the 2014 Notes. The 2016 Notes are convertible into our common stock initially at the conversion rate of 19.5160 shares per $1,000 principal amount, or approximately $51.24 per share, subject to adjustment. The number of shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the 2014 Notes and 2016 Notes, and therefore the dilution of existing common stockholders, could increase under certain circumstances described in the indentures under which the 2014 Notes and 2016 Notes were issued. The conversion of the 2014 Notes and potentially the 2016 Notes will result in the issuance of additional shares of common stock, diluting existing common stockholders.

We may elect to issue additional shares of our common stock or other securities that may be convertible into our common stock, which could result in further dilution to our existing stockholders.

Future sales of our common stock will depend primarily on the market price of our common stock, the terms we may receive upon the sale of debt or convertible securities, the interest in our company by institutional investors and our cash needs. In addition, we may register additional equity, debt or other convertible securities with the SEC for sale in the future. Each of our issuances of common stock or securities convertible into common stock to investors under a registration statement or otherwise will proportionately decrease our existing stockholders’ percentage ownership of our total outstanding equity interests and may reduce our stock price.

Our business, financial condition and future prospects could suffer as a result of carrying out strategic alternatives in the future.

We may decide it is in our best interests to engage in a strategic transaction that could dilute our existing stockholders or cause us to incur contingent liabilities, commitments, or significant expense. In the course of pursuing strategic alternatives, we may evaluate potential acquisitions or investments in related businesses, products or technologies. Future acquisitions or investments could subject us to a number of risks, including, but not limited to:

In connection with an acquisition, we must estimate the value of the transaction by making certain assumptions that may prove to be incorrect, which could cause us to fail to realize the anticipated benefits of a transaction. We may incur as part of a transaction substantial charges for closure costs associated with the elimination of duplicate operations and facilities and acquired in-process research and development charges. In either case, the incurrence of these charges could adversely affect our results of operations for particular quarterly or annual periods. Any strategic transaction we may pursue may not result in the benefits we initially anticipate, and/or result in costs that end up outweighing the benefits, and may adversely impact our financial condition and business prospects.

Delays to our expansion outside of the United States may result in increased competitive challenges.

In September 2011, we announced that, in conjunction with a company restructuring to reduce operating costs in the near term due to a lack of forecasted sales growth in line with our original projections, we were revising our commercialization strategy for PROVENGE outside of the United States. The announced changes included seeking a longer-term contract manufacturing partnership for production of PROVENGE in Europe, rather than building our own immunotherapy manufacturing facility, as well as revisiting our European clinical trial plan. Although we believe the revisions to our commercialization strategy outside of the United States will have long-term benefits for the Company from our near-term cash conservation and extended business planning strategy for the EU, delays to the commercialization of PROVENGE in the European Union and throughout the rest of the world could result in increased competitive challenges in the future if competing products and therapies gain market acceptance in the interim. These competitive challenges could impede adoption of PROVENGE as a preferred therapy, which could adversely affect our future product sales and results of operations.

Our competitors may develop and market products that are less expensive, more effective, safer or reach the market sooner, which may diminish or eliminate the commercial success of any products we may commercialize.

Competition in the cancer therapeutics field is intense and is accentuated by the rapid pace of advancements in product development. In addition, we compete with other clinical-stage companies and institutions for clinical trial participants, which could reduce our ability to recruit participants for our clinical trials. Delay in recruiting clinical trial participants could adversely affect our ability to bring a product to market prior to our competitors. Further, research and discoveries by others may result in breakthroughs that render potential products obsolete before they generate revenue.

Products such as chemotherapeutics, androgen metabolism or androgen receptor antagonists, endothelin A receptor antagonists, antisense compounds, angiogenesis inhibitors and gene therapies for cancer are also under development by a number of companies and could potentially compete with PROVENGE and our other product candidates. In addition, many universities and private and public research institutes may in the future become active in cancer research, which may be in direct competition with us.

Some of our competitors in the cancer therapeutics field have substantially greater research and development capabilities and manufacturing, marketing, financial and managerial resources than we do. Acquisitions of competing companies by large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies could enhance our competitors’ resources. In addition, our competitors may obtain patent protection or FDA approval and commercialize products more rapidly than we do, which may impact future sales of our products. We expect that competition among products approved for sale will be based, among other things, on product efficacy, price, safety, reliability, availability, patent protection, and sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. Our profitability and financial position will suffer if our products receive regulatory approval, but cannot compete effectively in the marketplace.

We could face competition for PROVENGE or other approved products from biosimilar products that could impact our profitability.

We may face competition in Europe from biosimilar products, and we expect we may face competition from biosimilars in the future in the United States as well. To the extent that governments adopt more permissive approval frameworks and competitors are able to obtain broader marketing approval for biosimilars, our products will become subject to increased competition. Expiration or successful challenge of applicable patent rights could trigger such competition, and we could face more litigation regarding the validity and/or scope of our patents. We cannot predict to what extent the entry of biosimilar products or other competing products could impact our future potential sale of PROVENGE in the E.U., where biosimilars to other innovator biological products are already available. Our inability to compete effectively in foreign territories would reduce global sales potential, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

On March 23, 2010, PPACA became law and authorized FDA approval of biosimilar products. PPACA established a period of 12 years of data exclusivity for reference products and outlined statutory criteria for science-based biosimilar approval standards. Under this framework, data exclusivity protects the data in the innovator’s regulatory application by prohibiting, for a period of 12 years, others from gaining FDA approval based in part on reliance or reference to the innovator’s data. FDA has not yet announced implementation of the biosimilars regulatory approval pathway; however, PPACA does not require the agency to do so before it may approve biosimilars. The new law does not change the duration of patents granted on biologic products. Because of this pathway for the approval of biosimilars in the U.S., we may in the future face greater competition from biosimilar products and downward pressure on our product prices, sales and revenues, subject to our ability to enforce our patents.

Failure to retain key personnel could impede our ability to develop our products and to obtain new collaborations or other sources of funding.

We depend, to a significant extent, on the efforts of our key employees, including senior management and senior scientific, clinical, regulatory, operational and other personnel. The development of new therapeutic products requires expertise from a number of different disciplines, some of which are not widely available.

We depend upon our scientific staff to discover new product candidates and to develop and conduct pre-clinical studies of those new potential products. Our clinical and regulatory staff is responsible for the design and execution of clinical trials in accordance with FDA requirements and for the advancement of our product candidates toward FDA approval and submission of data supporting approval. The quality and reputation of our scientific, clinical and regulatory staff, especially the senior staff, and their success in performing their responsibilities, may directly influence the success of our product development programs. As we pursue successful commercialization of PROVENGE, our sales and marketing, and operations executive management staff takes on increasing significance and influence upon our organizational success. In addition, our executive officers are involved in a broad range of critical activities, including providing strategic and operational guidance. The loss of these individuals, or our inability to retain or recruit other key management and scientific, clinical, regulatory, medical, operational and other personnel, may delay or prevent us from achieving our business objectives. We face intense competition for personnel from other companies, universities, public and private research institutions, government entities and other organizations.

We must rely at present on relationships with third-party suppliers to supply necessary components used in our products, which relationships are not easy to replace.

We rely upon contract manufacturers for components used in the manufacture and distribution of PROVENGE. Problems with any of our or our suppliers’ facilities or processes could result in failure to produce or a delay in production of adequate supplies of the antigen or other components we use in the manufacture of PROVENGE. This could delay or reduce commercial sales and materially harm our business. Any prolonged interruption in the operations of our suppliers’ facilities could result in cancellation of orders, loss of components in the process of being manufactured or a shortfall in availability of a necessary component. A number of factors could cause interruptions, including the inability of a supplier to provide raw materials, equipment malfunctions or failures, damage to a facility due to natural disasters, changes in FDA or equivalent other country authorities’ regulatory requirements or standards that require modifications to manufacturing processes, or action by us to implement process changes or other similar factors. Because manufacturing processes are complex and are subject to a lengthy FDA or equivalent non-United States regulatory approval process, alternative qualified supply may not be available on a timely basis or at all. Difficulties or delays in our suppliers’ manufacturing and supply of components could delay our clinical trials, increase our costs, damage our reputation and, for PROVENGE, cause us to lose revenue or market share if we are unable to timely meet market demands.

We are dependent on our leukapheresis network for raw materials required for the manufacture of PROVENGE.

The manufacture of each patient-specific dose of PROVENGE first requires that we obtain immune cells from the relevant patient, which is done through a leukapheresis process at a cell collection center with which we have contracted. We have entered into agreements with third-party cell collection and blood centers, including the American Red Cross, to perform this process for us. However there are a finite number of centers with the requisite skill, training, staffing and equipment to perform the leukapheresis procedure for PROVENGE patients and we cannot be certain that as our manufacturing capacity expands the leukapheresis network presently available to us will be sufficient to service demand at full capacity. We anticipate that we will need to expand the leukapheresis network available to us prospectively through additional partnerships or other endeavors. There can be no assurance that we will be able to secure sufficient appropriate leukapheresis capacity to manufacture PROVENGE when and as desired. If we are unable to expand our access to these services as necessary, our revenues will suffer and our business would be harmed.

We rely on single source vendors for some key components for PROVENGE and our active immunotherapy product candidates, which could impair our ability to manufacture and supply our products.

We currently depend on single source vendors for components used in PROVENGE and other active immunotherapy candidates. We have a long-term contract with Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies, formerly Diosynth RTP, Inc., (“Fujifilm”) for the production of the antigen used in the manufacturing of PROVENGE. Any production shortfall on the part of Fujifilm that impairs the supply of the antigen to us could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If we are unable to obtain a sufficient quantity of antigen, there could be a substantial delay in successfully developing a second source supplier. In addition, we rely on single-source unaffiliated third-party suppliers for certain other raw materials, medical devices and components necessary for the formulation, fill and finish of our products. Certain of these raw materials, medical devices and components are the

proprietary products of these unaffiliated third-party suppliers and are specifically cited in the drug application with regulatory agencies so that they must be obtained from that specific sole source and could not be obtained from another supplier unless and until the regulatory agency approved such supplier. An inability to continue to source product from any of these suppliers, which could be due to regulatory actions or requirements affecting the supplier, adverse financial or other strategic developments experienced by a supplier, labor disputes or shortages, unexpected demands or quality issues, could adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for PROVENGE or other products, which could adversely affect our product sales and operating results materially or our ability to conduct clinical trials, either of which could significantly harm our business.

If we fail to enter into any needed collaboration agreements for our product candidates, we may be unable to commercialize them effectively or at all.

Product collaborations are complex and any potential discussions may not result in a definitive agreement for many reasons. For example, whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration would depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration, and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the potential market for the product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering the product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. If we were to determine that a collaboration for a particular product is necessary to commercialize it and we were unable to enter into such a collaboration on acceptable terms, we might elect to delay or scale back the commercialization of a product in order to preserve our financial resources or to allow us adequate time to develop the required physical resources and systems and expertise ourselves.

If we enter into a collaboration agreement we consider acceptable, the collaboration may not proceed as quickly, smoothly or successfully as we plan. The risks in a collaboration agreement generally include:

With respect to a collaboration for any of our products or product candidates, we are dependent on the success of our collaborators in performing their respective responsibilities and the continued cooperation of our collaborators. Our collaborators may not cooperate with us to perform their obligations under our agreements with them. We cannot control the amount and timing of our collaborators’ resources that will be devoted to activities related to our collaboration agreements with them. Our collaborators may choose to pursue existing or alternative technologies in preference to those being developed in collaboration with us. A collaborator may have the right to terminate the collaboration at its discretion. Any termination may require us to seek a new collaborator, which we may not be able to do on a timely basis, if at all, or require us to delay or scale back the commercialization efforts. The occurrence of any of these events could adversely affect the commercialization of product candidates we may commercialize and materially harm our business and stock price by slowing the pace of growth of such sales, by reducing the profitability of the product or by adversely affecting the reputation of the product in the market.

Our clinical and pre-clinical candidates in the pipeline for other potential cancer immunotherapies and small molecule products may never reach the commercial market for a number of reasons.

To sustain our business, we focus substantial resources on the search for new pharmaceutical products. These activities include engaging in discovery research and product development, conducting pre-clinical and clinical studies, and seeking regulatory approval in the United States for product candidates and in other countries for PROVENGE and other products we may market in the future. Our long-term success depends on the discovery and development of new drugs that we can commercialize. Our cancer immunotherapy and small molecule program pipeline candidates are still at a relatively early stage in the development process. There can be no assurance that these product candidates or any other potential therapies we may pursue will become a marketed drug. In addition, we may find that certain products cannot be manufactured on a commercial scale and, therefore, they may not be economical to produce, or may be precluded from commercialization by proprietary rights of third parties.

A significant portion of the research that we are conducting involves new and unproven technologies. Research programs to identify disease targets and product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources, whether or not we ultimately identify any candidates. Our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential product candidates, yet fail to yield candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including difficulties in formulation which cannot be overcome, timing and competitive concerns.

An Investigative New Drug (“IND”) application must become effective before human clinical trials may commence. The IND application is automatically effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product’s safety profile or the design of the trials as described in the application. In the latter case, any outstanding concerns must be resolved with the FDA before clinical trials can proceed. Thus, the submission of an IND may not result in FDA authorization to commence clinical trials in any given case. After authorization is received, the FDA retains the authority to place the IND, and clinical trials under that IND, on clinical hold. If we are unable to commence clinical trials or clinical trials are delayed indefinitely, we would be unable to develop additional product candidates and our business could be materially harmed. Clinical trials, both in the United States and in other countries, can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including:

The nature and efforts required to complete a prospective research and development project are typically indeterminable at very early stages when research is primarily conceptual and may have multiple applications. Once a focus towards developing a specific product candidate has been developed, we obtain more visibility into the efforts that may be required to reach conclusion of the development phase. However, there are inherent risks and uncertainties in developing novel biologics in a rapidly changing industry environment. To obtain approval of a product candidate from the FDA or other country regulatory authorities, we must, among other requirements, submit data supporting safety and efficacy as well as detailed information on the manufacture and composition of the product candidate. In most cases, this entails extensive laboratory tests and pre-clinical and clinical trials. The collection of this data, as well as the preparation of applications for review by the FDA and other regulatory agencies outside the United States are costly in time and effort, and may require significant capital investment.

We may encounter significant difficulties or costs in our efforts to obtain FDA approvals or approvals to market products in foreign markets. For example, the FDA or the equivalent in jurisdictions outside the United States may determine that our data is not sufficiently compelling to warrant marketing approval, or may require we engage in additional clinical trials or provide further analysis which may be costly and time consuming. Regardless of the nature of our efforts to complete development of our products and receive marketing approval, we may encounter delays that render our product candidates uncompetitive or otherwise preclude us from marketing products.

We may be required to obtain additional funding to complete development of product candidates or in order to commercialize approved products. However such funding may not be available to us on terms we deem acceptable or at all. Our ability to access additional capital is dependent on the success of our business and the perception by the market of our future business prospects. In the event we were unable to obtain necessary funding, we might halt or temporarily delay ongoing development projects.

Pre-clinical testing and clinical trials for product candidates must satisfy stringent regulatory requirements or we may be unable to utilize the results.

The pre-clinical testing and clinical trials of any product candidates that we develop must comply with regulations by numerous federal, state and local government authorities in the United States, principally the FDA, and by similar governmental authorities in other countries. Clinical trials are subject to continuing oversight by governmental regulatory authorities and institutional review boards and must meet the requirements of these authorities in the United States and other countries, including those for informed consent and good clinical practices. We may not be able to comply with these requirements, which could disqualify completed or ongoing clinical trials. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, the testing process that could delay or prevent commercialization of our product candidates, including the following:

Each phase of clinical testing is highly regulated, and during each phase there is risk that we will encounter serious obstacles or will not achieve our goals, and accordingly we may abandon a product in which we have invested substantial amounts of time and money. In addition, we must provide the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities with pre-clinical and clinical data that demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for each target indication before they can be approved for commercial distribution. We cannot state with certainty when or whether any of our products now under development will be approved or launched; or whether any products, once approved and launched, will be commercially successful.

The FDA, other non-United States regulatory authorities, or an Advisory Committee may determine our clinical trials data regarding safety or efficacy are insufficient for regulatory approval.

Although we obtain guidance from regulatory authorities on certain aspects of our clinical development activities, these discussions are not binding obligations on regulatory authorities. Regulatory authorities may revise or retract previous guidance or may disqualify a clinical trial in whole or in part from consideration in support of approval of a potential product for commercial sale or otherwise deny approval of that product. Even if we obtain successful clinical safety and efficacy data, we may be required to conduct additional, expensive trials to obtain regulatory approval. FDA, or equivalent other country authorities, may elect to obtain advice from outside experts regarding scientific issues and/or marketing applications under FDA or other country authority review through the FDA’s Advisory Committee process or other country procedures. Views of the Advisory Committee or other experts may differ from those of the FDA, or equivalent other country authority, and may impact our ability to commercialize a product candidate.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our trials could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

Clinical trials for our product candidates may require that we identify and enroll a large number of patients with the disease under investigation. We may not be able to enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics to achieve diversity in a study, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner.

Additionally, even if we are able to identify an appropriate patient population for a clinical trial, there can be no assurance that the patients will continue in the clinical trial through completion.

If we have difficulty enrolling or maintaining a sufficient number of patients with sufficient diversity to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, either of which would have a negative effect on our business.

PROVENGE and our other products in development cannot be sold if we do not maintain or gain required regulatory approvals.

Our business is subject to extensive regulation by numerous state and federal governmental authorities in the United States, including the FDA, and potentially by foreign regulatory authorities, with regulations differing from country to country. In the United States, the FDA regulates, among other things, the pre-clinical testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, safety, efficacy, potency, labeling, storage, record keeping, quality systems, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of therapeutic products. Other applicable non-United States regulatory authorities have equivalent powers. Failure to comply with applicable requirements could result in, among other things, one or more of the following actions: withdrawal of product approval, notices of violation, untitled letters, warning letters, fines and other monetary penalties, unanticipated expenditures, delays in approval or refusal to approve a product candidate; product recall or seizure; interruption of manufacturing or clinical trials; operating restrictions; injunctions; and criminal prosecution. We are required in the United States and in foreign countries to obtain approval from regulatory authorities before we can manufacture, market and sell our products.

Obtaining regulatory approval for marketing of a product candidate in one country does not assure we will be able to obtain regulatory approval in other countries. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in other countries. Once approved, the FDA and other United States and non-United States regulatory authorities have substantial authority to limit the uses or indications for which a product may be marketed, restrict distribution of the product, require additional testing, change product labeling or mandate withdrawal of our products. The marketing of our approved products will be subject to extensive regulatory requirements administered by the FDA and other regulatory bodies, including: the manufacturing, testing, distribution, labeling, packaging, storage, reporting and record-keeping related to the product, advertising, promotion, and adverse event reporting requirements. In addition, incidents of adverse drug reactions, unintended side effects or misuse relating to our products could result in required post-marketing studies, additional regulatory controls or restrictions, or even lead to withdrawal of a product from the market.

In general, the FDA and equivalent other country authorities require labeling, advertising and promotional materials to be truthful and not misleading, and marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. If the FDA or other regulatory authorities were to challenge our promotional materials or activities, they may bring enforcement action.

Our failure to obtain approval, significant delays in the approval process, or our failure to maintain approval in any jurisdiction will prevent us from selling a product in that jurisdiction. Any product and its manufacturer will continue to be subject to strict regulations after approval, including but not limited to, manufacturing, quality control, labeling, packaging, adverse event reporting, advertising, promotion and record-keeping requirements. Any problems with an approved product, including the later exhibition of adverse effects or any violation of regulations could result in restrictions on the product, including its withdrawal from the market, which could materially harm our business. The process of obtaining approvals in foreign countries is subject to delay and failure for many of the same reasons.

Regulatory authorities could also add new regulations or change existing regulations at any time, which could affect our ability to obtain or maintain approval of our products. PROVENGE and our investigational cellular immunotherapies are novel. As a result, regulatory agencies lack experience with them, which may lengthen the regulatory review process, increase our development costs and delay or prevent commercialization of PROVENGE outside of the United States and with respect to our active immunotherapy products under development. We are unable to predict when and whether any changes to regulatory policy affecting our business could occur, and such changes could have a material adverse impact on our business. If regulatory authorities determine that we have not complied with regulations in the research and development of a product candidate, a new indication for an existing product or information to support a current indication, they may not approve the product candidate or new indication or maintain approval of the current indication in its current form or at all, and we would not be able to market and sell it. If we were unable to market and sell our products or product candidates, our business and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.

Failure to comply with foreign regulatory requirements governing human clinical trials and failure to obtain marketing approval for product candidates could prevent us from selling our products in foreign markets, which may adversely affect our operating results and financial condition.

The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing, testing, product approvals, pricing and reimbursement outside the United States vary greatly from country to country. In addition, the time required to obtain approvals outside the United States may differ significantly from that required to obtain FDA approval. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on the timeframe we may desire, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not assure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and foreign regulatory authorities could require additional testing. Failure to comply with these regulatory requirements or obtain required approvals could impair our ability to develop foreign markets for our products and may have a material adverse effect on our business and future prospects.

Our product sales depend on adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers.

Our sale of PROVENGE is dependent on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including government healthcare programs and private insurance plans. We rely in large part on the reimbursement coverage by federal and state sponsored government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the United States and equivalent programs in other countries. In the event we seek approvals to market PROVENGE in foreign territories, we will need to work with the government-sponsored healthcare systems in Europe and other foreign countries that are the primary payers of healthcare costs in those regions. Governments and private payers may regulate prices, reimbursement levels and/or access to PROVENGE and any other products we may market to control costs or to affect levels of use of our products. We cannot predict the availability or level of coverage and reimbursement for PROVENGE or our product candidates and a reduction in coverage and/or reimbursement for our products could have a material adverse effect on our product sales and results of operations.

The availability and amount of reimbursement for PROVENGE and our product candidates and the manner in which government and private payers may reimburse for our potential products is uncertain.

In many of the markets where we may do business in the future, the prices of pharmaceutical products are subject to direct price controls pursuant to applicable law or regulation and to drug reimbursement programs with varying price control mechanisms. We expect that many of the patients in the United States who seek treatment with PROVENGE or any other of our products that are approved for marketing will be eligible for Medicare benefits. Other patients may be covered by private health plans. The Medicare program is administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), and coverage and reimbursement for products and services under Medicare are determined pursuant to statute, regulations promulgated by CMS, and CMS’s subregulatory coverage and reimbursement determinations. It is difficult to predict how CMS may apply those regulations and policy determinations to newly

approved products, especially novel products such as ours, and those regulations and interpretive determinations are subject to change. Moreover, the procedures and criteria by which CMS makes coverage and reimbursement determinations and the reimbursement amounts established by statute are subject to change, particularly because of budgetary pressures facing the Medicare program. For example, Medicare reimbursement for drugs and biologicals administered by physicians, including PROVENGE, is set at average sales price (“ASP”) plus six percent by statute. ASP is a price calculated by the manufacturer and reported to CMS on a quarterly basis. In addition, the statute establishes the payment rate for new drugs and biologicals administered in hospital outpatient departments that are granted “pass-through status” at the rate applicable in physicians’ offices (i.e., ASP plus six percent) for two to three years after FDA approval. PROVENGE was granted pass-through status effective October 1, 2010, allowing reimbursement in hospital outpatient departments at ASP plus six percent, and this status is expected to expire on December 31, 2012. In the past year, Congress has considered amending the statute to reduce these payment rates, and similar legislation could be enacted in the future. Furthermore, the payment rate for PROVENGE in the hospital setting after December 31, 2012 is not known. CMS establishes the payment rates for drugs and biologicals that do not have pass-through status by regulation. For 2012, these drugs are reimbursed at ASP plus four percent if they have an average cost per day exceeding $75; drugs with an average cost per day less than $75 are not separately reimbursed. In future years, CMS could change both the payment rate and the average cost threshold, and these changes could adversely affect payment for PROVENGE.

PROVENGE also is made available to patients that are eligible for Medicaid benefits. A condition of federal funds being made available to cover our products under Medicaid and Medicare Part B is our participation in the Medicaid drug rebate program, established by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508, and as amended by subsequent legislation, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (collectively “PPACA”). Under the Medicaid rebate program, we pay a rebate to each state Medicaid program for each unit of our drug paid for by those programs. The rebate amount for a drug varies by quarter, and is based on pricing data reported by us on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS. These data include the quarterly average manufacturer price, or AMP, for the drug, and in the case of innovator products such as PROVENGE, the quarterly best price, which is our lowest price in a quarter to any commercial or non-governmental customer. The formula for determining the rebate amount, using those data, is set by law, and for innovator products like PROVENGE is the greater of 23.1% of AMP or the difference between AMP and best price. The rebate amount for innovator products also must be adjusted upward for price increases that outpace inflation.

PPACA significantly changed the Medicaid rebate program. Rebates previously were due only on utilization under Medicaid fee-for-service plans, but PPACA expanded our rebate liability to include the utilization of Medicaid managed care organizations, effective upon enactment, March 23, 2010. PPACA also increased the minimum rebate due for innovator drugs such as PROVENGE, from 15.1% of AMP to 23.1% of AMP, effective the first quarter of 2010, and capped the total rebate amount for innovator drugs at 100% of AMP. PPACA and subsequent legislation also changed the definition of AMP, effective the fourth quarter of 2010. CMS has issued a proposed rule to implement PPACA’s changes to the Medicaid rebate program, but does not anticipate finalizing this rule until 2013. This rule may have the effect of increasing our rebates or other costs and charges associated with participating in the Medicaid rebate program.

We must accurately track and report ASP and average minimum price (“AMP”) data to the relevant authorities or we may face fines or penalties.

The calculations for our reported pricing data, including AMP, best price, as well as ASP, are complex and the governing legal requirements may be subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts. If we become aware that our reported AMP and best price figures for prior quarters are incorrect or should be changed to reflect late-arriving pricing data, we are obligated to submit the corrected data for a period not to exceed 12 quarters from the quarter in which the data originally were due. Such restatements and recalculations serve to increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the Medicaid rebate program. Any corrections to our pricing data could result in an overage or underage in our rebate liability for past quarters, depending on the nature of the correction.

Our failure to submit AMP, best price, ASP, and other required data on a timely basis could result in a civil monetary penalty of $10,000 per day for each day the submission is late beyond the due date. In addition, if we are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, we could be liable for civil monetary penalties not to exceed $100,000 per item of false information, in addition to other penalties available the government. As to ASP specifically, if a manufacturer is found to have made a misrepresentation in the reporting of ASP, statute provides for civil monetary penalties of up to $10,000 for each misrepresentation for each day in which the misrepresentation was applied. In all cases, this conduct also could result in the termination of our Medicaid rebate agreement. In the event that CMS terminates our rebate agreement, no federal payments would be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B for PROVENGE or any other of our products that are approved for marketing.

The availability of federal funds under Medicaid and Medicare Part B to pay for PROVENGE and any other products that are approved for marketing also is conditioned on our participation in the Public Health Service 340B drug pricing program. The 340B

drug pricing program requires participating manufacturers to agree to charge statutorily-defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for the manufacturer’s covered outpatient drugs. These covered entities include hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of poor Medicare beneficiaries, as well as a variety of community health clinics and other recipients of health services grant funding. PPACA expanded the 340B program to include additional entity types: certain free standing cancer hospitals, critical access hospitals, rural referral centers and sole community hospitals, each as defined by the Act. The 340B ceiling price for a drug is calculated using a statutory formula that is based on the AMP and Medicaid rebate amount for the drug. To the extent PPACA, as discussed above, changes the statutory and regulatory definitions of AMP and the Medicaid rebate amount, these changes will also affect our 340B ceiling price for PROVENGE or any other of our products that are approved for marketing. Any revisions to previously reported Medicaid pricing data also may require revisions to the 340B ceiling prices that were based on those data and could require the issuance of refunds.

PPACA is expected to impact the United States pharmaceutical industry substantially, including with regard to how health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Some of the other key PPACA provisions include:

Moreover, a number of state and federal legislative and regulatory proposals aimed at reforming the healthcare system in the United States continue to be proposed, the effect of which, if enacted, could adversely impact our product sales and results of operations.

We also make PROVENGE available for purchase by authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”), of the General Services Administration pursuant to an FSS contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Currently, Dendreon has entered into an Interim Agreement with the VA, which is a precursor agreement to the FSS contract. Under the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (“VHCA”), we are required to offer deeply discounted FSS contract pricing to four federal agencies — the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense (“DoD”), the Coast Guard and the Public Health Service (“PHS”) (including the Indian Health Service) — for federal funding to be made available for reimbursement of any of our products under the Medicaid program, Medicaid Part B and for our products to be eligible to be purchased by those four federal agencies and certain federal grantees. FSS pricing to those four federal agencies must be equal to or less than the “Federal Ceiling Price,” which is, at a minimum, 24% off the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price, or “Non-FAMP”, for the prior fiscal year. In addition, if we are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, the VHCA provides for civil monetary penalties of not to exceed $100,000 per item of false information in addition to other penalties available to the government.

Pricing of pharmaceutical products in the European Union is subject to significant governmental influence and scrutiny.

In the European Union, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of such products to consumers. The approach taken varies from member state to member state. Some jurisdictions operate positive and/or negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products, as exemplified by the role of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom, which evaluates the data supporting new medicines and passes reimbursement recommendations to the government. All of these factors could adversely impact our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates in these jurisdictions.

The pharmaceutical industry is subject to significant regulation and oversight to prevent inducement and fraud pursuant to anti-kickback laws and false claims statutes, any failure to comply with these regulations could result in substantial fines or penalties.

In the United States, we are also subject to health care fraud and abuse regulation and enforcement by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

The risk of our being found in violation of these laws is increased by the fact that many of them have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Moreover, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, the recently enacted PPACA, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback and criminal health care fraud statutes to clarify that a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, PPACA provides that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the false claims statutes.

In addition, a number of states have laws that require pharmaceutical companies to track and report payments, gifts and other benefits provided to physicians and other health care professionals and entities. Similarly, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which was enacted in 2010 and may be implemented in 2012, will require pharmaceutical companies to report to the federal government certain payments to physicians and teaching hospitals. Other state laws require pharmaceutical companies to adopt and or disclose specific compliance policies to regulate the company’s interactions with healthcare professionals. Moreover, some states, such as Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont, also impose an outright ban on certain gifts to physicians. Violations of some of these laws may result in substantial fines. These laws affect our promotional activities by limiting the kinds of interactions we may have with hospitals, physicians or other potential purchasers or users of our products. Both the disclosure laws and gift bans impose additional administrative and compliance burdens on us. Although we seek to structure our interactions in compliance with all applicable requirements, these laws are broadly written, and it is often difficult to determine precisely how a law will be applied in specific circumstances. If an employee were to offer an inappropriate gift to a customer, we could be subject to a claim under an applicable state law. Similarly if we fail to comply with a reporting requirement, we could be subject to penalties under applicable federal or state laws.

We expect there will continue to be federal and state laws and/or regulations, proposed and implemented, that could impact our operations and business. The extent to which future legislation or regulations, if any, relating to health care fraud abuse laws and/or enforcement, may be enacted or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business remains uncertain. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from governmental health care programs, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

We may be subject to or otherwise affected by laws relating to privacy and security of personal information, including personal health information and our failure to comply could result in liability and reputational damage.

There are numerous United States federal and state laws governing the privacy and security of personal health information that we obtain, maintain or have access to in connection with manufacture of our product. Some of the laws that may apply include state

security breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws and federal and state consumer protections laws which impose requirements for the collection, use, disclosure and transmission of personal information. Numerous other countries have, or are developing, laws governing the collection, use and transmission of personal information as well. Each of these laws may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations we could be subject to penalties or sanctions.

Although we are not a covered entity subject to HIPAA, most healthcare providers who prescribe our product and from whom we obtain personal health information are subject to HIPAA. Accordingly, we could be subject to criminal penalties if we knowingly obtain individually identifiable health information from a covered entity in a manner that is not authorized or permitted by HIPAA or for aiding and abetting the violation of HIPAA. We are unable to predict whether our actions could be subject to prosecution in the event of an impermissible disclosure of health information to us.

The receipt of personal health information in connection with our clinical trial initiatives is subject to state and federal human subject protection laws. These laws could create liability for us if one of our research collaborators were to use or disclose research subject information without consent and in violation of applicable laws.

We use hazardous materials in our business and must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive.

Our operations produce hazardous waste products, including chemicals and radioactive and biological materials. We are subject to a variety of federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the use, handling, storage and disposal of these materials. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials complies with the standards prescribed by state and federal laws and regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of such hazardous waste products and store our low level radioactive waste at our facilities in compliance with applicable environmental laws until the materials are no longer considered radioactive. We are also subject to regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), and the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), and to regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other regulatory statutes, and may in the future be subject to other federal, state or local regulations. OSHA and/or the EPA may promulgate regulations that may affect our research and development programs. We may be required to incur further costs to comply with current or future environmental and safety laws and regulations. In addition, in the event of accidental contamination or injury from these materials, we could be held liable for any damages that result, including remediation, and any such liability could exceed our resources.

If we are unable to protect our proprietary rights or to defend against infringement claims, we may not be able to compete effectively or operate profitably.

We invent and develop technologies that are the basis for or incorporated in our potential products. We protect our technology through United States and foreign patent filings, trademarks and trade secrets. We have issued patents, and applications for United States and foreign patents in various stages of prosecution. We expect that we will continue to file and prosecute patent applications and that our success depends in part on our ability to establish and defend our proprietary rights in the technologies that are the subject of issued patents and patent applications.

The fact that we have filed a patent application or that a patent has issued, however, does not ensure that we will have meaningful protection from competition with regard to the underlying technology or product. Patents, if issued, may be challenged, invalidated, declared unenforceable or circumvented or may not cover all applications we may desire. Our pending patent applications as well as those we may file in the future may not result in issued patents. Patents may not provide us with adequate proprietary protection or advantages against competitors with, or who could develop, similar or competing technologies or who could design around our patents. Patent law relating to the scope of claims in the pharmaceutical field in which we operate is continually evolving and can be the subject of some uncertainty. The laws providing patent protection may change in a way that would limit protection.

We also rely on trade secrets and know-how that we seek to protect, in part, through confidentiality agreements. Our policy is to require our officers, employees, consultants, contractors, manufacturers, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements. These agreements provide that all confidential information developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific limited circumstances. We also require signed confidentiality agreements from companies that receive our confidential data. For employees, consultants and contractors, we require confidentiality agreements providing that all inventions conceived while rendering services to us shall be assigned to us as our exclusive property. It is possible, however, that these parties may breach those agreements, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. It is also possible that our trade secrets or know-how will otherwise become known to or be independently developed by competitors.

We are also subject to the risk of claims, whether meritorious or not, that our products or immunotherapy candidates infringe or misappropriate third-party intellectual property rights. Defending against such claims can be quite expensive even if the claims lack merit. And if we are found to have infringed or misappropriated a third-party’s intellectual property, we could be required to seek a license or discontinue our products or cease using certain technologies or delay commercialization of the affected product or products, and we could be required to pay substantial damages, which could materially harm our business.

We may be subject to litigation with respect to the ownership and use of intellectual property that will be costly to defend or pursue and uncertain in its outcome.

Our business may bring us into conflict with our licensees, licensors or others with whom we have contractual or other business relationships, or with our competitors or others whose interests differ from ours. If we are unable to resolve those conflicts on terms that are satisfactory to all parties, we may become involved in litigation brought by or against us. That litigation is likely to be expensive and may require a significant amount of management’s time and attention, at the expense of other aspects of our business.

Litigation relating to the ownership and use of intellectual property is expensive, and our position as a relatively small company in an industry dominated by very large companies may cause us to be at a disadvantage in defending our intellectual property rights and in defending against claims that our immunotherapy candidates infringe or misappropriate third-party intellectual property rights. Even if we are able to defend our position, the cost of doing so may adversely affect our profitability. We may in the future be subject to patent litigation and may not be able to protect our intellectual property at a reasonable cost if such litigation is initiated. The outcome of litigation is always uncertain, and in some cases could include judgments against us that require us to pay damages, enjoin us from certain activities or otherwise affect our legal or contractual rights, which could have a significant adverse effect on our business.

We are exposed to potential product liability claims, and insurance against these claims may not be adequate and may not be available to us at a reasonable rate in the future.

Our business exposes us to potential liability risks inherent in the research, development, manufacturing and marketing of drug candidates and products. If any of our drug candidates in clinical trials or our marketed products harm people or allegedly harm people, we may be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims. Most, if not all, of the patients who participate in our clinical trials are already seriously ill when they enter a trial. We have clinical trial insurance coverage, and commercial product liability insurance coverage. However, this insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all claims against us. There is also a risk that adequate insurance coverage will not be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. The successful assertion of an uninsured product liability or other claim against us could cause us to incur significant expenses to pay such a claim, could adversely affect our product development or product sales and could cause a decline in our product revenues. Even a successfully defended product liability claim could cause us to incur significant expenses to defend such a claim, could adversely affect our product development and could cause a decline in our product revenues. In addition, product liability claims could result in an FDA or equivalent non-United States regulatory authority investigation of the safety or efficacy of our products, our manufacturing processes and facilities, or our marketing programs. An FDA or equivalent non-United States regulatory authority investigation could also potentially lead to a recall of our products or more serious enforcement actions, limitations on the indications for which they may be used, or suspension or withdrawal of approval.

*We are currently subject to certain pending litigation and may be subject to similar claims in the future.

Related to the securities lawsuits, the Company also is the subject of stockholder derivative complaints first filed in August 2011 generally arising out of the facts and circumstances that are alleged to underlie the securities action. Derivative suits filed in the District Court were consolidated in December 2011 into a proceeding captioned In re Dendreon Corp. Derivative Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1345 JLR; others were filed in the Superior Court of Washington for King County and were consolidated by order dated November 9, 2011 into a proceeding captioned In re Dendreon Corporation Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 11-2-29626-1 SEA. On June 22, 2012, another derivative action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Herbert Silverberg, derivatively on behalf of Dendreon Corporation v. Mitchell H. Gold, et al., Case No. 7646-VCP. The complaints filed in Washington all name as defendants the three individuals who are defendants in the securities action together with the other members of the Company’s Board of Directors. While the complaints filed in Washington assert various legal theories of liability, the lawsuits generally allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the launch of PROVENGE and by purportedly subjecting the Company to potential liability for securities fraud. The complaints also include claims against certain of defendants for supposed misappropriation of Company information and insider trading; the Silverberg complaint, which names one additional former officer of the Company as a defendant, asserts only this claim. The derivative actions pending in Washington are all the subject of stipulated orders staying proceedings until the District Court rules on the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the securities action. The parties in the Delaware action remain in discussions over preliminary procedural matters and there are no pending deadlines. While the Company has certain indemnification obligations, including obligations to advance legal expense to the named defendants for defense of these lawsuits, the purported derivative lawsuits do not seek relief against the Company. Additionally, the SEC has commenced a formal investigation, which the Company believes may relate to some of the same issues raised in the securities and derivative actions. The Company is cooperating fully with the SEC investigation. The ultimate financial impact of these various proceedings if any is not yet determinable and therefore, no provision for loss, if any, has been recorded in the financial statements. The Company has insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated costs of these proceedings, subject to the policies’ terms and conditions.

The Company is not a defendant in the stockholder derivative actions as the defendants are the members of the Company’s board of directors and certain executive officers. Nevertheless, the Company is at risk of incurring significant costs in connection with these derivative actions, including for example costs associated with discovery and defense of the individual defendants. We cannot predict the outcome of any of these suits or proceedings. Monitoring and defending against legal actions, whether or not meritorious, and considering stockholder demands is time-consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities and we cannot predict how long it may take to resolve these matters. In addition, legal fees and costs incurred in connection with such activities can be significant. We cannot predict the outcome of the matters or the associated costs to us, nor the amounts that the Company may need to pay to settle them or satisfy an adverse judgment. The Company maintains directors’ and officers’ liability insurance that it believes is applicable to these various lawsuits; however, this insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover all claims against us. We have not established any reserves for any potential liability relating to the suits or other claims related to the same matters. It is possible that we could, in the future, be subject to judgments or enter into settlements of claims for monetary damages. A decision adverse to our interests on these actions or resulting from these matters could result in the payment of substantial damages and could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations and financial position.

We have been in the past, and may become in the future, involved in legal proceedings in addition to those described above. You should carefully review and consider the various disclosures we make in our reports filed with the SEC regarding legal matters that may affect our business. Civil and criminal litigation is inherently unpredictable and outcomes can result in excessive verdicts, fines, penalties and/or injunctive relief that affect how we operate our business. Monitoring and defending against legal actions, whether or not meritorious, and considering stockholder demands, is time-consuming for our management and detracts from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In addition, legal fees and costs incurred in connection with such activities may be significant. We cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any legal proceedings in which we become involved and it is difficult to estimate the possible costs to us stemming from these matters. Settlements and decisions adverse to our interests in legal actions could result in the payment of substantial amounts and could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow, results of operations and financial position. Refer to Item 1 for further discussion of our legal proceedings.

Market volatility may affect our stock price, and the value of an investment in our common stock may be subject to sudden decreases.

The trading price for our common stock has been, and we expect it to continue to be, volatile. The price at which our common stock trades depends on a number of factors, including the following, many of which are beyond our control:

During periods of extreme stock market price volatility, share prices of many biotechnology companies have often fluctuated in a manner not necessarily related to their individual operating performance. Furthermore, historically our common stock has experienced greater price volatility than the stock market as a whole.

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law and our stockholders’ rights plan could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult.

Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as amended (“certification of incorporation”) and amended and restated bylaws (“bylaws”) will make it more difficult for a third-party to acquire us on terms not approved by our board of directors and may have the effect of deterring hostile takeover attempts. Our certificate of incorporation, as amended, authorizes our board of directors to issue up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, of which 2,500,000 shares have been designated as “Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock,” and to fix the price, rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions, including voting rights, of those shares without any further vote or action by the stockholders. The rights of the holders of our common stock will be subject to, and may be junior to the rights of the holders of any preferred stock that may be issued in the future. The issuance of preferred stock could reduce the voting power of the holders of our common stock and the likelihood that common stockholders will receive payments upon liquidation.

In addition, our certificate of incorporation divides our board of directors into three classes having staggered terms. This may delay any attempt to replace our board of directors. We have also implemented a stockholders’ rights plan, also called a poison pill, which would substantially reduce or eliminate the expected economic benefit to an acquirer from acquiring us in a manner or on terms not approved by our board of directors. These and other impediments to a third-party acquisition or change of control could limit the price investors are willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock. Our executive officers have employment agreements that include change of control provisions providing severance benefits in the event that their employment terminates involuntarily without cause or for good reason within twelve months after a change of control of us. These agreements could affect the consummation of and the terms of a third-party acquisition.

We are also subject to provisions of Delaware law that could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of our company. One of these provisions prevents us from engaging in a business combination with any interested stockholder for a period of three years from the date the person becomes an interested stockholder, unless specified conditions are satisfied.

We do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We are not currently profitable. To the extent we become profitable, we intend to retain any future earnings to fund the development and growth of our business and do not currently anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, our stockholders will not realize a return on their investment unless and until they sell shares after the trading price of our shares appreciates from the price at which the shareholder purchased.

The fundamental change repurchase feature of our convertible notes may delay or prevent a takeover attempt of our company that would otherwise be beneficial to investors.

The indenture governing each of our 2014 Notes and 2016 Notes will require us to repurchase the notes for cash upon the occurrence of a fundamental change and, in certain circumstances, to increase the conversion rate for a holder that converts its notes in connection with a fundamental change. A takeover of our company may be a fundamental change that would trigger the requirement that we repurchase the notes and increase the conversion rate, which could make it more costly for a potential acquirer to engage in a combinatory transaction with us. Such additional costs may have the effect of delaying or preventing a takeover of our company that would otherwise be beneficial to investors.

Share Repurchases. The following table sets forth information with respect to purchases of shares of our common stock made during the three month period ended September 30, 2012 by or on behalf of the Company or any “affiliated purchaser,” as defined by Rule 10b-18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.


DENDREON CORPORATION

By:		/s/ John H. Johnson
		John H. Johnson
		President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (Principal Executive Officer)

By:		/s/ Gregory T. Schiffman
		Gregory T. Schiffman
		Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)

By:		/s/ Gregory R. Cox
		Gregory R. Cox
		Vice President, Finance
		(Principal Accounting Officer)


DELAWARE (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		22-3203193 (IRS Employer Identification No.)

1301 2ND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (Address of registrant’s principal executive offices)		98101 (Zip Code)


	PAGE NO.
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION		3
Item 1. Financial Statements		3
Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 2012 (unaudited) and December 31, 2011		3
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)		4
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the Three and Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)		5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 (unaudited)		6
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)		7
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		24
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		38
Item 4. Controls and Procedures		38
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION		39
Item 1. Legal Proceedings		39
Item 1A. Risk Factors		39
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds		60
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities		60
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures		60
Item 5. Other Information		60
Item 6. Exhibits		61
SIGNATURES		62


	September 30,			December 31,
	2012			2011
	(Unaudited)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	226,696		$	427,100
Short-term investments		163,519			111,525
Trade accounts receivable		38,307			35,541
Inventory		68,594			69,502
Prepaid antigen costs		963			7,490
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		19,980			19,064

Total current assets		518,059			670,222
Property and equipment, net		161,292			242,505
Long-term investments		54,854			79,071
Other assets		7,888			9,693

Total assets	$	742,093		$	1,001,491

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	10,878		$	7,807
Accrued liabilities		41,432			35,581
Accrued compensation		26,921			24,703
Restructuring and contract termination liabilities		15,861			4,752
Current portion of capital lease obligations		4,132			3,855
Current portion of facility lease obligations		1,080			1,018

Total current liabilities		100,304			77,716
Long-term accrued liabilities		5,013			7,087
Capital lease obligations, less current portion		7,039			9,384
Facility lease obligations, less current portion		17,747			18,564
Convertible senior subordinated notes due 2014		27,685			27,685
Convertible senior notes due 2016		526,477			508,418
Commitments and contingencies (Note 12)
Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized, no shares issued or outstanding		—			—
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 250,000,000 shares authorized, 154,352,780 and 149,169,279 shares issued and outstanding at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively		150			147
Additional paid-in capital		1,973,125			1,913,265
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)		208			(35	)
Accumulated deficit		(1,915,655	)		(1,560,740	)

Total stockholders’ equity		57,828			352,637

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	742,093		$	1,001,491


	Three Months Ended						Nine Months Ended
	September 30,						September 30,
	2012			2011			2012			2011

Product revenue, net	$	77,942		$	61,409		$	239,878		$	136,549
Royalty and other revenue		29			2,878			159			2,919

Total revenue		77,971			64,287			240,037			139,468
Operating expenses:
Cost of product revenue		51,749			54,978			173,521			102,070
Research and development		18,643			20,417			55,683			56,591
Selling, general and administrative		68,109			84,920			243,643			285,280
Restructuring, contract termination and asset impairment		80,994			38,482			81,969			38,482

Total operating expenses		219,495			198,797			554,816			482,423

Loss from operations		(141,524	)		(134,510	)		(314,779	)		(342,955	)
Other income (expense):
Interest income		313			285			1,071			1,078
Interest expense		(13,732	)		(12,910	)		(41,312	)		(34,024	)
Other income (expense)		79			24			105			(2	)

Net loss	$	(154,864	)	$	(147,111	)	$	(354,915	)	$	(375,903	)

Basic and diluted net loss per share	$	(1.04	)	$	(1.00	)	$	(2.39	)	$	(2.58	)

Shares used in computation of basic and diluted net loss per share		149,593			146,426			148,455			145,953


	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2012			2011
Operating Activities:
Net loss	$	(354,915	)	$	(375,903	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization expense		31,152			25,797
Non-cash stock-based compensation expense		57,264			48,136
Amortization of securities discount and premium		2,292			1,697
Amortization of convertible notes discount and debt issuance costs		19,597			16,892
Asset impairment related to restructuring and contract termination		65,295			14,830
Other		306			975
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Trade accounts receivable		(2,766	)		(22,700	)
Inventory		9,382			(18,689	)
Prepaid antigen costs		(1,359	)		(10,843	)
Prepaid expenses and other assets		(1,355	)		(10,317	)
Accounts payable		3,071			5,642
Accrued liabilities and compensation		6,345			8,306
Restructuring and contract termination liabilities		11,109			15,182

Net cash used in operating activities		(154,582	)		(300,995	)
Investing Activities:
Maturities and sales of investments		192,256			199,844
Purchases of investments		(222,052	)		(248,457	)
Purchases of property and equipment		(14,490	)		(17,850	)

Net cash used in investing activities		(44,286	)		(66,463	)
Financing Activities:
Net proceeds from issuance of convertible debt		—			607,129
Payments on facility lease obligations		(755	)		(671	)
Payments on capital lease obligations		(2,068	)		(3,464	)
Proceeds from release of security deposits		1,866			1,862
Payments of security deposits		(1,779	)		(3,895	)
Issuance of common stock under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan		2,795			4,083
Other		(1,595	)		3,073

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities		(1,536	)		608,117

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		(200,404	)		240,659
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		427,100			132,995

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	226,696		$	373,654

Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information:
Cash paid during the period for interest	$	17,981		$	12,926
Increase in asset retirement obligation		745			—
Assets acquired under capital leases		—			7,379


	Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2012
	(in thousands)
Beginning balance, January 1	$	885
Current provision related to sales made in current period		5,719
Current provision related to sales made in prior periods		57
Payments/credits		(4,734	)

Balance at September 30	$	1,927


	Cost or Amortized Cost		Fair Market Value
	(In thousands)
September 30, 2012
Due in one year or less	$	163,355	$	163,519
Due after one year through two years		54,810		54,854

	$	218,165	$	218,373

December 31, 2011
Due in one year or less	$	111,539	$	111,525
Due after one year through two years		79,090		79,071

	$	190,629	$	190,596


	Cost or Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gains		Gross Unrealized Losses			Fair Market Value
	(In thousands)
September 30, 2012
Demand deposit	$	7,984	$	—	$	—		$	7,984
Corporate debt securities		111,030		158		(18	)		111,170
Government-sponsored enterprises		29,040		16		—			29,056
U.S. Treasury notes		70,111		52		—			70,163

	$	218,165	$	226	$	(18	)	$	218,373

December 31, 2011
Demand deposit	$	7,999	$	—	$	—		$	7,999
Corporate debt securities		144,771		93		(126	)		144,738
Government-sponsored enterprises		25,348		—		(18	)		25,330
U.S. Treasury notes		12,511		18		—			12,529

	$	190,629	$	111	$	(144	)	$	190,596


Description	Balance		Quoted Prices in Active Markets for Identical Assets (Level 1)		Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2)		Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)
	(In thousands)
*Assets:*
September 30, 2012
Money market	$	226,499	$	226,499	$	—	$	—
Corporate debt securities		111,170		—		111,170		—
Government-sponsored enterprises		29,056		—		29,056		—
U.S. Treasury notes		70,163		—		70,163		—

Total financial assets	$	436,888	$	226,499	$	210,389	$	—


December 31, 2011
Money market	$	396,193	$	396,193	$	—	$	—
Commercial paper		17,990		—		17,990		—
Corporate debt securities		144,738		—		144,738		—
Government-sponsored enterprises		25,330		—		25,330		—
U.S. Treasury notes		12,529		—		12,529		—

Total financial assets	$	596,780	$	396,193	$	200,587	$	—


	Nine Months Ended September 30,		Year Ended December 31,
	2012		2011
	(In thousands)
Beginning balance, January 1	$	7,019	$	6,610
Additions		745		—
Accretion		365		409

Ending balance	$	8,129	$	7,019


	Employee Stock Options						Employee Stock Purchase Plan
	Three Months Ended September 30,						Three Months Ended September 30,
	2012			2011			2012			2011

Weighted average estimated fair value	$	3.21		$	7.82		$	1.38		$	14.40

Weighted Average Assumptions
Dividend yield (A)		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
Expected volatility (B)		86	%		81	%		23	%		44	%
Risk-free interest rate (C)		0.80	%		0.96	%		0.07	%		0.01	%
Expected term (D)		5.5 years			5.0 years			0.5 years			0.9 years

	Employee Stock Options						Employee Stock Purchase Plan
	Nine Months Ended September 30,						Nine Months Ended September 30,
	2012			2011			2012			2011

Weighted average estimated fair value	$	5.59		$	19.72		$	2.23		$	12.40

Weighted Average Assumptions
Dividend yield (A)		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%
Expected volatility (B)		69	%		77	%		41	%		45	%
Risk-free interest rate (C)		0.82	%		1.99	%		0.14	%		0.04	%
Expected term (D)		4.8 years			5.0 years			0.9 years			1.1 years


	Number of Shares			Weighted-Average Exercise Price per Share		Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Life (in years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value

Outstanding at January 1, 2012		2,576,079		$	25.98
Granted		1,622,520			10.81
Exercised		(48,962	)		5.04
Forfeited and expired		(537,051	)		23.48

Outstanding at September 30, 2012		3,612,586			19.49		8.16	$	56,569

Options exercisable at September 30, 2012		1,433,657			24.86		6.57	$	22,969


	Number of Shares			Weighted-Average Grant Date Fair Value

Outstanding at January 1, 2012		1,963,711		$	26.22
Granted		5,607,332			10.99
Vested		(2,184,779	)		16.33
Forfeited and expired		(699,930	)		12.35

Outstanding at September 30, 2012		4,686,334			14.67


	Operating Leases
	(In thousands)

Three month period ending December 31, 2012	$	1,734
Year ending December 31:
2013		11,655
2014		9,934
2015		9,840
2016		9,989
Thereafter		21,881

Total minimum lease payments	$	65,033


	2012 Restructuring
Description	Charges for the Nine Month Period ended September 30, 2012		Cash Payments			Stock Vesting and Other Non- Cash Settlement			Restructuring and Contract Termination Liabilities as of September 30, 2012
	(In thousands)
Severance and other termination benefits	$	10,498	$	(259	)	$	(1,690	)	$	8,549
Other associated costs		6,298		(3,035	)		—			3,263
Asset impairment		65,295		—			(65,275	)		20

Total	$	82,091	$	(3,294	)	$	(66,965	)	$	11,832


	2011 Restructuring
Description	Restructuring and Contract Termination Liabilities as of December 31, 2011		Cash Payments			Adjustments for the Nine Month Period ended September 30, 2012			Restructuring and Contract Termination Liabilities as of September 30, 2012
	(In thousands)
Severance and other termination benefits	$	684	$	(593	)	$	(91	)	$	—
Contract termination costs		4,068		(8	)		(31	)		4,029

Total	$	4,752	$	(601	)	$	(122	)	$	4,029


Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased (1)		Average Price Paid per Share		Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs		Maximum Number of Shares that May Yet be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs
July 1 — July 31, 2012		3,526	$	6.01		—		—
August 1 — August 31, 2012		462		4.49		—		—
September 1 — September 30, 2012		—		—		—		—

Total		3,988	$	5.83		—		—


Exhibit Number		Description

10.1†		First Amendment to Office Lease between The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and Dendreon Corporation, dated March 8, 2011

10.2†		Second Amendment to Office Lease between FSP-RIC LLC and Dendreon Corporation, dated July 27, 2012

10.3*		Amended Executive Employment Agreement dated September 20, 2012 between John H. Johnson and the Company

31.1		Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

31.2		Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

32		Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

101.INS		XBRL INSTANCE DOCUMENT

101.SCH		XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION SCHEMA DOCUMENT

101.CAL		XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

101.DEF		XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

101.LAB		XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT

101.PRE		XBRL TAXONOMY EXTENSION PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT