As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 2, 2021

Registration No. 333-                 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM S-1

REGISTRATION STATEMENT

UNDER

THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

IMPEL NEUROPHARMA, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware	2834	26-3058238
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code Number)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)

201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 260

Seattle, WA 98119

(206) 568-1466

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

Adrian Adams

President and Chief Executive Officer

Impel NeuroPharma, Inc.

201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 260

Seattle, WA 98119

(206) 568-1466

(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)

Copies to:

Alan C. Smith Amanda L. Rose Ryan Mitteness Fenwick & West LLP 1191 Second Avenue, Floor 10 Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 389-4510 Michael Nordtvedt Bryan D. King Tony Jeffries Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Professional Corporation 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 883-2500

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this registration statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 check the following box.  ☐

If this form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  ☐

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  ☐

If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  ☐

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):

Large accelerated filer	☐	Accelerated filer	☐
Non-accelerated filer	☒	Smaller reporting company	☒
Emerging growth company	☒

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act.  ☐

CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE

Title of Each Class of Securities to be Registered	Proposed Maximum Aggregate Offering Price(1)(2)	Amount of Registration Fee
Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share	$75,000,000	$8,183

(1) The proposed maximum aggregate offering price includes the offering price of additional shares that the underwriters have the option to purchase.

(2) Estimated solely for purposes of calculating the registration fee in accordance with Rule 457(o) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which specifically states that this Registration Statement shall thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or until the Registration Statement shall become effective on such date as the Securities and Exchange Commission, acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.

The information in this preliminary prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission is effective. This preliminary prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and we are not soliciting offers to buy these securities in any jurisdiction where the offer or sale is not permitted.

PROSPECTUS (Subject to Completion) Dated April 2, 2021

            Shares

Impel NeuroPharma, Inc.

Common Stock

This is an initial public offering of shares of our common stock. We are offering                 shares of our common stock. Prior to this offering, there has been no public market for our common stock. We will apply for listing of our common stock on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “IMPL.” We expect that the public offering price will be between $                and $                per share.

We have granted the underwriters an option to purchase up to                additional shares of our common stock at the initial public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions. We intend to apply to list our common stock on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “IMPL.”

We are an “emerging growth company” under applicable Securities and Exchange Commission rules and will be subject to reduced public company reporting requirements for this prospectus and future filings.

Our business and an investment in our common stock involve significant risks. These risks are described under the caption “Risk Factors” beginning on page 14 of this prospectus.

Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of these securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

	Per Share	Total
Public offering price	$	$
Underwriting discounts and commissions(1)	$	$
Proceeds, before expenses, to Impel NeuroPharma, Inc.	$	$

(1) See the section titled “Underwriting” for additional information regarding underwriting compensation.

The underwriters may also purchase up to an additional                  shares from us at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions, within 30 days from the date of this prospectus to cover overallotments.

The underwriters expect to deliver the shares against payment in New York, New York on                 , 2021.

Joint Book-Running Managers

Cowen Guggenheim Securities

Lead Manager

Wedbush PacGrow

                    , 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	Page
Prospectus Summary		1
Risk Factors		14
Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements		65
Market and Industry Data		67
Use of Proceeds		68
Dividend Policy		69
Capitalization		70
Dilution		73
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		77
Business		89
Management		134
Executive Compensation		144
Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions		156
Principal Stockholders		160
Description of Capital Stock		163
Shares Eligible for Future Sale		169
Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders		172
Underwriting		177
Legal Matters		184
Experts		184
Additional Information		184
Index to Consolidated Financial Statements		F-1

We have not, and the underwriters have not, authorized anyone to provide any information or to make any representations other than those contained in this prospectus or in any free writing prospectuses we have prepared. We and the underwriters take no responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any other information that others may give you. This prospectus is an offer to sell only the shares offered hereby, but only under circumstances and in jurisdictions where it is lawful to do so. The information contained in this prospectus or in any applicable free writing prospectus is current only as of its date, regardless of its time of delivery or any sale of shares of our common stock.

Persons who come into possession of this prospectus and any applicable free writing prospectus in jurisdictions outside the United States are required to inform themselves about and to observe any restrictions as to this offering and the distribution of this prospectus and any such free writing prospectus applicable to that jurisdiction.

PROSPECTUS SUMMARY

This summary highlights selected information contained elsewhere in this prospectus and does not contain all of the information that you should consider in making your investment decision. Before investing in our common stock, you should carefully read this entire prospectus, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and the information set forth under the sections titled “Risk Factors,” “Summary Consolidated Financial Data” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” in each case included in this prospectus. Some of the statements in this prospectus constitute forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See the section titled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Unless the context otherwise requires, we use the terms “Impel,” “company,” “we,” “us” and “our” in this prospectus to refer to Impel NeuroPharma, Inc.

Overview

We are a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on utilizing our proprietary technology to develop and commercialize transformative therapies for patients suffering from diseases with high unmet medical needs, with an initial focus on diseases of the central nervous system, or CNS. Our company was founded on the premise that the upper nasal cavity can be an optimal treatment entry point for CNS and other diseases where rapid vascular absorption can result in superior clinical outcomes. Our strategy is to pair our proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery, or POD, upper nasal delivery technology with well-established therapeutics or other therapeutics where rapid vascular absorption is preferred to drive therapeutic benefit, improve patient outcomes, reduce drug development risk and expand the commercial opportunity within our target diseases. Since 2016, we have identified and advanced multiple product candidates, including TRUDHESA^TM (INP104) for the acute treatment of migraine and INP105 for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression in patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder, or ASD. Our pipeline of proprietary product candidates also includes INP107 for the treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s Disease. In November 2020, we submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA, for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients. The FDA has filed and accepted the new drug application, or NDA, for review and established a Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, goal date of September 6, 2021.

We have designed our proprietary POD technology to target the vascular-rich upper nasal cavity, and to provide rapid absorption, consistent drug biodistribution and ease of use for a patient, provider or caregiver. Our goal with our POD technology is to deliver injection-like clinical outcomes non-invasively. We believe that we are the first company to successfully harness the benefits of delivery to the upper nasal cavity to improve delivery and the pharmacologic potential of CNS therapies.

1

We have developed a pipeline of proprietary CNS product candidates built around our intellectual property and expertise in upper nasal cavity delivery. The following table summarizes our product candidates, each of which is wholly owned:

POD Technology

Using our proprietary POD technology, we have developed devices that deliver therapeutics directly to the upper nasal cavity. These devices are designed to offer several key benefits compared to traditional nasal delivery systems, including:

∎ Rapid Onset. The precise spray plume and biphasic nature of delivery to the upper nasal cavity allows for superior dose deposition and rapid absorption into the systemic circulation as compared to traditional nasal delivery systems.

∎ Consistent Drug Bioavailability. Metered propellant dosing allows for more consistent blood levels than typically seen with traditional nasal sprays and are equivalent, or superior, to those achieved through intramuscular, or IM, injections.

∎ Improved Patient-Provider Experience. Our proprietary gas propulsion mechanism eliminates the need for coordination of breathing and enables delivery of a dosing in 1/10th of a second, enabling self- or provider-administration in a manner that improves patient comfort and compliance.

∎ Manufacturability. Separation of propellant and drug within the POD device helps streamline chemistry, manufacturing and controls, or CMC, development, as we are not constrained by the limits of co-formulating our therapeutics inside of a pressurized propellant canister.

∎ Formulation Versatility. The POD device is versatile and can deliver both liquid and powder formulations in order to potentially address a wide variety of indications across multiple therapeutic areas.

∎ Strong Intellectual Property Position. We believe that we have a strong global intellectual property position relating to our POD device and product candidates. We have four U.S. issued patents and 21 patents issued in ex-U.S. jurisdictions directed to our approach of drug delivery to the upper nasal cavity, including claims directed to a nasal device with separate drug and propellant compartments. Our patent portfolio is expected to provide patent protection ranging from 2032 to 2040.

2

We believe that our in-house technical and development expertise positions us to address unmet medical needs across multiple therapeutic areas by delivering well-established and novel drugs consistently, rapidly and non-invasively. Our technical and development expertise has allowed us to rapidly identify and develop our product candidates to their current state in under five years. For example, INP105 was advanced from lead candidate selection to development of more than 20 formulations, the completion of five nonclinical studies, and ultimately a proof-of-concept clinical trial, within 16 months. We have tested over 30 small molecules and biologics for suitability of nasal drug administration with our proprietary POD technology. This depth of knowledge and experience, along with our proprietary technology, creates a platform for rapid additional pipeline expansion. In addition to our technology and development expertise, our strong intellectual property portfolio protects multiple aspects of our approach to delivering drug to the upper nasal cavity. We believe that our apparatus, composition of matter and method of use intellectual property can provide strong exclusivity protection to our product candidates.

Our Product Candidates

TRUDHESA (Acute Treatment of Migraine)    

We are currently developing our lead product candidate, TRUDHESA (INP104), as an upper nasal formulation of dihydroergotamine, or DHE, administered using our proprietary POD technology for the acute treatment of migraine. The brand name TRUDHESA has been conditionally approved by the FDA. Migraine is a growing market projected to triple in size to over $10 billion by 2028 with the introduction of multiple new product offerings and an expected increase in disease diagnosis. DHE is widely used as part of a standard of care for treatment of migraines, despite being limited by intravenous, or IV, and injection delivery or traditional nasal administration. IV and injection delivery require administration in physicians’ offices, migraine clinics and hospitals, and traditional nasal administration has been challenged by inconsistent efficacy.

In June 2020, we announced the following exploratory efficacy results of our STOP301 trial to evaluate the safety and tolerability of long-term, intermittent use of TRUDHESA as an acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adult patients. In this trial, baseline results prior to trial initiation were based on migraine attacks where patients used their standard acute migraine medication. In the trial:

∎ 38% of patients were pain free at two hours after their first dose of TRUDHESA.

∎ 52% of patients receiving TRUDHESA were free of their most bothersome migraine symptom at two hours.

∎ Patients treated with TRUDHESA also demonstrated improvement in pain relief: 16% of patients treated with TRUDHESA had pain relief within 15 minutes of treatment, and 66% had pain relief within two hours.

The exploratory endpoints of the trial also included an assessment of the following long-term outcomes of TRUDHESA when patients were treated for six months:

∎ 38% of patients treated with TRUDHESA remained pain free at two hours through three months of treatment and 34% of patients treated with TRUDHESA remained pain free at two hours through six months of treatment.

∎ Patients who received TRUDHESA saw a 48% reduction in the frequency of their migraines compared to baseline during the six-month trial.

∎ 98% and 95% of patients achieving pain freedom at two hours on TRUDHESA did not suffer a relapse in migraine or require a rescue medication at 24 hours and 48 hours, respectively, by weeks 21 to 24.

3

∎ Exposure Adjusted Event Rate, or EAER, data showed a meaningful reduction in the usage of healthcare resources by patients treated with TRUDHESA versus their baseline. Emergency room visits were reduced by approximately 73% and hospitalizations and urgent care visits were reduced by 100%.

Although the trial was not powered to determine statistical significance of the exploratory efficacy endpoints, we believe these exploratory endpoints provide important data for evaluating the clinical benefit of TRUDHESA and showed consistency with the generally understood benefits of DHE for the acute treatment of migraines. The primary endpoints of the STOP301 trial were safety and tolerability of long-term, intermittent use. In this trial, TRUDHESA was generally well tolerated. There were a total of seven treatment emergent serious adverse events, or SAEs among five patients (1.4%) over the 52-week study. Three patients had one SAE each, consisting of one event each of ovarian mass, intestinal obstruction and miscarriage. Two patients had more than one SAE: one patient with a pulmonary embolism and visual impairment and one patient with clavicle and rib fractures. None of the SAEs were nasal-related and none of the SAEs, were determined by the investigator to be related to TRUDHESA or led to withdrawal from the trial. There were also no significant changes to sense of smell, and no significant abnormal findings from endoscopy examinations.

In November 2020, we submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients. The FDA has filed and accepted the NDA for review and established a PDUFA goal date of September 6, 2021. The brand name TRUDHESA has been conditionally approved by the FDA.

If approved, we believe we can successfully commercialize TRUDHESA in the United States with a specialty sales force beginning with approximately 60 representatives, and increasing to approximately 120 representatives, focusing in areas with increased demand. We intend to strategically pursue high value prescribers and early adopters, beginning with 8,000 of the highest volume migraine treatment prescribers. Based on recent migraine treatment product launches, such as ubrogepant and rimegepant, we believe this approach can be successful in accessing the concentrated prescriber bases in migraine. This target base includes approximately 4,000 neurologists and approximately 4,000 high prescribing primary care physicians and headache specialists who have significant experience with prescribing DHE. These groups make up 35% of the migraine treatment prescriptions written in 2020 in the United States. In particular, neurologist prescription productivity has grown an average of approximately 15% per year over the last two years, a growth figure aided by an increase in the number of patients seeking treatment from neurologists and primary care physicians for migraine. The planned scale up to 120 representatives is intended to allow us to target an additional 8,000 high prescribing physicians that we believe will enable us to expand coverage to 45% of all migraine treatment prescriptions in the United States. We intend to build a commercial infrastructure focused on distribution, access, promotion, education and customer support. Our market research indicates that over 70% of migraine sufferers are seeking better treatments, and physicians are willing to prescribe and payors support access at profitable price and rebate points. With approximately 72% of migraine prescriptions paid by commercial payors, we believe this market presents an attractive payor mix. We anticipate using a robust sample program to ensure trial with TRUDHESA for patients seeking better treatments and outcomes. Also, as part of our commercialization strategy, we plan to educate healthcare practitioners and patients, partner with national associations and actively support advocacy groups in the migraine market. These efforts will be supplemented with non-personal promotion to all targeted and non-targeted medium value physicians. To capture the maximum commercial opportunity of TRUDHESA, we may also selectively seek partners to commercialize the product outside of our target markets, including additional penetration within the broader primary care setting, as well as in geographies outside of the United States.

4

INP105 (Acute Treatment of Agitation and Aggression in Autism Spectrum Disorder)

We are currently developing our second product candidate, INP105, as an upper nasal formulation of olanzapine administered using our proprietary POD technology for the treatment of agitation and aggression associated with ASD. ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting approximately 3.5 million children and adults in the United States and characterized by persistent difficulties in social communication and social interaction, coupled with restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior and higher aggression rates. Agitation and aggression are frequent and difficult to manage symptoms, and associated with negative outcomes for patients with ASD and their caregivers, including decreased quality of life, increased stress levels, and reduced availability of educational and social support. Based on a study of emergency room usage in Canada, which found that 18% of individuals with ASD aged 12 and up had visited the emergency room within the past year, and that approximately 34% of such visits were for mental health issues, we estimate that approximately 220,000 patients with ASD in the United States seek emergency room care due to mental health issues annually. Current treatment strategies include functional behavioral assessment, reinforcement strategies, functional communication training, and the use of second-generation antipsychotics. With an increasing rate of ASD diagnosis, we believe that the development of effective therapeutic and pharmacologic methods for preventing and treating aggression are essential to improving outcomes in this disorder. Currently, there is no approved treatment for patients living with ASD once there is onset of agitation leading to aggression, and we believe that INP105 has the potential to be an on-demand therapy in this indication.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose Phase 1 clinical trial in 40 healthy adults conducted in Australia, we observed similar bioavailability for INP105 compared to equivalent doses of olanzapine delivered through IM administration, as measured by the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve, or AUC, which reflects the actual body exposure to the drug after administration of a drug dose, and the maximum drug concentration, or Cmax, and achieved time to maximum drug concentration, or Tmax, 25-22% faster than that of IM olanzapine.

Based on its pharmacokinetic profile and method of administration, we believe INP105, if approved, has the potential to treat acute agitation and aggression events in this under-served population and in patients’ homes, potentially reducing visits to the emergency department and limiting the need to call in reinforcements to help caregivers. We plan to initiate a double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial of INP105 in adolescents with ASD in the United States by the end of 2021 and expect to report topline results in the second half of 2022.

INP107 (Treatment of OFF Episodes in Parkinson’s Disease)    

We are also currently developing INP107 as an upper nasal formulation of carbidopa/levodopa administered using our proprietary POD technology for the treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s Disease, or Parkinson’s. The overall Parkinson’s market is expected to grow to over $8.4 billion by 2026, with emerging treatments for OFF episodes contributing to that growth. Current standard of care for the symptomatic treatment of Parkinson’s is oral levodopa; however when levodopa levels fall below their therapeutic range, patients may lose adequate control of motor symptoms, which are referred to as OFF episodes. Carbidopa is co-administered with levodopa to slow levodopa’s rapid absorption, thereby increasing the amount of levodopa available for the symptoms of Parkinson’s. INP107 is a self- or caregiver-administered, upper nasal therapy candidate designed to provide rapid delivery of levodopa to the brain for the treatment of OFF episodes. In 2019, we completed a Phase 2a clinical trial of INP107 and a levodopa-only formulation in Australia, which demonstrated an encouraging pharmacokinetic profile in Parkinson’s patients. Based on results of the Phase 2a clinical trial, we expect to further develop the formulation of INP107 prior to advancing into additional clinical trials. We expect to initiate a Phase 1 pharmacokinetic and tolerability trial in Australia or the United States in 2022 for dose selection for additional clinical development of INP107.

5

Our Team

We have assembled a team of scientific, clinical and business leaders with deep expertise in neuroscience and a track record of building, growing and transacting pharmaceutical companies. Our Chief Executive Officer, Adrian Adams, has over 25 years of pharmaceutical experience with an emphasis on commercialization and strategic execution. Our co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer, John Hoekman, Ph.D., has over 15 years of experience in investigating upper nasal drug delivery and nose-to-brain delivery, is an inventor of our proprietary POD technology, is widely recognized as a pioneer in upper nasal cavity drug delivery and has evaluated over 30 CNS targeting compounds with over six different modalities including small molecules, proteins, peptides and antibodies as opportunities for upper nasal cavity delivery. Our Chief Financial Officer, John Leaman, M.D., has over 15 years of pharmaceutical experience with an emphasis on public company financial oversight, corporate strategy and business development. Our Chief Medical Officer, Stephen Shrewsbury, M.B. ChB., has over 30 years of experience in developing pulmonary and nasal drug delivery and CNS therapies at pharmaceutical companies including GlaxoSmithKline, Aquinox Pharmaceuticals, AVI Biopharma and MAP Pharmaceuticals, where he led the development of Levadex. Our Chief Commercial Officer, Leonard S. Paolillo, has nearly 20 years of experience with various companies in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, including Warner Chilcott and Kyowa Kirin. Our Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Lynn Gold, has over 30 years of experience of leading regulatory activities for pharmaceutical companies, including at Warner Chilcott, Pharmacia and Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, and has been involved in over 40 NDA submissions, with expertise in drug devices and delivery. We are supported by our board of directors, scientific advisory boards and a group of leading biotechnology-focused investors, including KKR Iris Investors LLC, or KKR Iris, which is owned by investment funds and other entities affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Norwest Venture Partners, 5AM Venture Management, LLC, venBio and Vivo Capital.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to deliver transformative therapies, harnessing the benefits of delivery to the upper nasal cavity, to patients suffering from CNS diseases and other diseases with high unmet medical needs. The key tenets of our strategy to accomplish this goal include:

∎ Successfully commercialize TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine after potential regulatory approval.    

∎ Rapidly advance INP105 through clinical development for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression associated with ASD.

∎ Maximize the therapeutic and commercial potential of our proprietary POD technology platform.

∎ Expand applications of our existing product candidates.

∎ Independently develop and commercialize product candidates in indications and geographies where we believe we can maximize value.

Risks Affecting Us

Our business is subject to risks and uncertainties, including those highlighted in the section titled “Risk Factors” immediately following this prospectus summary. These risks include, among others, the following:

∎ We are a late-stage pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and have incurred net losses since our inception. We anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future and we may never achieve or sustain profitability.

∎ We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

6

∎ Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

∎ The development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products is subject to extensive regulation, and we may not obtain regulatory approvals for TRUDHESA, INP105, INP107 or any other product candidates.

∎ Our future commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, health care payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

∎ Clinical failure may occur at any stage of clinical development, and we may never succeed in developing marketable product candidates or generating product revenue.

∎ Delays in the commencement, enrollment or completion of clinical trials of our product candidates, or in the acceptance of foreign clinical trial data, could result in increased costs to us as well as a delay or failure in obtaining regulatory approval, or prevent us from commercializing our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all.

∎ The outbreak of COVID-19, or similar public health crises, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including through disruption to our planned clinical trials, supply chains, business operations and commercialization efforts, or through delay in the FDA’s approval of our NDA for TRUDHESA.

∎ We rely entirely on third parties for the manufacturing of product candidates that we develop for nonclinical studies and clinical trials and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. If we encounter difficulties in negotiating manufacturing and supply agreements with third-party manufacturers and suppliers of our POD device and the active ingredients in TRUDHESA, INP105, and INP107, our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, would be impaired.

∎ If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection for our technologies or product candidates, development and commercialization of our technology and product candidates may be adversely affected.

∎ We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

∎ If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware in July 2008. Our principal executive offices are located at 201 Elliott Avenue West, Suite 260, Seattle, Washington 98119, and our telephone number is (206) 568-1466. Our website address is www.impelnp.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated by reference into, this prospectus. Investors should not rely on any such information in deciding whether to purchase our common stock.

The marks “IMPEL,” “POD,” “TRUDHESA,” “IMPELPOD” and the Impel NeuroPharma logo and our other registered or common law trade names, trademarks or service marks appearing in this prospectus are the property of Impel. All other service marks, trademarks and trade names appearing in this prospectus are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks and tradenames referred to in this prospectus appear without the ^® and ^™ symbols, but those references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights, or the right of the applicable licensor, to these trademarks and tradenames.

7

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

As a company with less than $1.07 billion in revenue during our last fiscal year, we qualify as an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. An emerging growth company may take advantage of reduced reporting requirements that are otherwise applicable to public companies. These provisions include, but are not limited to:

∎ being permitted to present only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of related Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in this prospectus;

∎ not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting;

∎ not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements (auditor discussion and analysis);

∎ reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation arrangements; and

∎ exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved.

We may use these provisions until the last day of our fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the completion of this offering or such earlier time when we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company. We will cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earliest of (i) the end of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of this offering; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year during which our annual gross revenues are $1.07 billion or more; (iii) the date on which we have, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities; and (iv) the end of any fiscal year in which the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeded $700.0 million as of the end of the second quarter of that fiscal year.

We have elected to take advantage of certain of the reduced disclosure obligations in the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part and may elect to take advantage of other reduced reporting requirements in future filings. As a result, the information that we provide to our stockholders may be different than you might receive from other public reporting companies in which you hold equity interests.

The JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards, until those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of the benefits of this extended transition period and, therefore, we will not be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. Our financial statements may therefore not be comparable to those of companies that comply with such new or revised accounting standards. Until the date that we are no longer an emerging growth company or affirmatively and irrevocably opt out of the exemption provided by Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, upon issuance of a new or revised accounting standard that applies to our financial statements and that has a different effective date for public and private companies, we will disclose the date on which adoption is required for non-emerging growth companies and the date on which we will adopt the recently issued accounting standard.

8

Smaller Reporting Company

Additionally, we are a “smaller reporting company” as defined in Item 10(f)(1) of Regulation S-K. Smaller reporting companies may take advantage of certain reduced disclosure obligations, including, among other things, providing only two years of audited financial statements. We will remain a smaller reporting company as long as either (i) the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250 million as of the prior June 30, or (ii) our annual revenues is less than $100 million during such completed fiscal year and the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700 million as of the prior June 30.

9

THE OFFERING

Common stock offered                 shares

Option to purchase additional shares We have granted the underwriters an option, exercisable for 30 days after the date of this prospectus, to purchase up to an additional                 shares from us. See the section of this prospectus titled “Underwriting.”

Common stock to be outstanding immediately after this offering                  shares (or                  shares if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full).

Use of proceeds We estimate that the net proceeds from this offering will be approximately $                million (or approximately $                million if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full), based upon the assumed initial public offering price of $                per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

We intend to use the net proceeds that we receive in this offering as follows: approximately $                 million to fund the regulatory approval process and initial commercial launch of TRUDHESA; approximately $                 million to initiate a clinical proof-of-concept trial for INP105 in patients with ASD; and any remaining amounts to fund working capital and general corporate purposes. See the section titled “Use of Proceeds.”

Risk factors You should read the section titled “Risk Factors” in this prospectus for a discussion of factors to consider carefully before deciding to invest in shares of our common stock.

Listing We intend to apply to list our shares of common stock on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “IMPL.”

The number of shares of our common stock to be outstanding after this offering is based on                 shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020, which gives effect to (i) the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock as of December 31, 2020 into an aggregate of 206,399,763 shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering, (ii) the automatic exchange of a warrant held by Avenue Venture Opportunities Fund, L.P., or Avenue, into 1,762,810 shares upon completion of this offering, (iii) the

10

issuance of                  shares of common stock pursuant to the net exercise of warrants to purchase 1,987,348 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $                per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, (iv) the automatic conversion of convertible notes we issued in March 2021 into             shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering and (v) the issuance of                 shares of common stock that we expect to issue, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $                per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, and excludes:

∎ 39,983,012 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options outstanding as of December 31, 2020, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.32 per share;

∎                  shares of our common stock issuable upon the exercise of stock options granted after December 31, 2020, with a weighted-average exercise price of $                 per share; and

∎                 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our stock-based compensation plans, consisting of (i) 5,639,902 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2020, (ii)                shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan, which will become effective on the date immediately prior to the date of this prospectus and (iii)                shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which will become effective on the date of this prospectus. Upon completion of this offering, any remaining shares available for issuance under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan will be added to the shares reserved under our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan and we will cease granting awards under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan. Our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan and 2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan also provide for automatic annual increases in the number of shares reserved under the plans each year, as more fully described in “Executive Compensation—Equity Compensation Plans and Other Benefit Plans.”

Except as otherwise indicated, all information in this prospectus assumes or gives effect to:

∎ the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock into an aggregate of 206,399,763 shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering;

∎ the automatic exchange of a warrant held by Avenue into 1,762,810 shares upon completion of this offering;

∎ the net exercise immediately prior to the completion of this offering of outstanding warrants to purchase 1,987,348 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock that would otherwise terminate upon completion of this offering, which will result in the issuance of                shares of common stock, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $                per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus;

∎ the automatic conversion of $7.5 million aggregate principal amount of convertible notes issued in March 2021 into                 shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering;

∎ a                 -for-                reverse stock split, which will become effective on             ;

∎ the effectiveness of our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws in connection with the completion of this offering;

∎ no exercise of outstanding options or warrants after December 31, 2020, other than as described in the second and third bullets above; and

∎ no exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase up to                additional shares of our common stock.

11

Summary Consolidated Financial Data

The following tables set forth our summary consolidated statements of operations and consolidated balance sheet data. The summary consolidated statements of operations data presented below for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020 and the summary consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2020 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus. The following summary consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected in any future period. The summary consolidated financial data in this section are not intended to replace the consolidated financial statements and are qualified in their entirety by the consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this prospectus.

	Year ended December 31,
	2019			2020
	(in thousands, except share and per share data)
Statement of Operations Data:
Operating expenses:
Research and development	$	28,812		$	27,285
General and administrative		12,754			18,049
Total operating expenses		41,566			45,334
Loss from operations		(41,566	)		(45,334	)
Interest income (expense), net		417			(55	)
Other expense, net		(680	)		(408	)
Loss before income taxes		(41,829	)		(45,797	)
Provision for income taxes		(30	)		(1	)
Net loss and comprehensive loss	$	(41,859	)	$	(45,798	)
Accretion on redeemable convertible preferred stock		(505	)		(518	)
Net loss attributable to common stockholders	$	(42,364	)	$	(46,316	)
Per share information:
Net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted(1)	$	(7.46	)	$	(5.56	)
Weighted-average shares used in computing net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted(1)		5,682,463			8,328,911
Pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted (unaudited)(2)				$
Weighted-average shares used in computing pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted (unaudited)(2)

(1) See Note 13 to our audited financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus for an explanation of the method used to calculate basic and diluted net loss per share and basic and diluted weighted-average number of shares of common stock used in the computation of the per share amounts.

(2) See the subsection titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations–Unaudited Pro Forma Information” for an explanation of the calculations of our basic and diluted pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, and the weighted-average number of shares outstanding used in the computation of the per share amounts.

12

	As of December 31, 2020
	Actual			Pro Forma(1)	Pro Forma As Adjusted(2)
	(in thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash	$	7,095		$	$
Working capital (deficit)(3)		(2,354	)
Total assets		12,059
Redeemable convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities		2,622
Long-term debt, current and noncurrent		8,411
Total redeemable convertible preferred stock		127,039
Total stockholders’ (deficit) equity		(133,500	)

(1) Pro forma amounts give effect to (i) the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock as of December 31, 2020 into an aggregate of 206,399,763 shares of our common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering, (ii) the automatic exchange of a warrant held by Avenue into 1,762,810 shares upon completion of this offering, (iii) the issuance of                shares of common stock pursuant to the net exercise of                 warrants to purchase 1,987,348 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020 that would otherwise expire upon completion of this offering, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $                 per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, (iv) $7.5 million in proceeds from the convertible notes we issued in March 2021 and their conversion into             shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering at 90% of the offering price and (v) the effectiveness of our restated certificate of incorporation in connection with the completion of this offering.

(2) Pro forma as adjusted amounts reflect pro forma adjustments described in footnote (1) as well as the sale of                shares of our common stock in this offering, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $                 per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. The pro forma as adjusted information is illustrative only, and will change based on the actual initial public offering price and other terms of this offering determined at pricing. A $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $                per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) the pro forma as adjusted amount of each of cash, working capital, total assets and total stockholders’ equity by $                million, assuming that the number of shares offered by us, as set forth on the cover of this prospectus, remains the same and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. Similarly, each increase (decrease) of 1.0 million in the number of shares offered by us in this offering would increase (decrease) the pro forma as adjusted amount of each of cash, working capital, total assets and total stockholders’ equity by $                million, assuming the assumed initial offering price remains the same and after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions.

(3) We define working capital (deficit) as current assets less current liabilities.

13

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Before making your decision to invest in shares of our common stock, you should carefully consider the risks described below, together with the other information contained in this prospectus, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes appearing at the end of this prospectus. We cannot assure you that any of the events discussed below will not occur. Any of these events could have a material and adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. If that were to happen, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We are a late-stage pharmaceutical company and have incurred net losses since our inception. We anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future and we may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a late-stage pharmaceutical company formed in 2008. Since inception, we have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to research and development, including our clinical and nonclinical development activities. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale and issuance of redeemable convertible preferred stock, convertible notes and warrants.

We have incurred significant net losses since our inception. Our net losses were $41.9 million and $45.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $138.3 million. We cannot predict when or whether we will become profitable. To date, we have not generated any product revenues, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product. Our losses have resulted principally from costs incurred in our product candidate discovery and development activities. We expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future.

Our financial position will depend, in part, on the rate of our future expenditures and our ability to obtain funding through equity or debt financings, strategic collaborations, or additional grants. If we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or any equivalent foreign regulatory authority to perform clinical trials or studies in addition to those we currently expect to conduct, including if foreign clinical trial data are not accepted by the FDA, or if there are any delays in completing the clinical trials of our product candidates, our expenses could increase substantially. Although we have submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA, we may not receive approval for commercialization and even if approved, the resulting revenue may not enable us to achieve profitability. Even if we obtain regulatory approval to market a product candidate, our future revenues will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates have received approval, and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, reimbursement from third-party payors and adequate market share for our product candidates in those markets.

We expect our expenses and net losses to increase significantly as we prepare to potentially commercialize TRUDHESA, continue our development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our other product candidates, and begin to commercialize other approved products, if any, as well as hire additional personnel, protect our intellectual property and incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, depending on the timing of our clinical studies and trials, associated manufacturing needs, commercialization activities if our product candidates are approved and our expenditures on other research and development activities.

14

To become and remain profitable, we must successfully develop product candidates, obtain regulatory approval for them, and manufacture, market and sell those product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We may not succeed in these activities and we may never generate revenue from product sales that are significant enough to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business for any reason, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, discover or develop other product candidates or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our business could cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2020, we had $7.1 million of cash. We believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future as we continue clinical trials, pursue product commercialization, in particular as we prepare for potential commercialization of TRUDHESA and develop additional product candidates. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of our planned and anticipated clinical trials are highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. Our costs will increase if we suffer any delays in our planned clinical trials for our current product candidates. Following this offering, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, hiring additional personnel and potentially expanding our facilities.

We believe that the net proceeds from this offering, together with our existing cash, will fund our projected operating requirements through at least the next 12 months. Our forecast of the period of time through which our financial reserves will adequately support our operations is a forward-looking statement and involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary as a result of a number of factors, including the factors discussed elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

∎ the timing of, and the costs involved in, obtaining regulatory approvals for TRUDHESA and our other product candidates if clinical trials are successful;

∎ the cost of commercialization activities for TRUDHESA, if approved, or any other approved product, including marketing, sales and distribution costs;

∎ the scope, progress, results and costs of developing and advancing our product candidates through clinical trials and researching and discovering new product candidates;

∎ our ability to establish and maintain strategic partnerships, licensing or other arrangements and the financial terms of such agreements;

∎ the cost of manufacturing our product candidates for clinical trials in preparation for regulatory approval and in preparation for commercialization;

∎ our ability to generate revenue from approved product candidates, if any; and

∎ the costs involved in preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patent claims, including litigation costs and the outcome of such litigation.

15

We will need to raise additional funds to address our goals. Additional funds may not be available when we need them on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Until we can generate sufficient revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance our future cash needs through a combination of public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements, and other marketing or distribution arrangements. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate nonclinical studies, clinical trials or other development activities for one or more of our product candidates or delay, limit, reduce or terminate our establishment of sales and marketing capabilities or other activities that may be necessary to commercialize our product candidates if approved.

We have disclosed that there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

As a result of our net losses from operations, accumulated deficit and need for substantial additional capital, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our financial statements as of, and for the year ended, December 31, 2020 that raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. The conditions giving rise to this uncertainty and our plan with respect to this uncertainty are disclosed in Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements appearing at the end of this prospectus. If we are unable to obtain sufficient funding, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate all of our research and development programs, future research and development efforts and ongoing preclinical studies and clinical trials, and our financial condition and results of operations will be materially and adversely affected and we may be unable to continue as a going concern. After the completion of this offering, future financial statements may continue to disclose substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. If we seek additional financing to fund our business activities in the future and there remains substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, investors or other financing sources may be unwilling to provide additional funding to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates on unfavorable terms to our business.

We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through private and public equity offerings and debt financings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of such equity or convertible debt securities may include liquidation or other preferences that are senior to or otherwise adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, declaring dividends or encumbering our assets to secure future indebtedness. For example, our debt and equity financing agreement with Avenue is secured by a lien on substantially all of our assets, including our intellectual property and following this offering will be secured by a lien on substantially all of our assets, excluding our intellectual property. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financing when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or commercialization efforts for our product candidates, or grant rights to third parties to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

16

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate significantly or may fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, each of which may cause our stock price to fluctuate or decline.

We expect our operating results to be subject to quarterly fluctuations. Our net loss and other operating results will be affected by numerous factors, including:

∎ variations in the level of expense related to the ongoing development of our product candidates or future development programs;

∎ results of nonclinical and clinical trials, or the addition or termination of clinical trials or funding support by us, or existing or future collaborators or licensing partners;

∎ our execution of any additional collaboration, licensing or similar arrangements, and the timing of payments we may make or receive under existing or future arrangements or the termination or modification of any such existing or future arrangements;

∎ any intellectual property infringement lawsuit or opposition, interference or cancellation proceeding in which we may become involved;

∎ additions and departures of key personnel;

∎ strategic decisions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs, joint ventures, strategic investments or changes in business strategy;

∎ if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, the terms of such approval and market acceptance and demand for such product candidates;

∎ if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, variation in the level of expense related to the commercialization of such product candidates and quarterly fluctuations in any future product sales;

∎ regulatory developments affecting our product candidates or those of our competitors; and

∎ changes in general market and economic conditions.

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our common stock to fluctuate substantially. We believe that quarterly comparisons of our financial results should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

Risks Related to Regulatory Review and Approval of Our Product Candidates

The development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products is subject to extensive regulation, and we may not obtain regulatory approvals for TRUDHESA, INP105, INP107 or any other product candidates.

The clinical development, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, advertising, promotion, export, import, marketing, distribution, adverse event reporting, including the submission of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, and other possible activities relating to TRUDHESA and INP105, which are our furthest advanced product candidates under clinical development, as well as INP107 and any other product candidate that we may develop in the future, are subject to extensive regulation. Marketing approval of drugs in the United States requires the submission of an NDA to the FDA, and we are not permitted to market any product candidate in the United States until we obtain approval from the FDA of the NDA for that product. An NDA must be supported by extensive clinical and preclinical data, as well as extensive information regarding pharmacology, CMC, and current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, at the manufacturing facilities. Further, our product candidates must be approved by comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions where we intend to market our product candidates prior to commercialization.

17

FDA approval of an NDA is not guaranteed, and review and approval is an expensive and uncertain process that may take several years. Of the large number of drugs in development in the United States, only a small percentage will successfully complete the FDA regulatory approval process and will be commercialized. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval in the United States, or other jurisdictions. The FDA also has substantial discretion in the approval process. The number and types of preclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for NDA approval varies depending on the product candidate, the disease or the condition that the product candidate is designed to treat and the regulations applicable to any particular product candidate. We have submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway and intend to seek FDA approval for our other product candidates through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. If the FDA does not agree that the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway is appropriate or scientifically justified for one or more of our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. Additionally, if CMC information in the NDA is found to be deficient, if the FDA disagrees with our interpretation or analysis of clinical data, or identifies any deficiency in our clinical data, we may fail to obtain approval of TRUDHESA or approval may be delayed. CMC issues that could be found to be deficient to the FDA include our investigation of increased levels of impurities in some vials of certain drug lots used in the STOP301 trial, or the use of certain drug lots for our primary stability data because the FDA concludes that the manufacturing process has not been in a state of control at the time of their manufacture.

Clinical trial failure may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, dose selection, placebo effect, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety or efficacy traits, and failure in clinical trials can occur at any stage. Companies in the pharmaceutical industry frequently suffer setbacks in the advancement of clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from clinical trials are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may further delay, limit or prevent marketing approval.

The FDA could delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including because the FDA:

∎ may not deem our product candidate to be safe and effective;

∎ determines that the product candidate does not have an acceptable benefit-risk profile;

∎ determines in the case of an NDA seeking accelerated approval that the NDA does not provide evidence that the product candidate represents a meaningful advantage over available therapies;

∎ determines that the objective response rate, or ORR, and duration of response are not clinically meaningful;

∎ may not agree that the data collected from preclinical studies and clinical trials are acceptable or sufficient to support the submission of an NDA or other submission or to obtain regulatory approval, and may impose requirements for additional preclinical studies or clinical trials;

∎ may determine that adverse events experienced by participants in our clinical trials represent an unacceptable level of risk;

∎ may determine that population studied in the clinical trial may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure safety in the full population for which we seek approval;

∎ may disagree regarding the formulation, labeling and/or the specifications;

∎ may not approve the manufacturing processes associated with our product candidate or may determine that a manufacturing facility does not have an acceptable compliance status;

18

∎ may conclude there are CMC issues that preclude approval of the NDA;

∎ may conclude that the drug substance or drug product manufacturing process is not in a state of control or does not meet cGMPs or all the regulatory requirements;

∎ may not be able to timely conduct the necessary pre-approval inspection or devote sufficient resources to NDA review on a timely basis due to the COVID-19 pandemic;

∎ may change approval policies or adopt new regulations; or

∎ may not file a submission due to, among other reasons, the content or formatting of the submission.

We have not obtained FDA approval for any of our product candidates. This lack of experience may impede our ability to obtain FDA approval in a timely manner, if at all, for our clinical product candidates.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of TRUDHESA, INP105 or INP107, our commercial prospects will be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Clinical failure may occur at any stage of clinical development, and we may never succeed in developing marketable product candidates or generating product revenue.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing. Although our NDA for TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients has been accepted for filing, the FDA may reject this NDA or require additional clinical testing prior to approval.

Although the active ingredients in our product candidates, TRUDHESA, INP105, and INP107, are approved or commonly used as treatments for migraine, agitation associated with ASD, and Parkinson’s, respectively, they have not previously been approved or demonstrated to be safe for chronic use over an extended period of time using an upper nasal cavity drug delivery. Our NDA submission for TRUDHESA proposes to bridge TRUDHESA to two Listed Drugs, or LDs, for which we have conducted a comparative bioavailability study, and conducted a long-term safety study to evaluate local toxicity on the nasal and olfactory epithelia. Our prior clinical results for our product candidates are not necessarily indicative of our ability to bridge to LD, as there can be significant variability in results between different clinical trials due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures, differences in the size and type of patient populations, including across geographies, changes in and adherence to the clinical trial protocols, and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. If we are not able to establish a bridge between a product candidate and each LD upon which they rely to demonstrate that such reliance is justified, we may be required to show safety and efficacy through one or more clinical trials. In addition, the long-term safety studies we are conducting or plan to conduct may reveal safety concerns, including with regard to nasal mucosa or olfactory function. If either or both of these outcomes occur, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval.

We may be required to perform additional or unanticipated clinical trials to obtain approval or be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of a product or impose restrictions on our distribution, such as in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS. The failure to obtain timely regulatory approval of product candidates, any product marketing limitations or a product

19

withdrawal would materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Delays in the commencement, enrollment or completion of clinical trials of our product candidates could result in increased costs to us as well as a delay or failure in obtaining regulatory approval, or prevent us from commercializing our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all.

We plan to initiate a Phase 2 trial of a double-blind placebo-controlled single dose of INP105 study in adolescents with ASD by the end of 2021. Any of our future clinical trials may not be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage. Events that may prevent successful or timely commencement, enrollment or completion of clinical development include:

∎ delays by us in reaching a consensus with regulatory agencies on trial design;

∎ delays in reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective clinical research organizations, or CROs, and clinical trial sites;

∎ delays in obtaining required Institutional Review Board, or IRB, approval at each clinical trial site;

∎ delays in recruiting suitable patients to participate in clinical trials;

∎ the effects of COVID-19 on our ability to recruit and retain patients, including as a result of potential heightened exposure to COVID-19, prioritization of hospital resources toward the outbreak and unwillingness by patients to enroll or comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines or travel restrictions impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services;

∎ imposition of a clinical hold by regulatory agencies for any reason, including safety concerns or after an inspection of clinical operations or trial sites;

∎ failure by CROs, other third parties or us to adhere to clinical trial requirements;

∎ failure to perform clinical trials in accordance with the FDA’s good clinical practices, or GCP, or applicable regulatory guidelines in other countries;

∎ delays in the testing, validation, manufacturing and delivery of the product candidates to the clinical sites;

∎ delays caused by patients not completing participation in a trial or not returning for post-treatment follow-up, which we have experienced and believe may be caused by patients experiencing reduced symptoms or incidences of disease;

∎ clinical trial sites or patients dropping out of a trial;

∎ delays or interruptions to supply or failure to ensure compliance with cGMP or quality standards of our product candidates or the other product candidates in a combination product trial or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates;

∎ occurrence of adverse events in clinical trials that are associated with the product candidates that are viewed to outweigh their potential benefits; or

∎ changes in regulatory requirements and guidance that require amending or submitting new clinical protocols.

Delays, including delays caused by any of the above factors, can be costly and could negatively affect our ability to complete a clinical trial. If we are not able to successfully complete clinical trials, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval and will not be able to commercialize our product candidates.

If we are not able to use the 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway for regulatory approval of TRUDHESA or any of our other product candidates or if the FDA requires additional clinical or

20

nonclinical data to support an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) than we have previously anticipated, it will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and be significantly more complicated to gain FDA approval for our product candidates, and in any case may not be successful.

We have submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway and intend to seek FDA approval for our other product candidates through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, added Section 505(b)(2) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA. In general, Section 505(b)(2) allows a 505(b)(2) applicant to rely on the FDA’s finding of safety or effectiveness for an LD only to the extent that the proposed product in the 505(b)(2) application shares common characteristics with the LD. The 505(b)(2) application must include sufficient data to support differences between the LD and the proposed drug in the 505(b)(2) application. If the FDA does not agree that the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway is appropriate or scientifically justified for one or more of our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. For example, the FDA may not agree that we have provided a scientific bridge, through, for example, comparative bioavailability data, to demonstrate that reliance on the prior findings of safety or efficacy for an LD is justified. If we are unable to pursue a Section 505(b)(2) pathway, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates would likely increase substantially. Moreover, the inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway could result in new competitive products reaching the market faster than our product candidates, which could materially adversely impact our competitive position and prospects.

Even if we are successful in pursuing the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for TRUDHESA or are able to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for any other product candidate, we cannot assure you that nonclinical studies or clinical trials that we have conducted or that we currently anticipate conducting will be sufficient for approval or that we will receive the requisite or timely approvals for commercialization of such product candidate. Although the Section 505(b)(2) pathway allows us to rely in part on the FDA’s prior findings of safety or efficacy for approved LDs or on published literature, the FDA may determine that prior findings by the FDA or the published literature that we believe supports the safety or efficacy of one or more of our product candidates is insufficient or not applicable to our application or that additional studies will need to be conducted. To the extent that we are relying on the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway based on the approval of an LD for a similar indication, the FDA may require that we include in the labeling of our product candidates, if approved, some or all of the safety information that is included in the labeling of the approved LD. Moreover, even if our product candidates are approved through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

The outbreak of COVID-19, or similar public health crises, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including through disruption to our planned clinical trials, supply chains, business operations and commercialization efforts, or through delay in the FDA’s approval of our NDA.

In December 2019, a novel strain of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, was identified in Wuhan, China. This virus spread globally, including within the United States and in March 2020 the World Health Organization declared the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, a pandemic. The pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both direct and indirect, on businesses and commerce, as worker shortages have occurred, supply chains have been disrupted, facilities and production have been suspended, and demand for certain goods and services, such as medical services and supplies, has spiked, while demand for other goods and services, such

21

as travel, has fallen. The extent to which COVID-19 impacts our business and operating results will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted, including new information that may emerge concerning COVID-19 and the actions to contain the virus or treat its impact.

Site initiation, participant recruitment and enrollment, participant dosing, distribution of clinical trial materials, study monitoring and data analysis for our planned clinical trials may be delayed due to changes in hospital or university policies, federal, state or local regulations, prioritization of hospital resources toward pandemic efforts, or other reasons related to the pandemic. Additionally, some participants and clinical investigators may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols. For example, quarantines or other travel limitations (whether voluntary or required) may impede participant movement, affect sponsor access to study sites, or interrupt healthcare services, and we may be unable to conduct our planned clinical trials. If the global effort to control the spread of COVID-19 and treat COVID-19 patients continues on the current trajectory for an extended period of time, we risk a delay in activating sites and enrolling subjects as previously projected. Any such delays to our planned clinical trials for our current product candidates could impact the use and sufficiency of our existing cash reserves, and we may be required to raise additional capital earlier than we had previously planned. We may be unable to raise additional capital if and when needed, which may result in further delays or suspension of our development plans.

Further, as a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, we may be required to develop and implement additional clinical trial policies and procedures based on new guidance and regulatory requirements promulgated by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. For example, the FDA issued guidance in March 2020, which the FDA subsequently updated, on conducting clinical trials during the pandemic, which describe a number of considerations for sponsors of clinical trials impacted by the pandemic. In June 2020, the FDA also issued a guidance on good manufacturing practice considerations for responding to COVID-19 infection in employees in drug products manufacturing, including recommendations for manufacturing controls to prevent contamination of drugs. Additional COVID-19 related guidance released by the FDA includes guidance addressing resuming normal drug and biologics manufacturing operations; manufacturing, supply chain, and inspections; and statistical considerations for clinical trials during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Further, infections and deaths related to COVID-19 are disrupting certain healthcare and healthcare regulatory systems globally. Such disruptions could divert healthcare resources away from, or materially delay review by, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies. It is unknown how long these disruptions could continue, were they to occur. Any elongation or de-prioritization of our clinical trials or delay in regulatory review resulting from such disruptions could materially adversely affect the development and study of our product candidates.

The COVID-19 pandemic could have an adverse impact on our commercial launch plans for TRUDHESA, if approved, due to the continuation of government-imposed quarantines, stay at home orders, travel restrictions, mandated business closures and other public health safety measures which may result in limiting our ability to hire a sales force prior to launch, conduct necessary trainings of such sales force and attending and presenting at various conferences or other programs. If TRUDHESA is approved, continuation of these government-imposed orders may also result in patients not visiting their healthcare providers or their pharmacies to get their prescriptions filled, in-person interactions by sales and medical representatives in healthcare settings may be suspended, and any remote interactions may be less effective than in-person interactions. In addition, due to the prioritization of healthcare resources toward pandemic efforts, even remote interactions may not be possible. These factors could have an adverse impact on our business and our ability to effectively launch TRUDHESA, if approved.

22

We currently utilize third parties to, among other things, manufacture raw materials and our product candidates, components, parts, and consumables, and to perform quality control and testing. If either we or any third-party in the supply chain for materials used in the production of our product candidates are adversely impacted by restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, our supply chain may be disrupted, limiting our ability to manufacture product candidates for our clinical trials.

The spread of COVID-19, which has caused a broad impact globally, including restrictions on travel and quarantine policies put into place by businesses and governments, may have a material adverse effect on our business. While the potential economic impact brought by and the duration of the pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, it has already caused, and is likely to result in further, significant disruption of global financial markets and the trading prices of pharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which may reduce our ability to access capital either at all or on favorable terms. In addition, a recession, depression or other sustained adverse market event resulting from the global effort to control COVID-19 infections could materially and adversely affect our business.

The ultimate impact of the current pandemic, or any other health epidemic, is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our planned clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

All of our product candidates utilize similar drug delivery devices. If a drug delivery device in one of our clinical trials demonstrates unanticipated biocompatibility, usability, performance or safety issues in a clinical or nonclinical study for one product candidate, our entire pipeline of product candidates may be adversely affected.

All of our product candidates utilize similar POD devices, which are designed to deliver the drug into the upper nasal cavity using a gas propellant. While our product candidates have been generally well tolerated in nonclinical studies and early clinical trials, patients may in the future experience different or more severe adverse events due in part to our POD device. Any failure of our POD device to demonstrate adequate biocompatibility, usability, performance or safety could adversely affect the development, approval, or commercialization of our other product candidates utilizing the same or similar POD device, including a suspension or delay of all ongoing development in our other product candidates, or our marketed product candidates, if any.

If we do not achieve our projected development goals in the timeframes we announce and expect, the commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

From time to time, we estimate the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development goals, which we sometimes refer to as milestones. These milestones may include the commencement or completion of nonclinical studies and clinical trials and the submission of regulatory filings. All of these milestones are, and will be, based on a variety of assumptions. The actual timing of these milestones can vary significantly compared to our estimates, in some cases for reasons beyond our control. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical trials that we conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to reach subsequent milestones, receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

∎ the FDA and other governmental health authorities, IRBs, or ethics committees may not authorize or may delay authorizing us or our investigators to commence or continue a clinical trial or conduct a clinical trial at all or at a prospective trial site, such as by requiring us to

23

conduct additional nonclinical studies and to programs for our product candidates submit additional data or imposing other requirements before permitting us to initiate or continue a clinical trial;

∎ we may experience delays in reaching, or fail to reach, agreement on acceptable terms with prospective trial sites and prospective contract research organizations, or CROs, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

∎ clinical trials of our product candidates may produce negative or inconclusive results and we may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct nonclinical studies in addition to those we currently have planned or additional clinical trials or we may decide to abandon drug development programs for our product candidates;

∎ the number of patients required for clinical trials of our product candidates may be larger than we anticipate, enrollment in these clinical trials may be slower than we anticipate or participants may drop out of these clinical trials or fail to return for post-treatment follow-up at a higher rate than we anticipate;

∎ our contractors, such as our CROs, clinical trial sites or investigators, may fail to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all, or may deviate from the clinical trial protocol or drop out of the trial, which may require that we add new clinical trial sites or investigators;

∎ we may elect to, or regulators, IRBs or ethics committees may require that, we or our investigators, suspend or terminate clinical trials for various reasons, including noncompliance with regulatory requirements or a finding that the participants are being exposed to health risks;

∎ the cost of planned clinical trials of our product candidates may be greater than we anticipate;

∎ the supply or quality of our product candidates or other materials necessary to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates may be insufficient or inadequate;

∎ our third-party suppliers, such as our contract manufacturers of the POD device and our active ingredients, may not provide us with the information we need for our marketing submissions or may not manufacture product for us that is in compliance with regulatory requirements; and

∎ our product candidates may have undesirable side effects or other unexpected characteristics, causing us or our investigators, regulators or IRBs or ethics committees to suspend or terminate the trials, or reports may arise from nonclinical or clinical testing of studies conducted by competitors that raise safety or efficacy concerns broadly about our POD technology, upper nasal cavity delivery or about our product candidates specifically.

Clinical development, regulatory review and approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming, costly, and inherently unpredictable. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

Our product candidates are subject to extensive governmental regulation relating to, among other things, development, clinical trials, manufacturing and commercialization. In order to obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through extensive nonclinical studies and clinical trials that the candidate is safe and effective for use in each target indication.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the acceptance of clinical data developed in foreign geographies. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary

24

among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve a product candidate. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. In addition, we may gain regulatory approval in some but not all of the territories available or some but not all of the target indications, resulting in limited commercial opportunity for the approved product.

Applications for our product candidates could be delayed or could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

∎ the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;

∎ the population studied in the clinical program may not be sufficiently broad or representative to assure safety in the full population for which we seek approval;

∎ the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from nonclinical studies clinical trials or may refuse to accept data from nonclinical studies or clinical trials conducted in other geographies or jurisdictions;

∎ data collected from clinical trials may not be sufficient to support the submission of an NDA, or other submission, or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;

∎ the FDA may determine that we cannot rely on the Section 505(b)(2) approval pathway for any of our product candidates, in which case we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards for product approval, resulting in increased time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates;

∎ the FDA may determine that we have identified the wrong LD or LDs or that approval of a Section 505(b)(2) application for any of our product candidates is blocked by patent or non-patent exclusivity of the LD or LDs;

∎ the FDA may require us to conduct additional clinical trials depending on the safety or exploratory efficacy data from our existing and planned future clinical trials;

∎ we may be unable to demonstrate to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that a product candidate’s risk-benefit ratio for our proposed indication is acceptable;

∎ the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may fail to approve the manufacturing processes, test procedures and specifications of third-party manufacturers with which we contract for clinical and commercial supplies;

∎ we or any third-party manufacturers may be unable to demonstrate compliance with cGMP to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which could result in delays in regulatory approval or require us to withdraw or recall product candidates and interrupt commercial supply of our product candidates; and

∎ the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.

This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations, and prospects.

Inadequate funding for the FDA, the SEC and other government agencies or other disruptions at these agencies could hinder these agencies’ ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner or otherwise prevent those agencies from performing normal business

25

functions on which the operation of our business may rely, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory, and policy changes. In addition, government funding of the SEC and other government agencies on which our operations may rely, including those that fund research and development activities, is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times, and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities and products. On March 18, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to temporarily postpone routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities and provided guidance regarding the conduct of clinical trials, which has since been further updated. As of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it was continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals and conducting mission critical domestic and foreign inspections to ensure compliance of manufacturing facilities with FDA quality standards. As of July 2020, utilizing a rating system to assist in determining when and where it is safest to conduct such inspections based on data about the virus’ trajectory in a given state and locality and the rules and guidelines that are put in place by state and local governments, the FDA is either continuing to, on a case-by-case basis, conduct only mission critical inspections, or, where possible to do so safely, resuming prioritized domestic inspections, which generally include pre-approval inspections. Foreign pre-approval inspections that are not deemed mission-critical remain postponed, while those deemed mission-critical will be considered for inspection on a case-by-case basis. The FDA will use similar data to inform resumption of prioritized operations abroad as it becomes feasible and advisable to do so. The FDA may not be able to maintain this pace, and delays or setbacks are possible in the future. Should the FDA determine that an inspection is necessary for approval because available information raises concerns about the adequacy of the facility or site and an inspection cannot be completed during the review cycle due to restrictions on travel, the FDA has stated that it generally intends to issue a complete response letter. Further, if there is inadequate information to make a determination on the acceptability of a facility, the FDA may defer action on the application until an inspection can be completed. Additionally, regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, as of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it is continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals; however, the FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and review timelines could be extended.

Further, in our operations as a public company, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue our operations.

Results of earlier studies or clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results, and initial studies or clinical trials may not establish an adequate safety or efficacy profile for

26

our product candidates to justify proceeding to advanced clinical trials or an application for regulatory approval.

The results of nonclinical and preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials in one set of patients or disease indications may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size, demographics and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval. For example, our STOP301 trial for TRUDHESA primarily evaluated the safety and tolerability of TRUDHESA against the patient’s best previous migraine treatment. While exploratory efficacy endpoints were analyzed as part of the trial and were notable, the exploratory nature of the trial limits the interpretability of these results. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Even if early-stage clinical trials are successful, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials of our product candidates in additional patient populations or under different treatment conditions before we are able to seek approvals from the FDA and regulatory authorities outside the United States to market and sell these product candidates. Our failure to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates would substantially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, several of our past and planned clinical trials utilize an “open-label” trial design, including our STOP301 trial for TRUDHESA. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. The results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates in clinical trials when studied in a controlled environment with a double-blind placebo or active control.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that delay or prevent their regulatory approval or limit their commercial potential.

Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other regulatory authorities and potential product liability claims. Adverse events deemed to be caused by our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on the development of our product candidates and our business as a whole. For example, the most common adverse events in our STOP301 trial evaluating TRUDHESA were nasal congestion, nausea, nasal discomfort and unpleasant taste. Moreover, we could in the future observe local toxicity in the nasal or olfactory epithelia.

27

If we or others identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates either before or after receipt of marketing approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

∎ we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates;

∎ our clinical trials may be put on hold;

∎ regulatory authorities may withdraw approvals of our product candidates or require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials;

∎ regulatory authorities may require additional warnings in the labeling;

∎ regulatory authorities may require us to implement a REMS;

∎ a medication guide outlining the risks of such side effects for distribution to patients may be required;

∎ we could be sued and held liable for harm caused to patients; and

∎ our reputation may suffer.

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of our product candidates and could substantially increase commercialization costs.

Some of our clinical trials for our product candidates have been, and we may in the future conduct clinical trials for our product candidates, outside the United States, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

Some of our clinical trials for our product candidates have been conducted, and we may in the future choose to conduct one or more clinical trials, outside the United States. The acceptance of trial data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations, and prospects.

If we fail to obtain regulatory approval in jurisdictions outside the United States, we will not be able to market our product candidates in those jurisdictions.

We intend to market our product candidates, if approved, in international markets either directly or through partnerships. Such marketing will require separate regulatory approvals in each jurisdiction and compliance with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedures vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may require additional testing that we are not required to perform to

28

obtain regulatory approval in the United States. Moreover, the time required to obtain approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that country. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign jurisdictions or by the FDA. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our product candidates in any foreign market. If we or any future partner are unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in one or more significant foreign jurisdictions, then the commercial opportunity for our product candidates, as well as our financial condition, will be adversely affected.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for our product candidates, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements, which may result in significant additional expenses. Additionally, our product candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may also be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed, or to conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor safety and efficacy. In addition, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event, or AE, reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for any approved product will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, including reporting of certain adverse events, malfunctions, corrections and removals related to the POD device, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP for the drug products, the quality system regulation, or QSR, for medical devices and GCP for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with an approved product, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing operations or processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

∎ holds on clinical trials;

∎ restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;

∎ imposition of a REMS, which may include distribution or use restrictions;

∎ requirements to conduct additional post-market clinical trials to assess the safety of the product;

∎ revisions to the labeling, including limitation on approved uses or the addition of additional warnings, contraindications or other safety information, including boxed warnings;

∎ manufacturing delays and supply disruptions where regulatory inspections identify observations of noncompliance requiring remediation;

∎ fines, warning or untitled letters;

∎ refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications submitted by us, or withdrawal of product approvals;

∎ product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of product candidates; and

∎ injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

29

The FDA’s policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

We may be subject to enforcement action by the FDA or other government agencies or competitor lawsuits or other claims, including litigation brought by the government, if we engage or are found to have engaged in improper promotion of our products.

Our promotional materials and training methods must comply with FDA and other applicable laws and regulations, including laws and regulations prohibiting marketing claims that promote the off-label use of our products or that omit material facts or make false or misleading statements about the safety or efficacy of our products. We are responsible for training our marketing and sales force against promoting our product candidates for off-label use, but healthcare providers may use our products off-label, as the FDA does not restrict or regulate a physician’s choice of treatment within the practice of medicine. The FDA also could conclude that a claim is misleading if it determines that there are inadequate nonclinical and/or clinical data supporting the claim, or if a claim fails to reveal material facts about the safety or efficacy of our products. If the FDA determines that our promotional labeling or advertising materials promote an off-label use or make false or misleading claims, it could request that we modify our promotional materials or training content or subject us to regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fines and criminal penalties.

The FDA closely regulates the pre- and post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs to ensure they are promoted and marketed in compliance with the FDCA and its implementing regulations and only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the approved labeling. For example, our labeling for TRUDHESA, pending FDA approval, cannot include any of the data from the exploratory efficacy endpoints that we evaluated in our Phase 3 safety clinical trial or make any broad efficacy claims based on the results of this study. Post approval, if the FDA disagrees with our claims or approach to describing the efficacy results from any data deemed as unreliable or uninterpretable, including our exploratory efficacy analyses, in our promotional materials, it may take enforcement action against us. In addition, without conducting head-to-head clinical trials designed to investigate the clinical superiority of our product candidates to marketed products, we would not be able to make any such claims in our promotional materials. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding use of their products. If we promote our product candidates in a manner inconsistent with the FDA-approved labeling or otherwise not in compliance with the FDCA or implementing regulations, we may be subject to enforcement action. Violations of the FDCA relating to improper promotion of prescription drugs may lead to warning letters, investigations, violations under federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act, as well as state consumer protection laws.

It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they determine that our promotional or training materials promote an unapproved use or make false or misleading claims, which could result in significant fines or penalties. Although our policy is to refrain from statements that could be considered off-label promotion of our products or false or misleading claims, the FDA or another regulatory agency could disagree with the manner in which we advertise and promote our products. Violations of the FDCA may also lead to investigations alleging violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws, which may lead to costly penalties and may adversely impact our business. Recent court decisions have impacted the FDA’s enforcement activity regarding off-label promotion in light of First Amendment

30

considerations; however, there are still significant risks in this area, in part due to the potential for False Claims Act exposure.

Many companies have also faced government investigations or lawsuits by whistleblowers who bring a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of themselves and the government for a variety of alleged improper marketing activities. In addition, the government and private whistleblowers have pursued False Claims Act cases against pharmaceutical companies for causing false claims to be submitted as a result of the marketing of their products for unapproved uses. If we are found to have improperly promoted our products, we may be subject to significant liability, including civil fines, criminal fines and penalties, civil damages, exclusion from federally funded healthcare programs and potential liability under the federal False Claims Act and any applicable state false claims act. In addition, we may incur liability from claims initiated under the Lanham Act or other federal and state unfair competition laws with respect to how our products are marketed and promoted. Furthermore, the off-label use of our products may increase the risk of product liability claims. The scope of potential liability with respect to any such claims, enforcement actions, or lawsuits is uncertain, and we cannot assure you that we will not receive claims from competitors or other third parties or be subject to enforcement actions in the future from regulatory agencies. Moreover, threatened or actual government enforcement actions or lawsuits by third parties could generate adverse publicity, which could decrease demand for our products and require that we devote substantial resources that could be used productively on other aspects of our business.

Our relationships with health care professionals, institutional providers, principal investigators, consultants, potential customers and third-party payors are, and will continue to be, subject, directly and indirectly, to federal and state health care fraud and abuse, false claims, marketing expenditure tracking and disclosure, government price reporting, and privacy and data security laws. If we are unable to comply, or have not fully complied, with such laws, we could face penalties, including, without limitation, civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal and state health care programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Our business operations and activities may be directly or indirectly subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act. If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those product candidates in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, clinical investigators, CROs, third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our products for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to laws of the federal government and state governments in which we conduct our business relating to privacy and data security with respect to patient information. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

∎ the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or paying any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe, or rebate), directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, either the referral of an individual, or the purchase, lease, order or recommendation of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal health care program, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs;

∎ federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be

31

presented, claims for payment or approval from a federal health care program, such as Medicare, Medicaid, or other third-party payors that are false or fraudulent or knowingly making a false statement to improperly avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government;

∎ the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, health care benefits, items or services relating to health care matters;

∎ HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, which impose requirements on certain covered health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization;

∎ the federal physician self-referral law, commonly known as the Stark Law, which prohibits a physician from making a referral to an entity for certain designated health services reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid if the physician or a member of the physician’s family has a financial relationship with the entity, and which also prohibits the submission of any claims for reimbursement for designated health services furnished pursuant to a prohibited referral;

∎ the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under Section 6002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively, or the ACA, and its implementing regulations require manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, including ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members; effective January 1, 2022, reporting on payments and transfers of value made in the previous year to covered recipients will be expanded to include physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse-midwives;

∎ federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers;

∎ federal government price reporting laws, changed by the ACA to, among other things, increase the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and offer such rebates to additional populations, that require us to calculate and report complex pricing metrics to government programs, where such reported prices may be used in the calculation of reimbursement or discounts on our marketed drugs (participation in these programs and compliance with the applicable requirements may subject us to potentially significant discounts on our product candidates, increased infrastructure costs, and potentially limit our ability to offer certain marketplace discounts);

32

∎ the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a United States law which regulates certain financial relationships with foreign government officials (which could include, for example, certain medical professionals); and

∎ state law equivalents and adjuncts to many of the above federal laws, such as anti-kickback, false claims, consumer protection, unfair competition, and privacy and data security laws, which may apply to our business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements as well as submission of claims involving any of our product candidates or related health care services for reimbursement by any third-party payor, including public and commercial insurers; state laws that require biotech companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government that otherwise restricts payments that may be made to health care providers; state laws that require drug manufacturers to file reports with states regarding marketing information, such as the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration and items of value provided to health care professionals and entities (compliance with such requirements may require investment in infrastructure to ensure that tracking is performed properly, and some of these laws result in the public disclosure of various types of payments and relationships, which could potentially have a negative effect on our business or increase enforcement scrutiny of our activities); state laws regarding the reporting of certain pricing information; and state laws governing the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, with differing effects and obligations.

In addition, the regulatory approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the laws and regulations mentioned above, including reporting requirements detailing interactions with and payments to healthcare providers, and requirements in Europe and other jurisdictions relating to privacy, data protection and cybersecurity, among other foreign laws. In addition to health information privacy, data security, and data protection laws that apply to some of the patient data we hold, other privacy, data security and data protection laws may also apply to such data, as well as to the personal data of our employees and other individuals generally. Many of these laws governing privacy, data protection and cybersecurity differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effects or obligations, thus complicating compliance efforts. We expect to incur increased costs of compliance with such laws and regulations as they continue to evolve, as well as the increased risk of regulatory investigations, enforcement actions, and other claims and litigation, with the potential for significant fines, penalties, and other liabilities in the event of actual or alleged noncompliance. Any of these could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The ACA, among other things, amended the intent standard of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and criminal health care fraud statutes to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable health care laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other health care laws and regulations. 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, without limitation, civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, qui tam actions, lawsuits, government investigations, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare

33

reimbursement, or other federal or state government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, corporate integrity oversight and reporting obligations, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

The impact of recent health care reform legislation and other changes in the health care industry and in healthcare spending on us is currently unknown, and may adversely affect our business model.

Existing regulatory policies may change, and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, (i) subjected therapeutic biologics to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars by creating a licensure framework for follow on biologic products, (ii) proscribed a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and therapeutic biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, (iii) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, (iv) established annual nondeductible fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and therapeutic biologics, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs, (v) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs and therapeutic biologics to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs and therapeutic biologics to be covered under Medicare Part D, which has since been increased to 70% by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, (vi) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, (vii) expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health program (viii) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research and (ix) established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial, and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Reform Act, among other things, included a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In November 2020, the

34

United States Supreme Court held oral arguments on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by mid-2021. It is uncertain how the Supreme Court will rule on this case. In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period to allow people to obtain health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, and instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, among others. We cannot predict how the Supreme Court ruling, other litigation, or the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact our business. We are continuing to monitor any changes to the ACA that, in turn, may potentially impact our business in the future. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and the medical device excise tax, and effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. The BBA, among other things, also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In addition, CMS published a final rule that would give states greater flexibility, effective January 1, 2020, in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension implemented under various COVID-19 relief legislation from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Congress recently introduced a bill to extend the moratorium on 2% Medicare sequester cuts through the end of 2021. We are continuing to monitor the status of this bill. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Further, there have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the CMS issued various rules that are expected to impact, among others, price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, manufacturer price reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including regulations that affect manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs subject to pharmacy benefit manager accumulator programs and Best Price reporting related to certain value-based purchasing arrangements. Multiple lawsuits have been brought against the HHS challenging various aspects of the rules. In January 2021, the Biden administration issued a “regulatory freeze” memorandum that directs department and agency heads to review new or

35

pending rules of the prior administration. It is unclear whether these new regulations will be withdrawn or when they will become fully effective under the current administration. The impact of these lawsuits as well as legislative, executive, and administrative actions of the current administration on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear. We expect additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates if approved. Complying with any new legislation and regulatory changes could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

We expect to transition the POD device used in the INP105 and INP107 clinical trials to a commercial stage POD device for pivotal clinical trials and commercialization, which may be unsuccessful or costly.

While we used for our TRUDHESA STOP301 trial the version of our POD device that we intend to use for commercialization, the version of our POD devices used in the initial clinical trials for INP105 and INP107 will need to be further refined for use in later-stage clinical trials and to enable larger scale manufacturing and distribution, if the INP105 and INP107 candidates receive regulatory approvals. We expect to transition these clinical-stage POD devices to commercial stage POD devices prior to pivotal clinical trials and commercialization. The development work on the commercial stage devices for INP105 and INP107 is ongoing. We cannot be certain that the transition from the clinical stage POD device to the commercial stage POD device will be successful or be completed on time. If we are unable to complete the transition in a timely and cost-effective manner, our clinical trials and commercialization efforts may be harmed.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our future commercial success depends upon attaining significant market acceptance of TRUDHESA and our other product candidates, if approved, among physicians, patients, health care payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for TRUDHESA, INP105, and INP107 or any other product candidate that we may develop or acquire in the future, these product candidates may not gain market acceptance among physicians, health care payors, patients and the medical community. There are several approved acute treatments for migraine currently on the market, including triptans, ditans, calcitonin gene-related peptides antagonists, or gepants, lasmiditan and alternative formulations of DHE, such as Migranal, which is administered intranasally. All of these will be competitive with TRUDHESA and our level of market acceptance of TRUDHESA for the acute treatment for migraine may be lower than we expect. Market acceptance of any approved product candidates depends on a number of factors, including:

∎ the efficacy and safety of our product candidates;

∎ perceived advantages of our product candidates over alternative treatments, such as oral, IM and IV formulations;

∎ the indications for which the product candidates are approved and the labeling approved by regulatory authorities for use with the product candidates, including any warnings, limitations or contraindications contained in a product’s approved labeling;

∎ acceptance by physicians and patients of the product candidate as a safe and effective treatment;

∎ the cost, safety and efficacy of treatment in relation to alternative treatments, including generic versions of the product candidates;

36

∎ the extent to which our product candidates are included on formularies of hospitals and managed care organizations;

∎ the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement and pricing by third-party payors and government authorities for the product candidates;

∎ relative convenience and ease of administration of the product candidates;

∎ the prevalence and severity of adverse side effects;

∎ the timing of market introduction of competitive product;

∎ restrictions on the distribution of our product candidates;

∎ the effectiveness of our sales and marketing efforts;

∎ unfavorable publicity relating to our product candidates; and

∎ the approval of other new therapies for the same indications.

Market acceptance is critical to our ability to generate significant revenue and become profitable. Any product candidate, if approved and commercialized, may be accepted in only limited capacities or not at all. If any approved product candidates are not accepted by the market to the extent that we expect, we may not be able to generate significant revenue and our business would suffer.

The market for our product candidates may not be as large as we expect.

Our estimates of the potential market opportunity for our product candidates include several key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications, third-party research reports and other surveys, including surveys commissioned by us. These assumptions include the size of our target populations, the prevalence and incidence of each of our target indications, the number of patients receiving current treatment, the percentage of patients unsatisfied with the current treatments, the number of diagnosed but untreated patients, the compliance and adherence of patients in our target populations, the number of treatment centers and prescribing physicians and the percentage of payer acceptance. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, if any of these assumptions proves to be inaccurate, then the actual market for our product candidates could be smaller than our estimates of our potential market opportunity. If the actual market for any of our product candidates is smaller than we expect, our product revenue may be limited, and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability.

In addition, we anticipate that, if approved, the FDA may require labeling restrictions on the patients and uses of our product candidates, including but not limited to contraindications for use in certain populations. For example, upper nasal cavity drug delivery may not be appropriate for use by patients with certain pre-existing conditions, such as chronic rhinitis, seasonal allergies or anatomical nasal obstruction.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

While certain of our executives have commercialization expertise, we do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we have obtained marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales and marketing organization.

We expect to build a focused sales and marketing infrastructure to market TRUDHESA and potentially other product candidates in the United States, if and when they are approved. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, including failure to receive marketing approval from the FDA, we

37

would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. We may also inaccurately estimate the number of representatives needed to build our sales force, which may result in unnecessary expense or the inability to scale as quickly as needed. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, on our own include:

∎ our inability to recruit, train and retain adequate numbers of effective sales, marketing, reimbursement, customer service, medical affairs, and other support personnel;

∎ the inability of sales personnel to obtain access to physicians or persuade adequate numbers of physicians to prescribe any product candidates;

∎ the inability of reimbursement professionals to negotiate arrangements for formulary access, reimbursement and other acceptance by payors for our product candidates;

∎ the inability to price our product candidates at a sufficient price point to ensure an adequate and attractive level of profitability;

∎ restricted or closed distribution channels that make it difficult to distribute our product candidates to segments of the patient population;

∎ the lack of complementary product candidates to be offered by sales personnel, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies with more extensive product lines; and

∎ unforeseen costs and expenses associated with creating an independent commercialization organization.

In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates outside of the United States or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

Problems related to large-scale commercial manufacturing could cause delays in product launches, an increase in costs or shortages of product candidates.

Manufacturing finished drug products, especially in large quantities, is complex. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, they will require several manufacturing steps and may involve complex techniques to assure quality and sufficient quantity, especially as the manufacturing scale increases. Our product candidates will need to be made consistently and in compliance with a clearly defined manufacturing process pursuant to FDA regulations. Accordingly, it will be essential to be able to validate and control the manufacturing process to assure that it is reproducible. Slight deviations anywhere in the manufacturing process, including obtaining materials, filling, labeling, packaging, storage, shipping, quality control and testing, may result in lot failures, delay in the release of lots, product recalls or spoilage. Success rates can vary dramatically at different stages of the manufacturing process, which can lower yields and increase costs. We may experience deviations in the manufacturing process that may take significant time and resources to resolve and, if unresolved, may affect manufacturing output and cause us to fail to satisfy contractual commitments, lead to delays in our clinical trials or result in litigation or regulatory action. Such actions would hinder our ability to meet contractual obligations and could cause material adverse consequences for our business.

Reimbursement for any approved products may be limited or unavailable, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates profitably.

In both domestic and foreign markets, sales of any of our product candidates, if approved, will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered by third-

38

party payors, such as government health care programs, commercial insurance and managed health care organizations. These third-party payors decide which drugs will be covered and establish reimbursement levels for those drugs. The containment of health care costs has become a priority of foreign and domestic governments as well as private third-party payors. The prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments and private third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications, which could affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably. Cost-control initiatives could cause us to decrease the price we might establish for product candidates, which could result in lower than anticipated product revenues.

Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

∎ a covered benefit under its health plan;

∎ safe, effective and medically necessary;

∎ appropriate for the specific patient;

∎ cost-effective relative to other alternatives, including generic products; and

∎ neither experimental nor investigational.

Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in our existing and any future product candidates, even if such product candidates obtain marketing approval.

Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval for a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our product candidates to the payor. Further, there is significant uncertainty related to third-party payor coverage and reimbursement of newly approved product candidates, including our product candidates if they are approved. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. We cannot be sure that coverage or adequate reimbursement will be available for any of our product candidates. Also, we cannot be sure that reimbursement amounts will not reduce the demand for, or the price of, our product candidates. If reimbursement is not available or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize certain of our product candidates. In addition, in the United States, third-party payors are increasingly attempting to contain health care costs by limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new product candidates. As a result, significant uncertainty exists as to whether and how much third-party payors will reimburse patients for their use of newly approved product candidates, which in turn will put pressure on pricing.

Price controls may be imposed in foreign markets, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

In some countries, including member states of the European Union, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various European Union member states and other countries and parallel distribution, or arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states, can further reduce prices. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval. Publication of discounts by third-party payors or authorities may lead to further pressure on the prices or

39

reimbursement levels within the country of publication and other countries. If reimbursement of our product candidates is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be adversely affected.

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

The development and commercialization of new and improved pharmaceutical products is highly competitive. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities, government agencies and research organizations actively engaged in research development of product candidates which may target the same markets as our product candidates. Our future success depends on our ability to demonstrate and maintain a competitive advantage with respect to the design, development and commercialization of our product candidates within those markets. We expect any future product candidates we develop and commercialize on our own or with our strategic partners, if approved, to compete with existing and leading products in the market on the basis of, among other things, product efficacy and safety, time to market, price, extent of adverse side effects experienced and convenience of administration and drug delivery.

For our product candidates, we are aware of the following competing efforts:

∎ TRUDHESA.    Approved acute treatments for migraine include triptans, ditans, gepants, lasmiditan and alternative formulations of DHE, such as Migranal, which is administered intranasally. Some of these competitor products have been launched. In addition, there are product candidates in development by large pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly & Co., Allergan plc, Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and other smaller companies. Some of these competitors are also developing product candidates that utilize alternative routes of administration, including Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, OptiNose Inc., and Promius Pharma LLC, whose product candidates use nasal pumps or other nasal drug delivery technologies.

∎ INP105.    While there are no FDA-approved acute treatments for agitation and aggression in ASD, commonly prescribed treatments include mostly atypical (second generation) antipsychotics. These can include risperdone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), quetiapine (Seroquel), aripiprazole (Abilify), ziprasidone (Geodon) and others.

∎ INP107.    Approved treatments for the symptoms of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s include carbidopa/levodopa (both short and long-acting oral forms), MAO-B inhibitors, COM-T inhibitors, dopamine agonists, amantadine such as Gocovri, apomorphine and inhaled levodopa, such as Inbrija. In addition, there are several product candidates under development by pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly & Co., Intec Pharma Ltd. and AbbVie Inc. Some of these product candidates also utilize alternative routes of administration, such as Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., whose product candidate uses a sublingual film, and Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. whose product candidate uses a dry powder inhaler.

One or more of our competitors may utilize their expertise in other methods of pharmaceutical drug delivery to develop and obtain approval for upper nasal cavity delivery products that may compete with our product candidates. These competitors may include Aegis, Optinose and other smaller pharmaceutical companies. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, sales and supply resources or experience than we have had to date. Our ability to compete effectively will depend, in part, on the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these product candidates, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, reimbursement coverage and patent position, the safety and effectiveness of our product candidates, the ease with which our product candidates can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration. Competing products could present superior

40

treatment alternatives, including by being more effective, safer, less expensive or marketed and sold more effectively than any product candidates we may develop. Competitive products may reduce the demand and price for any product candidates we develop, making them obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing such product. Our competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan.

We rely entirely on third parties for the manufacturing of product candidates that we develop for nonclinical studies and clinical trials and expect to continue to do so for commercialized products. If we encounter difficulties in negotiating manufacturing and supply agreements with third-party manufacturers and suppliers of our POD device and the active ingredients in TRUDHESA, INP105 and INP107, our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, would be impaired.

We do not own any manufacturing facilities and have limited experience in drug development and commercial manufacturing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on a limited number of experienced personnel and contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, and suppliers, including in some cases single-source suppliers, who assist in the production, assembly, test, validation, supply, storage and distribution of our drug-device combination product candidates in our clinical trials, and we do not control their activities. While we have developmental and commercial supply agreements in place with some of our key suppliers, we may not be able to obtain terms that are favorable to us or enter into commercial manufacturing and supply agreements at all with other necessary third parties. If we are unable to enter into such agreements on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, would be impaired, and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected.

If approved and if and when product sales grow, our product candidates will require production processes to be scaled up. We will be dependent on external manufacturers and suppliers to ensure that their manufacturing processes can be scaled up adequately such that we are able to supply the market. If any of our key suppliers are unable or unwilling to scale up production, our product candidates would be impaired, and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected.

Additionally, we currently have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing facility. Should any of our product candidates receive approval, we would lack the resources and expertise to manufacture and test, on a commercial scale, the technical performance of our POD device and the active ingredients, and would need to incur significant expense to develop and acquire such expertise internally or partner with a third-party who possesses such expertise.

We rely on third parties to conduct nonclinical studies and clinical trials, and if they do not properly and successfully perform their obligations to do so, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates.

We rely on CROs and other third parties to assist in managing, monitoring and otherwise carrying out nonclinical and clinical trials for our product candidates. We compete with many other companies for the resources of these third parties. Any disruption in supply from any supplier or manufacturing location, including on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, could lead to supply delays or interruptions which would damage our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Further, the third parties on whom we rely generally may terminate their engagements at any time. Having to enter into alternative arrangements would delay development and commercialization of our product candidates.

The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities require compliance with regulations and standards, including GCP, for designing, conducting, monitoring, recording, analyzing, and reporting

41

the results of clinical trials to assure that the data and results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Although we rely on third parties to conduct many of our clinical trials, they are not our employees, and we are responsible for ensuring that each of these clinical trials is conducted in accordance with our general investigational plan, protocol and other requirements. Our reliance on these third parties for clinical research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities.

If these third parties do not successfully carry out their duties under their agreements, if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to clinical trial protocols or to regulatory requirements, or if they otherwise fail to comply with clinical trial protocols or meet expected deadlines, the clinical trials of our product candidates may not meet regulatory requirements. If clinical trials do not meet regulatory requirements or if these third parties need to be replaced, our nonclinical development activities or clinical trials may be extended, delayed, suspended or terminated. If any of these events occur, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all.

If we encounter issues with our CMOs or suppliers, we may need to qualify alternative manufacturers or suppliers, which could impair our ability to sufficiently and timely manufacture and supply product candidates.

We currently depend on third parties to manufacture and supply our POD device, the active pharmaceutical ingredients and final formulations in our product candidates. Although we could obtain each of these components from other third-party suppliers, we would need to qualify and obtain FDA approval for another contract manufacturer or supplier as an alternative source for each such component, which could be costly and cause significant delays. Each of our current manufacturing and supply agreements include limitations on our ability to utilize alternative manufacturers or suppliers during the terms of the agreements, which impairs our ability to prepare in advance for any future manufacturing and supply shortages or quality issues.

In addition, some of our suppliers conduct their manufacturing operations for us at a single facility. Unless and until we qualify additional facilities, we may face limitations in our ability to respond to manufacturing and supply issues. For example, if regulatory, manufacturing or other problems require one of these manufacturers or suppliers to discontinue production at their respective facility, or if the equipment used for the production of our POD device or the active ingredients in these facilities is significantly damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake, power loss or similar events, the ability of such manufacturer or supplier to provide components or the active pharmaceutical ingredients needed for our product candidates, or to manufacture our product candidates may be significantly impaired. In the event that these parties suffer a temporary or protracted loss of our facility or equipment, we would still be required to obtain FDA approval to qualify a new manufacturer or supplier, as applicable, as an alternate manufacturer or source for the respective component before any components manufactured by such manufacturer or by such supplier could be sold or used. To do so, we would need to verify, such as through a manufacturing comparability study, that any new manufacturing process will produce our product candidates according to the specifications previously submitted to the FDA or another regulatory authority. The delays associated with the verification of a new CMO could negatively affect our ability to develop product candidates or commercialize any of our approved products in a timely manner or within budget. Furthermore, a CMO may possess technology related to the manufacture of our product candidate that such CMO owns independently. This would increase our reliance on such CMO or require us to obtain a license from such CMO in order to have another CMO manufacture the product candidates. In addition, changes in manufacturers often involve changes in manufacturing procedures and processes, which could require that we conduct bridging studies before implementing the change for our clinical supply for use in clinical trials or for commercial supply of any approved product. We may be unsuccessful in demonstrating the comparability of supplies before and after a

42

manufacturing change, which could require the conduct of additional clinical trials and result in a delay or disruption in our clinical development plan or our ability to commercialize any approved product.

Any production shortfall that impairs the supply of our POD device or the active ingredients or any of these components could negatively impact our ability to complete clinical trials, obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates. If our product candidates receive approval, a product shortfall could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and adversely affect our ability to satisfy demand for our product candidates, which could materially and adversely affect our product sales and operating results.

If third-party manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors fail to perform as expected, or fail to devote sufficient time and resources to our product candidates, our clinical development may be delayed, our costs may be higher than expected or our product candidates may fail to be approved.

Our reliance on third-party manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors exposes us to the following risks, any of which could delay FDA approval of our product candidates and commercialization of our product candidates, result in higher costs, or deprive us of potential product revenues:

∎ our CMOs, or other third parties we rely on, may encounter difficulties in achieving the volume of production needed to satisfy commercial demand, may experience technical issues that impact quality or compliance with applicable and strictly enforced regulations governing the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, and may experience shortages of qualified personnel to adequately staff production operations;

∎ our wholesalers and distributors could become unable to sell and deliver our product candidates for regulatory, compliance and other reasons;

∎ our CMOs, wholesalers and distributors could breach or default on their agreements with us to meet our requirements for commercialization of our product candidates;

∎ our CMOs, wholesalers and distributors may not perform as agreed or may not remain in business for the time required to successfully produce, store, sell and distribute our product candidates and we may incur additional cost;

∎ our CMOs, wholesalers and distributors may misappropriate our proprietary information; and

∎ if our CMOs, wholesalers and distributors were to terminate our arrangements or fail to meet their contractual obligations, we may be forced to delay our commercial programs.

For example, we identified increased levels of impurities in some drug vials of certain drug lots used in our TRUDHESA STOP301 trial. Vials from those drug lots were removed from the trial and we conducted a root cause investigation, identifying the likely root cause as long stoppages in the production of two lots. We have not identified any safety issues in our Phase 3 clinical trials related to exposure to the increased levels of impurity. We had a pre-NDA meeting with the FDA on this topic and described our investigation and response to the issue in the NDA submission. At that time, the FDA did not concur that the investigation had adequately identified the root cause of the presence of impurities. While we have conducted additional investigations that have led us to believe we identified the root cause and we have worked with our CMO to avoid those conditions in future production runs, there is no guarantee that the FDA will agree that our subsequent investigations have adequately identified the root cause, or that our corrective and preventive actions have sufficiently remediated the issue. The FDA may request more detailed safety analyses, additional product stability data, and further investigations into the impurity issue or other CMC issues, which could have a material and adverse impact on review of the TRUDHESA NDA, including, for example, the issuance of a complete response letter.

Our reliance on third parties reduces our control over our product candidate development activities but does not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required legal, regulatory and

43

scientific standards. For example, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our product candidates and any products that we may eventually commercialize be manufactured according to cGMP and QSR, and similar foreign standards. Any failure by our third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP or QSR or maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA or other regulatory authorities or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of product candidates in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of any of our product candidates. In addition, our third-party manufacturers will be subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and failure to comply with cGMP or QSR could be the basis for the FDA to issue a warning or untitled letter, withdraw approvals for product candidates previously granted to us, or take other regulatory or legal action, including request a recall or seize product candidates, total or partial suspension of production, suspension of clinical trials, refusal to approve pending applications or supplemental applications, detention of product, refusal to permit the import or export of product candidates, injunction, imposing civil penalties or pursuing criminal prosecution.

Additionally, as we scale up manufacturing of our product candidates and conduct required stability testing, issues may arise involving product-packaging and third-party equipment malfunctions. These issues may require refinement or resolution in order to proceed with commercial marketing of our product candidates. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up and validation of commercial manufacturing processes. Any issues in our product or delivery devices could result in increased scrutiny by regulatory authorities, delays in our regulatory approval process, increases in our operating expenses, or failure to obtain or maintain approval for our product candidates.

We may not be successful in establishing and maintaining strategic partnerships, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates, negatively impacting our operating results.

We continue to strategically evaluate and, as deemed appropriate, we may enter into partnerships in the future when strategically attractive, including potentially with major biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, although there is no guarantee we will be able to enter into these agreements if we elect to do so. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate partners for our product candidates, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. In order for us to successfully identify and work with partners, potential partners must view our product candidates as economically valuable in markets they determine to be attractive in light of the terms that we are seeking and other available product candidates for licensing by other companies. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish strategic partnerships, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such strategic partnerships if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. Any delay in entering into strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of such candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market. In addition, we have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively or create sufficient sales.

If we fail to establish and maintain strategic partnerships related to our product candidates, we will bear all of the risk and costs related to the development of any such candidate, and we may need to seek additional financing, hire additional employees and otherwise develop expertise, such as regulatory expertise, for which we have not budgeted. This could negatively affect the development of any unpartnered product candidate.

44

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection for our technologies or product candidates, development and commercialization of our technology and product candidates may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain, maintain, protect and enforce patents and other forms of intellectual property rights, including in-licenses of intellectual property rights of others, relating to our product candidates, our technology such as our proprietary POD nasal drug delivery platform, and methods for treating patients using our product candidates, as well as our ability to preserve our trade secrets, to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights and to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others. As of December 31, 2020, we solely owned four issued U.S. patents, 14 pending U.S. patent applications, 21 issued foreign patents, 55 pending foreign patent applications, and three pending international applications that cover our lead product candidates and our proprietary POD nasal drug delivery platform. We may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our technology and our product candidates in a timely fashion or at all. Further, we may not be able to prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of any patent applications that we license from third parties, or the ability to maintain the rights to patents licensed to third parties, and should we decide to license any of our patents to third parties in the future, we may not retain sufficient rights to prosecute and enforce such patents. Our existing issued and granted patents and any future patents we obtain may not be sufficiently broad to prevent others from using our technology or from developing competing product candidates and technology. There is no guarantee that any of our pending patent applications will result in issued or granted patents, that any of our issued or granted patents will not later be found to be invalid or unenforceable or that any issued or granted patents will include claims that are sufficiently broad to cover our technology and our product candidates or to provide meaningful protection from our competitors. Moreover, the patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual questions. We will be able to protect our proprietary rights from unauthorized use by third parties only to the extent that our current and future proprietary technology and product candidates are covered by valid and enforceable patents or are effectively maintained as trade secrets. If third parties disclose or misappropriate our proprietary rights, it may materially and adversely affect our position in the market.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. There are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents. As such, we do not know the degree of future protection that we will have on our proprietary product candidates and drug delivery system. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may be unable to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating our intellectual property. While we will endeavor to try to protect our technology and product candidates with intellectual property rights such as patents, as appropriate, the process of obtaining patents is time consuming, expensive and sometimes unpredictable. The failure to adequately protect our intellectual property and other proprietary rights could materially harm our business.

45

We may be required to spend significant resources to monitor and protect our intellectual property rights. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the U.S. and abroad. Any patents that are issued may subsequently be invalidated or otherwise limited, allowing other companies to develop offerings that compete with our offerings, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. In addition, issuance of a patent does not guarantee that we have a right to practice the patented invention. Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action before patent offices for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such initial grant, or in court. In the course of such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims thus attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patents, trade secrets, or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, intellectual property that is important to our product candidates. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In addition, there can be no assurance that:

∎ others will not or may not be able to make, use or sell upper nasal cavity product candidates that are the same as or similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we own;

∎ we or our existing or future collaborators are the first to make the inventions covered by each of our issued patents and pending patent applications that we own;

∎ we, or our existing or future collaborators, are the first to file patent applications covering certain aspects of our inventions;

∎ others will not independently develop similar or alternative technologies or duplicate any of our technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;

∎ a third party will not challenge our patents and, if challenged, a court would hold that our patents are valid, enforceable and infringed;

∎ any issued patents that we own or have licensed will provide us with any competitive advantages, or will not be challenged by third parties;

∎ we may develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;

∎ the patents of others will not have a material or adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects; and

∎ our competitors do not conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have enforceable patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets.

If we, our licensor or collaborators fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our technology or product candidates, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

46

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

In addition to seeking patent protection for certain aspects of our technology and our product candidates, we also consider trade secrets, including confidential and unpatented know-how, important to the maintenance of our competitive position. We protect trade secrets and confidential and unpatented know-how, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to such knowledge, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, CMOs, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to maintain confidentiality and assign their inventions to us. Despite these efforts, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties. In addition, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts in the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Other companies or organizations may challenge our or our licensor’s patent rights or may assert patent rights that prevent us from developing and commercializing our product candidates.

The issued patents and pending patent applications in the United States and in key markets around the world that we own or license claim many different devices, compositions and methods, including processes relating to the discovery, development, manufacture and commercialization of upper nasal cavity drug delivery. As the field of upper nasal cavity drug delivery continues to mature, patent applications are being processed by national patent offices around the world. There is uncertainty about which patents will issue and, if they do, as to when, to whom, and with what claims. In addition, third parties may attempt to invalidate our intellectual property rights. Even if our rights are not directly challenged, disputes could lead to the weakening of our intellectual property rights. Our defense against any attempt by third parties to circumvent or invalidate our intellectual property rights could be costly to us, could require significant time and attention of our management and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects or our ability to successfully compete.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Obtaining a valid and enforceable issued or granted patent covering our technology in the United States and worldwide can be extremely costly, and our or our licensor’s or collaborators’ intellectual property rights may not exist in some countries outside the United States or may be less extensive in some countries than in the United States. In jurisdictions where we or our licensor or collaborators have not obtained patent protection, competitors may seek to use our or their technology to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we or they have patent protection, but where it is more difficult to enforce a patent as compared to the United States. Competitor products may compete with our future product candidates in jurisdictions where we do not have issued or granted patents or where our or our licensor’s or collaborators’ issued or granted patent claims or other intellectual property rights are not sufficient to prevent competitor activities in these jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, make it difficult to enforce patents and such countries may not recognize other types of intellectual

47

property protection, particularly relating to pharmaceuticals. This could make it difficult for us or our licensor or collaborators to prevent the infringement of our or their patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our or their proprietary rights generally in certain jurisdictions. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our and our licensor’s or collaborators’ efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our and our licensor’s or collaborators’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, and our and our licensor’s or collaborators’ patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us or our licensor or collaborators. We or our licensor or collaborators may not prevail in any lawsuits that we or our licensor or collaborators initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful.

We have so far not filed for patent protection in all national and regional jurisdictions where such protection may be available. In addition, we may decide to abandon national and regional patent applications before grant. Finally, the grant proceeding of each national or regional patent is an independent proceeding which may lead to situations in which applications might in some jurisdictions be refused by the relevant registration authorities, while granted by others. It is also quite common that depending on the country, various scopes of patent protection may be granted on the same product candidate or technology.

The laws of some jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws in the United States, and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in such jurisdictions. If we or our licensor or collaborators encounter difficulties in protecting, or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting, the intellectual property rights important for our business in such jurisdictions, the value of these rights may be diminished and we may face additional competition from others in those jurisdictions. Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we or any of our licensor or collaborators are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position in the relevant jurisdiction may be impaired and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

We, our collaborators, or any future strategic partners may need to resort to litigation to protect or enforce our patents or other proprietary rights, all of which could be costly, time consuming, delay or prevent the development and commercialization of our technology or product candidates, or put our patents and other proprietary rights at risk.

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates or our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that an individual connected with prosecution of the patent withheld information material to patentability from the USPTO, or made a materially misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on one or more of our product candidates or certain aspects of our platform technology. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

48

Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without legally infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property rights of third parties could adversely affect our ability to commercialize our technology or our product candidates, and we, our licensor or collaborators, or any future strategic partners may become subject to third party claims or litigation alleging infringement of patents or other proprietary rights or seeking to invalidate patents or other proprietary rights. We might be required to litigate or obtain licenses from third parties in order to develop or market our technology or our product candidates. Such litigation or licenses could be costly or not available on commercially reasonable terms.

We, our collaborators, or any future strategic partners may be subject to third-party claims for infringement or misappropriation of patent or other proprietary rights. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, post grant review and inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. There are issued and pending patents that might claim aspects of our technology and our product candidates, and modifications that we may need to apply to our technology or our product candidates. Thus, it is possible that one or more individuals or organizations will hold patent rights to which we will need a license. If those individuals or organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights or refuse to grant us a license on reasonable terms, we may not be able to market product candidates or perform research and development or other activities covered by these patents which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. We are obligated under certain of our license and collaboration agreements to indemnify and hold harmless our licensor or collaborators for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by use. If we, our licensor or collaborators, or any future strategic partners are found to infringe a third-party patent or other intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have infringed willfully. In addition, we, our licensor or collaborators, or any future strategic partners may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from a third party, which may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license, we or our existing or future collaborators may be unable to effectively market our technology or our product candidates, which could limit our ability to generate revenue or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations. In addition, we may find it necessary to pursue claims or initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights. The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation could divert our management’s attention. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from

49

the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.

Because the upper nasal cavity therapeutics landscape is still evolving, it is difficult to conclusively assess our freedom to operate without infringing on third-party rights. Our competitive position may suffer if patents issued to third parties or other third-party intellectual property rights cover our technology or our product candidates or elements thereof, or our manufacture or uses relevant to our development plans. In such cases, we may not be in a position to develop or commercialize our technology or our product candidates until such patents expire or unless we successfully pursue litigation to nullify or invalidate the third-party intellectual property right concerned, or enter into a license agreement with the intellectual property right holder, if available on commercially reasonable terms. There may be issued patents held by third parties of which we are not aware that, if found to be valid and enforceable, could be alleged to be infringed by our POD nasal drug delivery platform and related technologies and product candidates. There also may be pending patent applications of which we are not aware that may result in issued patents, which could be alleged to be infringed by our POD nasal drug delivery platform and related technologies and product candidates. If such an infringement claim should be brought and be successful, we may be required to pay substantial damages, including potentially treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, and we may be forced to abandon our technology or our product candidates or seek a license from any patent holders. No assurances can be given that a license will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

It is also possible that we have failed to identify relevant third-party patents or applications. For example, U.S. applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain U.S. applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until patents issue. Patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates or platform technology could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our platform technology, our product candidates or the use of our product candidates. Third-party intellectual property right holders may also actively bring infringement claims against us. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to successfully settle or otherwise resolve such infringement claims. If we are unable to successfully settle future claims on terms acceptable to us, we may be required to engage in or continue costly, unpredictable and time-consuming litigation and may be prevented from or experience substantial delays in marketing our product candidates. Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If we fail in any such dispute, in addition to being forced to pay damages, we may be temporarily or permanently prohibited from commercializing any of our technology or our product candidates that are held to be infringing. We might, if possible, also be forced to redesign our technology or our product candidates so that we no longer infringe the third-party intellectual property rights. Any of these events, even if we were ultimately to prevail, could require us to divert substantial financial and management resources that we would otherwise be able to devote to our business and could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

50

Intellectual property rights of third parties could delay the development timeline with respect to one or more of our product candidates.

TRUDHESA includes a prior-approved formulation of our active pharmaceutical ingredient and our INP105 and INP107 product candidates include prior-approved active pharmaceutical ingredients. We are not aware of any unexpired patents that cover these active pharmaceutical ingredients, and there are no unexpired patents or regulatory exclusivities listed on the FDA Orange Book for the formulation we are using in TRUDHESA. However, it is possible that one or more individuals or organizations will hold patent rights to which we will need to obtain a license. If those individuals or organizations refuse to grant us a license to such patent rights or refuse to grant us a license on commercially reasonable terms, our development timeline with respect to one or more of our product candidates may be materially and adversely delayed.

Intellectual property litigation could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims, with or without merit, is unpredictable and generally expensive and time consuming and is likely to divert significant resources from our core business, including distracting our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Moreover, such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information or alleged trade secrets of third parties or their former employers. These claims may be costly to defend and if we do not successfully do so, we may be required to pay monetary damages and may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although no claims against us are currently pending, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. A loss of key research personnel or their work product could hamper our ability to commercialize, or prevent us from commercializing, our technology or our product candidates, which could severely harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

51

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

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

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm or rely on our outside counsel to pay these fees due to the USPTO and non-U.S. patent agencies. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Changes in U.S. patent and ex-U.S. patent laws could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or in other ex-U.S. jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. In the United States, numerous recent changes to the patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the USPTO may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, some of which cases either narrow the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weaken the rights of patent owners in certain situations. For example, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. precludes a claim to a nucleic acid having a stated nucleotide sequence that is identical to a sequence found in nature and unmodified. We currently are not aware of an immediate impact of this decision on our patents or patent applications because we are developing product candidates that contain modifications that we believe are not found in nature. However, this decision has yet to be unambiguously interpreted by courts and by the USPTO. We cannot assure you that the interpretations of this decision or subsequent rulings will not adversely impact our patents or patent applications. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, and similar legislative and regulatory bodies in other countries in which

52

may pursue patent protection, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the U.S. transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the U.S., the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the U.S., the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we do, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the U.S. and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in U.S. federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

Our trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names or may be forced to stop using these names, which we need for name recognition by potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Employee Matters, Managing Growth and Other Risks Related to Our Business

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance our product candidates through clinical trials and commercialization, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities or contract with third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various strategic partners, suppliers,

53

manufacturers and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of our management. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and clinical trials effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and, if necessary, sales and marketing personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such anticipated growth, we may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our company or disrupt our operations.

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key scientific personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates.

We are highly dependent on members of our senior management, including Adrian Adams, our President and Chief Executive Officer, John Hoekman, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer and one of our founders, John Leaman, M.D., our Chief Financial Officer, Leonard S. Paolillo, our Chief Commercial Officer, and Stephen Shrewsbury M.B. ChB., our Chief Medical Officer. The loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives. Also, each of these persons may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing, sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. We may not be able to attract and retain these personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors, including our scientific co-founders, may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us.

We will incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an emerging growth company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The Nasdaq Global Market, or Nasdaq, and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. We will need to hire additional accounting, finance and other personnel and make further investments in processes and systems in connection with these efforts. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, we expect these rules and regulations to substantially increase our legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time consuming and costly. For example, we expect that these rules and regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain sufficient coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers. Moreover, these rules and regulations are often subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in

54

practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices.

We are not currently required to comply with the SEC’s rules that implement Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and are therefore not required to make a formal assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for that purpose. Pursuant to Section 404, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company or a non-accelerated filer, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. In addition, if we are not able to continue to meet these requirements, we may not be able to remain listed on Nasdaq.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA, to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, to comply with federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. Employees may also misappropriate information in violation of applicable insider trading laws, which could also seriously harm our reputation even if we are not deemed to be at fault. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

55

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any product candidates. For example, we may be sued if any product we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during product testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability, and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates. Even a successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

∎ injury to our reputation;

∎ decreased demand for our product candidates or products that we may develop;

∎ withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

∎ costs to defend the related litigations;

∎ a diversion of management’s time and our resources;

∎ substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;

∎ product recalls, withdrawals, or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;

∎ loss of revenue;

∎ the inability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved; and

∎ a decline in our stock price.

Failure to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of product candidates we develop. We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical trials. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient capital to pay such amounts. If we are unable to obtain or maintain sufficient insurance coverage at an acceptable cost or to otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, we could prevent or inhibit the development and commercial production and sale of our product candidates, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

The security of the information technology systems used in our business may be compromised, and confidential information, including non-public personal information, could be improperly disclosed.

Our information technology systems, and those of our contractors and consultants, may be vulnerable to physical or electronic intrusions, computer viruses or other attacks, as well as employee, vendor, or contractor errors or malfeasance. As part of our business, we and our contractors and consultants maintain large amounts of confidential information, including non-public personal information on patients and our employees. Breaches in security and other information security events and incidents could result in interruption to our or our service providers’ systems and operations, and the loss, unauthorized modification, or misuse of information. Any such breach or other incident may result in significant costs to remediate and otherwise respond, including efforts to analyze, correct, eliminate, remediate or work around deficiencies in our systems or our security measures, recover and

56

validate data, and to address any applicable legal or contractual obligations. Further, any actual or perceived breach in security may result in potential regulatory actions or litigation, including material claims for damages, interruption to our operations, delays in regulatory filings and approvals, damage to our reputation or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results. Like many businesses, we have been in the past, and may again be in the future, subject to phishing attacks. In 2018 we experienced a successful phishing attack. While we were able to swiftly contain and remediate this incident, without a material impact to our business, there can be no assurances that we will be able to defend against or successfully remediate any such attacks that may occur in the future. Further, companies have experienced an increase in phishing and social engineering attacks from third parties, including in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, all of our employees are working remotely. As a result, we may have increased cybersecurity and data security risks, due to increased use of home wi-fi networks and virtual private networks, as well as increased disbursement of physical machines. While we have implemented IT controls to reduce the risk of a cybersecurity or data security breach, there is no guarantee that these measures will be adequate to safeguard all systems, especially with an increased number of employees working remotely. While we expect to implement and maintain appropriate information security policies and systems in order to prevent unauthorized loss, unavailability, modification, use or disclosure of confidential information, including non-public personal information, there can be no assurance that any such loss, unavailability, modification, use or disclosure will not occur.

While we maintain insurance with respect to cybersecurity, our insurance may be insufficient to cover all liabilities incurred by us in connection with any privacy or cybersecurity incidents. We also cannot be certain that any insurance coverage will be adequate for data handling or data security liabilities actually incurred, that insurance will continue to be available to us on economically reasonable terms, or at all, or that any insurer will not deny coverage as to any future claim. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed available insurance coverage, or the occurrence of changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our financial condition, operating results and reputation.

If we acquire complementary business or technologies in the future, we may be unable to integrate such acquired businesses and technologies successfully or fail to achieve the expected benefits.

Although we have not made any acquisitions to date, our business strategy in the future may include acquiring other complementary therapies, products, technologies or businesses. We also may enter into relationships with other businesses to expand our domestic and international operations. An acquisition, investment, or business relationship may result in unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures. In particular, we may encounter difficulties assimilating or integrating the businesses, therapies, technologies, products, services, personnel or operations of the acquired companies, particularly if the key personnel of the acquired companies choose not to work for us. Acquisitions may also disrupt our business, divert our resources and require significant management attention that would otherwise be available for the development of our business. Moreover, the anticipated benefits of any acquisition, investment or business relationship may not be realized or we may be exposed to unknown liabilities.

Negotiating these transactions can be time consuming, difficult, and expensive, and our ability to close these transactions may often be subject to approvals that are beyond our control. Consequently, these transactions, even if undertaken and announced, may not close. Even if we do successfully complete acquisitions, we may not ultimately strengthen our competitive position or achieve our goals, and any acquisitions we complete could be viewed negatively by our customers, securities analysts and investors.

57

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. Unused losses incurred in taxable years beginning on or prior to December 31, 2017, will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. Under the Tax Reform Act, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, unused U.S. federal net operating losses generated in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, will not expire and may be carried forward indefinitely but the deductibility of such federal net operating losses is limited to 80% of current year taxable income in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020. As a result, our net operating loss carryforwards generated in taxable years beginning on or before December 31, 2017, may expire prior to being used, and the deductibility of our net operating loss carryforwards generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020, may be limited. It is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Reform Act or the CARES Act. In addition, both our current and our future unused losses and other tax attributes may be subject to limitation under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) if we undergo, or have undergone, an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in our equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period. We have not completed a Section 382 study to assess whether an ownership change has occurred or whether there have been multiple ownership changes since our formation due to the complexity and cost associated with such a study and the fact that there may be additional ownership changes in the future. If we undergo an ownership change (or if we previously underwent such an ownership change), our ability to use all of our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset our post-change income or taxes may be limited. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of net operating losses is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use all or a material portion of our net operating losses and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Changes in U.S. tax law could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. For example, on March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was enacted, which included certain changes in tax law intended to stimulate the U.S. economy in light of the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak, including temporary beneficial changes to the treatment of net operating losses, interest deductibility limitations and payroll tax matters. Future changes in U.S. tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisors regarding the implications of potential changes in U.S. tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock and this Offering

The market price of our Common Stock may be volatile.

The market price of our common stock following this offering may be volatile. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including the other risks described in this section of the prospectus entitled “Risk Factors” and the following:

∎ receipt of marketing approval for TRUDHESA or any of our other product candidates;

58

∎ results of nonclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, or those of our competitors or our existing or future collaborators;

∎ introductions and announcements of new product candidates by us, our future commercialization partners, or our competitors, and the timing of these introductions or announcements;

∎ regulatory or legal developments in the United States and other countries, especially changes in laws or regulations applicable to our product candidates;

∎ material and adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the markets and the broader global economy;

∎ the success of competitive products or technologies;

∎ actions taken by regulatory agencies with respect to our product candidates, clinical trials, manufacturing process or sales and marketing terms;

∎ actual or anticipated variations in our financial results or those of companies that are perceived to be similar to us;

∎ the success of our efforts to acquire or in-license additional technologies, products or product candidates;

∎ developments concerning any future collaborations, including but not limited to those with our sources of manufacturing supply and our commercialization partners;

∎ market conditions in the life sciences and pharmaceutical sectors;

∎ announcements by us or our competitors of significant acquisitions, strategic collaborations, joint ventures or capital commitments;

∎ developments or disputes concerning patents or other proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent protection for our product candidates and products;

∎ our ability or inability to raise additional capital and the terms on which we raise it;

∎ the recruitment or departure of key personnel;

∎ changes in the structure of healthcare payment systems;

∎ actual or anticipated changes in earnings estimates or changes in stock market analyst recommendations regarding our common stock, other comparable companies or our industry generally;

∎ our failure or the failure of our competitors to meet analysts’ projections or guidance that we or our competitors may give to the market;

∎ fluctuations in the valuation of companies perceived by investors to be comparable to us;

∎ announcement and expectation of additional financing efforts;

∎ speculation in the press or investment community;

∎ trading volume of our common stock;

∎ sales of our common stock by us or our stockholders;

∎ the concentration in ownership of our common stock;

∎ changes in accounting principles;

∎ potential litigation or the threat thereof;

∎ terrorist acts, acts of war or periods of widespread civil unrest;

∎ natural disasters and other calamities; and

∎ general economic, industry and market conditions.

In addition, the stock market in general, and the markets for pharmaceutical and medical device stocks in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have been often unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies, including as a result of

59

the COVID-19 pandemic. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. The realization of any of the above risks or any of a broad range of other risks, including those described in this “Risk Factors” section, could have a dramatic and adverse impact on the market price of our common stock.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

Based on the beneficial ownership of our common stock as of December 31, 2020, prior to this offering, our executive officers, directors, holders of 5% or more of our capital stock and their respective affiliates beneficially owned approximately     % of our voting stock and, upon the completion of this offering, that same group will hold approximately    % of our outstanding voting stock (assuming no exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares, no exercise of our outstanding options and no purchases of shares in this offering by any of this group), in each case assuming the conversion of all outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock into shares of our common stock and the net exercise of warrants outstanding. As a result, these stockholders, if acting together, will continue to have significant influence over the outcome of corporate actions requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors, amendment of our organizational documents, any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets and any other significant corporate transaction. The interests of these stockholders may not be the same as or may even conflict with your interests. For example, these stockholders could delay or prevent a change of control of our company, even if such a change of control would benefit our other stockholders, which could deprive our stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their common stock as part of a sale of our company or our assets and might affect the prevailing market price of our common stock. The significant concentration of stock ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock due to investors’ perception that conflicts of interest may exist or arise.

We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including (i) not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, (ii) reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in this prospectus and our periodic reports and proxy statements and (iii) exemptions from the requirements of holding nonbinding advisory stockholder votes on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not approved previously. In addition, as an emerging growth company, we are only required to provide two years of audited financial statements and two years of selected financial data in this prospectus.

We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years following the completion of this offering, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier, including if we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer,” which occurs when the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior June 30, or if we have total annual gross revenue of $1.07 billion or more during any fiscal year before that time, in which cases we would no longer be an emerging growth company as of the following December 31, or if we issue more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during any three-year period before that time, in which case we would no longer be an emerging growth company immediately. Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and

60

reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in this prospectus and in our periodic reports and proxy statements. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our share price may be more volatile.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of the benefits of this extended transition period. Our financial statements may therefore not be comparable to those of companies that comply with such new or revised accounting standards. Until the date that we are no longer an “emerging growth company” or affirmatively and irrevocably opt out of the exemption provided by Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act, upon issuance of a new or revised accounting standard that applies to our financial statements and that has a different effective date for public and private companies, we will disclose the date on which adoption is required for non-emerging growth companies and the date on which we will adopt the recently issued accounting standard.

Anti-takeover provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and our restated bylaws and under Delaware or Washington law could make an acquisition of our business, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Our restated certificate of incorporation and our restated bylaws that will be in effect upon completion of this offering contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our company. These provisions could also make it difficult for stockholders to elect directors who are not nominated by current members of our board of directors or take other corporate actions, including effecting changes in our management. These provisions:

∎ establish a classified board of directors so that not all members of our board are elected at one time;

∎ permit only the board of directors to establish the number of directors and fill vacancies on the board;

∎ provide that directors may only be removed “for cause” and only with the approval of two-thirds of our stockholders;

∎ require super-majority voting to amend some provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws;

∎ authorize the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock that our board could use to implement a stockholder rights plan;

∎ eliminate the ability of our stockholders to call special meetings of stockholders;

∎ prohibit stockholder action by written consent, which requires all stockholder actions to be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;

∎ prohibit cumulative voting; and

∎ establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board or for proposing matters that can be acted upon by stockholders at annual stockholder meetings.

Moreover, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, or DGCL, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Likewise, because our principal executive offices are located in Washington, the anti-takeover provisions of the Washington Business Corporation Act may

61

apply to us under certain circumstances now or in the future. These provisions prohibit a “target corporation” from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with any stockholder constituting an “acquiring person” for a period of five years following the date on which the stockholder became an “acquiring person.” Any of these provisions of our charter documents or Delaware or Washington law could, under certain circumstances, depress the market price of our common stock.

Our restated certificate of incorporation will designate the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware as the sole and exclusive forum for certain types of actions and proceedings that may be initiated by our stockholders and our restated bylaws will designate federal district courts as the sole and exclusive forum for actions under the Securities Act, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, employees, or agents.

Our restated certificate of incorporation that will become effective upon the completion of this offering will provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for the following types of actions or proceedings under the DGCL: any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf; any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty; any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the DGCL, our restated certificate of incorporation, or our restated bylaws; or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. This provision would not apply to suits brought to enforce a duty or liability created by the Exchange Act or any other claim for which the U.S. federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.

Our restated bylaws will also provide that the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action under the Securities Act. The enforceability of similar exclusive federal forum provisions in other companies’ organizational documents has been challenged in legal proceedings, and while the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that this type of exclusive federal forum provision is facially valid under Delaware law, there is uncertainty as to whether other courts would enforce such provisions and that investors cannot waive compliance with the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.

These choice of forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provisions contained in our restated certificate of incorporation or restated bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, operating results and financial condition.

We will have broad discretion in the use of the net proceeds from this offering and may not use them effectively.

Our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds from this offering, and you will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of these proceeds. You will not have the opportunity, as part of your investment decision, to assess whether we are using the proceeds appropriately. Our management might not apply our net proceeds in ways that ultimately increase the value of your investment. If we do not invest or apply the net proceeds in ways that enhance stockholder value, we may fail to achieve expected financial results, which could cause our stock price to decline.

62

General Risk Factors

Natural disasters, catastrophic events and calamities including epidemics and pandemics may disrupt our business.

Natural disasters or other catastrophic events may damage or disrupt our operations and thus could harm our business. For example, our headquarters are located in Seattle, Washington, an earthquake-prone area. A natural disaster or catastrophic event in Seattle could interrupt our operations and impair access to internal systems, documents, and materials critical to the operation and growth of our business.

Further, occurrences of epidemics or pandemics, depending on their scale, may result in damage to the national and local economies within our geographic area. Global economic conditions may be disrupted by widespread outbreaks of infectious or contagious diseases, and such disruption may adversely affect clinical development plans. See “Risk Factors—The outbreak of COVID-19, or similar public health crises, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations, including the execution of our planned clinical trials.”

As we grow, the need for business continuity planning and disaster recovery plans will become increasingly important. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If we are unable to develop adequate plans to ensure that our business functions continue to operate during and after a disaster, and successfully execute on those plans in the event of a disaster or emergency, our business could be harmed.

We and our CMOs must comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant costs or liabilities.

We and our CMOs are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment, remediation and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous chemicals, including flammable and biological materials, are involved in certain aspects of our business, and we cannot eliminate the risk of injury or contamination from the use, generation, manufacture, distribution, storage, handling, treatment or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. In the event of contamination or injury, or failure to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could be held liable for any resulting damages and any such liability could exceed our assets and resources. We could also incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations. We are uninsured for third-party injury from contamination.

Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent. We may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Further, with respect to the operations of our CMOs, it is possible that if they fail to operate in compliance with applicable environmental, health and safety laws and regulations or properly dispose of wastes associated with our product candidates, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, suffer reputational harm or experience a disruption in the manufacture and supply of our product candidates or products.

63

We may be subject to securities litigation, which is expensive and could divert management attention.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile and, in the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our common stock, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. We do not currently have and may never obtain research coverage by securities and industry analysts. If no or few securities or industry analysts commence coverage of us, the trading price for our common stock could be impacted negatively. In the event we obtain securities or industry analyst coverage, if any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our nonclinical studies and clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of such analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause a decline in our stock price or trading volume.

64

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This prospectus, including the sections titled “Prospectus Summary,” “Risk Factors,” “Use of Proceeds,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and “Business” contains forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “potentially,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “plan,” “expect” and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes are intended to identify forward-looking statements.

These forward-looking statements are subject to several risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus. Moreover, we operate in a competitive and rapidly changing environment, and new risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this prospectus may not occur and actual results could differ materially and adversely from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. You should not put undue reliance on these statements which speak only as of the date hereof. You should understand that the following important factors, in addition to those discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus, could affect our future results and could cause those results or other outcomes to differ materially from those expressed or implied in our forward-looking statements:

∎ our ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of TRUDHESA and our other product candidates, and any related restrictions, limitations or warnings in the label of any approved product;

∎ our ability to successfully formulate and execute on our commercialization strategy for TRUDHESA, if approved by the FDA;

∎ the timing or likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals;

∎ the size and growth potential of the markets for our product candidates, if approved for commercial use, and our ability to serve those markets;

∎ the success, cost and timing of our development activities, preclinical studies and clinical trials;

∎ the number, size and design of clinical trials that regulatory authorities may require to obtain marketing approval;

∎ our plans relating to the future development and manufacturing of our product candidates, including plans for future development of our POD devices and plans to address additional indications for which we may pursue regulatory approval;

∎ future agreements with third parties in connection with preclinical and clinical development as well as the manufacture and commercialization of our product candidates, if approved for commercial use;

∎ our ability to attract customers for any approved products;

∎ the effect of litigation, complaints or adverse publicity on our business;

∎ our ability to establish and expand our sales force to address effectively the new indications, geographies and types of organizations we intend to target;

∎ our ability to forecast and maintain an adequate rate of revenue growth and appropriately plan our expenses;

∎ our liquidity and working capital requirements;

65

∎ our ability to attract and retain qualified employees and key personnel;

∎ our ability to protect and enhance our brand and intellectual property;

∎ the costs related to defending intellectual property infringement and other claims;

∎ privacy, data security, and data protection laws, actual or perceived privacy or data breaches or other data security incidents, or the loss of data;

∎ future regulatory, judicial, and legislative changes in our industry;

∎ future arrangements with, or investments in, other entities or associations, products, services or technologies;

∎ our use of the net proceeds from this offering; and

∎ the increased expenses and administrative workload associated with being a public company.

These and other factors that could cause actual results to differ from those implied by the forward-looking statements in this prospectus are more fully described in the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this prospectus. The risks described in the section titled “Risk Factors” are not exhaustive. Other sections of this prospectus describe additional factors that could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. New risk factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for us to predict all such risk factors, nor can we assess the impact of all such risk factors on our business or the extent to which any factor or combination of factors may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the foregoing cautionary statements. We undertake no obligations to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this prospectus, and while we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that the future results, levels of activity, performance or events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or occur. We undertake no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason after the date of this prospectus to conform these statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations, except as required by law.

You should read this prospectus and the documents that we reference in this prospectus and have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, as exhibits to the registration statement of which this prospectus is a part with the understanding that our actual future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances may be materially different from what we expect.

66

MARKET AND INDUSTRY DATA

This prospectus contains estimates and other statistical data made by independent parties and by us relating to our industry and the markets in which we operate, including our general expectations and market position, market opportunity, the incidence of certain medical conditions and other industry data. These data, to the extent they contain estimates or projections, involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates or projections. Industry publications and other reports we have obtained from independent parties generally state that the data contained in these publications or other reports have been obtained in good faith or from sources considered to be reliable, but they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such data. The industry in which we operate is subject to risks and uncertainties due to a variety of factors, including those described in the section titled “Risk Factors.” These and other factors could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in these publications and reports.

67

USE OF PROCEEDS

We estimate that the net proceeds from our sale of              shares of common stock in this offering at an assumed initial public offering price of $             per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses, will be approximately $             million, or $             million if the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full.

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $             per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) the net proceeds to us from this offering by $            million, assuming the number of shares offered, as set forth on the cover of this prospectus, remains the same, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. Similarly, each increase (decrease) of 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares of common stock offered would increase (decrease) the net proceeds that we receive from this offering by $             million, assuming that the assumed initial public offering price remains the same and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions.

We currently intend to use the net proceeds we receive from this offering as follows:

∎ approximately $             million to fund the regulatory approval process and initial commercial launch of TRUDHESA;

∎ approximately $             million to initiate a clinical proof-of-concept trial for INP105 in patients with ASD; and

∎ any remaining amounts to fund working capital and general corporate purposes.

Based on our planned use of the net proceeds, we estimate such funds, together with our existing cash, will be sufficient for us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through at least the next 12 months. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of our products, if ever, we expect to finance our future operations, including the development of our product candidates, through the sale of additional equity, debt financings or other capital sources.

The amounts we actually spend in these areas, and the timing of such spending, may vary significantly from our current intentions and will depend on a number of factors, including the success of research and product development efforts, cash generated from future operations and actual expenses to operate our business.

The expected use of the net proceeds from the offering represents our intentions based upon our current plans and business conditions. The amounts and timing of our clinical expenditures and the extent of clinical development may vary significantly depending on numerous factors, including the status, results and timing of our current preclinical studies and clinical trials and those which we may commence in the future, the product approval process with the FDA and other regulatory agencies, any collaborations we may enter into with third parties and any unforeseen cash needs. As a result, we cannot predict with any certainty all of the particular uses for the net proceeds or the amounts that we will actually spend on the uses set forth above. We may use a portion of the net proceeds for the acquisition of, or investment in, businesses that complement our business, although we have no present commitments or agreements to do so. Accordingly, our management will have broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds, and investors will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of the net proceeds of this offering.

Pending the uses described above, we intend to invest the net proceeds from this offering in short term, investment-grade interest-bearing securities such as money market accounts, certificates of deposit, commercial paper and guaranteed obligations of the U.S. government.

68

DIVIDEND POLICY

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to declare dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements, general business conditions and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. Our future ability to pay cash dividends on our capital stock is limited by the terms of our existing debt and equity agreement with Avenue.

69

CAPITALIZATION

The following table sets forth our cash and capitalization as of December 31, 2020 on:

∎ an actual basis;

∎ a pro forma basis, giving effect to (i) the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock as of December 31, 2020 into an aggregate of 206,399,763 shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering, (ii) the automatic exchange of a warrant held by Avenue Venture Opportunities Fund, L.P., or Avenue, into 1,762,810 shares upon completion of this offering, (iii) the issuance of              shares of common stock pursuant to the net exercise of warrants to purchase 1,987,348 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020 that would otherwise expire upon completion of this offering, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $            per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, (iv) $7.5 million in proceeds from the convertible notes we issued in March 2021 and their conversion into              shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering at 90% of the offering price, and (v) the effectiveness of our restated certificate of incorporation in connection with the completion of this offering; and

∎ a pro forma as adjusted basis, giving effect to (i) the pro forma adjustments described above and (ii) the sale of             shares of common stock in this offering, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $             per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses.

The pro forma as adjusted information set forth in the table below is illustrative only and will be adjusted based on the actual initial public offering price and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.

You should read this table together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes, each included elsewhere in this prospectus.

70

	As of December 31, 2020
	Actual			Pro Forma	Pro Forma As Adjusted(1)
	(in thousands, except share and per share data)
				(unaudited)
Cash	$	7,095		$	$
Long-term debt, current and noncurrent	$	8,411		$	$
Redeemable convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities		2,622
Redeemable convertible preferred stock, $0.001 par value; 204,198,489 shares authorized and 202,009,981 shares issued and outstanding, actual; no shares authorized, issued or outstanding, pro forma and pro forma as adjusted		127,039
Stockholders’ (deficit) equity:
Preferred stock, $0.001 par value, no shares authorized, issued and outstanding, actual;             shares authorized, no shares issued and outstanding, pro forma and pro forma as adjusted		–
Common stock, $0.001 par value; 266,833,885 shares authorized; 12,370,104 shares issued and outstanding, actual;             shares authorized,             shares issued and outstanding, pro forma;             shares authorized,             shares issued and outstanding, pro forma as adjusted		12
Additional paid-in capital		4,750
Accumulated deficit		(138,262	)
Total stockholders’ (deficit) equity		(133,500	)
Total capitalization	$	4,572		$	$

(1) Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $             per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) each of our pro forma as adjusted cash, additional paid-in-capital, total stockholders’ (deficit) equity and total capitalization by approximately $             million, assuming that the number of shares offered remains the same and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. Similarly, each increase (decrease) of 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares of common stock offered would increase (decrease) each of our pro forma as adjusted cash, additional paid-in-capital, total stockholders’ (deficit) equity and total capitalization by approximately $             million, assuming the assumed initial public offering price remains the same and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions.

The table above excludes the following shares:

∎ 39,983,012 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options outstanding as of December 31, 2020, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.32 per share;

∎              shares of our common stock issuable upon the exercise of stock options granted after December 31, 2020, with a weighted-average exercise price of $         per share; and

∎              shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our stock-based compensation plans, consisting of (i) 5,639,902 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2020, (ii)             shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan, which will become effective on the date immediately prior to the date of this prospectus and (iii)             shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which will become effective on the date of this prospectus. Upon completion of this offering, any remaining shares available for issuance under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan will be added to the shares reserved under our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan and we will cease granting awards under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan. Our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan and

71

2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan also provide for automatic annual increases in the number of shares reserved under the plans each year, as more fully described in “Executive Compensation—Equity Compensation Plans and Other Benefit Plans.”

72

DILUTION

If you invest in our common stock in this offering, your ownership interest will be immediately diluted to the extent of the difference between the amount per share paid by purchasers of shares of our common stock in this offering and the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share of common stock immediately after this offering.

Net tangible book value (deficit) per share is determined by dividing our total tangible assets (which excludes deferred offering costs) less our total liabilities and redeemable convertible preferred stock by the number of shares of our common stock outstanding. Our historical net tangible book value (deficit) as of December 31, 2020 was $(133.5) million, or $(10.79) per share, based on 12,370,104 shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020. Our net tangible book value (deficit) per share represents total tangible assets, excluding deferred offering costs, less total liabilities and redeemable convertible preferred stock, all divided by the number of shares of common stock outstanding on December 31, 2020.

Our pro forma net tangible book value per share represents the amount of our total tangible assets (which excludes deferred offering costs) reduced by the amount of our total liabilities and divided by the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020, after giving effect to (i) the automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock as of December 31, 2020 into an aggregate of 206,399,763 shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering, (ii) the automatic exchange of a warrant held by Avenue into 1,762,810 shares upon completion of this offering, (iii) the issuance of              shares of common stock pursuant to the net exercise of warrants to purchase 1,987,348 shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020 that would otherwise expire upon completion of this offering, based upon an assumed initial public offering price of $            per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus and (iv) $7.5 million in proceeds from the convertible notes we issued in March 2021 and their conversion into              shares of common stock immediately prior to the completion of this offering. Our pro forma net tangible book value as of December 31, 2020 was approximately $             million, or $             per share of common stock.

73

Net tangible book value dilution per share to new investors represents the difference between the amount per share paid by purchasers of shares of common stock in this offering and the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share of common stock immediately after completion of this offering. After giving effect to (i) the pro forma adjustments described in the immediately preceding paragraph and (ii) our sale in this offering of shares of our common stock at an assumed initial public offering price of $             per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses, our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value as of December 31, 2020 would have been approximately $             million, or $             per share of our common stock. This represents an immediate increase in pro forma net tangible book value of $             per share to our existing stockholders and an immediate dilution of $             per share to investors in this offering, as illustrated in the following table:

Assumed initial public offering price per share				$
Historical net tangible book deficit per share as of December 31, 2020	$	(10.79	)
Pro forma increase in net tangible book value per share attributable to the pro forma transactions described above
Pro forma net tangible book value per share as of December 31, 2020
Increase in pro forma net tangible book value per share attributable to new investors participating in this offering
Pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share after this offering
Dilution in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share to new investors in this offering				$

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $             per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value by $             million, or $             per share and the dilution in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share to new investors in this offering by $             per share, assuming the number of shares offered , as set forth on the cover of this prospectus, remains the same, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. Similarly, each increase of 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares of common stock offered in this offering would increase our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value by approximately $                 million, or approximately $             per share, and would increase dilution per share to new investors in this offering by approximately $             per share and each decrease of 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares of common stock offered in this offering would decrease our pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value by approximately $             million, or approximately $             per share, and would decrease dilution per share to new investors in this offering by approximately $             per share, assuming the assumed initial public offering price per share remains the same and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. The pro forma as adjusted information is illustrative only, and we will adjust this information based on the actual initial public offering price and other terms of this offering determined at pricing.

If the underwriters exercise their option in full to purchase additional shares, the pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share after this offering would be $             per share, the increase in pro forma as adjusted net tangible book value per share to existing stockholders would be $             per share and the dilution to new investors in this offering would be $             per share.

The following table shows, as of December 31, 2020, on a pro forma as adjusted basis described above, the differences between the existing stockholders and the purchasers of shares in this offering with respect to the number of shares purchased from us, the total consideration paid, which includes

74

net proceeds received from the issuance of common and redeemable convertible preferred stock, cash received from the exercise of stock options, and the value of any stock issued for services and the average price paid per share (in thousands, except per share amounts and percentages):

	Shares Purchased				Total Consideration				Average Price Per Share
	Number	Percent			Amount	Percent
Existing stockholders				%	$			%	$
Investors purchasing shares in this offering
Total			100.0	%	$		100.0	%

Each $1.00 increase (decrease) in the assumed initial public offering price of $             per share, which is the midpoint of the estimated price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus, would increase (decrease) total consideration paid by new investors and total consideration paid by all stockholders by approximately $             million, assuming that the number of shares offered, as set forth on the cover of this prospectus, remains the same, and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions. Similarly, each increase (decrease) of 1,000,000 shares in the number of shares of common stock offered in this offering would increase (decrease) total consideration paid by new investors and total consideration paid by all stockholders by approximately $             million, assuming the assumed initial public offering price remains the same and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and commissions.

To the extent that any outstanding stock options or warrants are exercised, or new stock options or warrants are issued under our equity incentive plans, or we issue additional equity in the future, there will be further dilution to investors participating in this offering. In addition, we may choose to raise additional capital because of market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe that we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. If we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or equity-linked securities, the issuance of these securities could result in further dilution to our stockholders.

Except as otherwise indicated, the above discussion and tables assume no exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. If the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional shares in full, our existing stockholders would own     % and our new investors would own     % of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding upon the completion of this offering.

The number of shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2020 excludes:

∎ 39,983,012 shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of options outstanding as of December 31, 2020, with a weighted-average exercise price of $0.32 per share;

∎              shares of our common stock issuable upon the exercise of stock options granted after December 31, 2020, with a weighted-average exercise price of $             per share; and

∎                  shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our stock-based compensation plans, consisting of (i) 5,639,902 shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2020, (ii)             shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan, which will become effective on the date immediately prior to the date of this prospectus and (iii)             shares of common stock reserved for future issuance under our 2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, which will become effective on the date of this prospectus. Upon completion of this offering, any remaining shares available for issuance under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan will be added to the shares reserved under our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan and we will cease

75

granting awards under our 2018 Equity Incentive Plan. Our 2021 Equity Incentive Plan and 2021 Employee Stock Purchase Plan also provide for automatic annual increases in the number of shares reserved under the plans each year, as more fully described in “Executive Compensation—Equity Compensation Plans and Other Benefit Plans.”

76

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and consolidated results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this prospectus. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this prospectus, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” for a discussion of forward-looking statements and important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Overview

We are a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on utilizing our proprietary technology to develop and commercialize transformative therapies for patients suffering from diseases with high unmet medical needs, with an initial focus on diseases of the central nervous system, or CNS. Our company was founded on the premise that the upper nasal cavity can be an optimal treatment entry point for CNS and other diseases where rapid vascular absorption can result in superior clinical outcomes. Our strategy is to pair our proprietary Precision Olfactory Delivery, or POD, upper nasal delivery technology with well-established therapeutics or other therapeutics where rapid vascular absorption is preferred to drive therapeutic benefit, improve patient outcomes, reduce drug development risk and expand the commercial opportunity within our target diseases. Since 2016, we have identified and advanced multiple product candidates, including TRUDHESA^TM (INP104) for the acute treatment of migraine and INP105 for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression in patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder, or ASD. Our pipeline of proprietary product candidates also includes INP107 for the treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s Disease. In November 2020, we submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA, for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients. The FDA has filed and accepted the new drug application, or NDA, for review and established a Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, goal date of September 6, 2021.

We have retained all development and commercial rights to each of our product candidates. Given the concentrated prescriber base of our target market for TRUDHESA and our other product candidates, we believe we will be able to independently commercialize each of our existing product candidates, if approved. We initially plan to build a targeted sales team of approximately 60 representatives for TRUDHESA, as well as similar targeted sales teams for our other existing product candidates. We would then build and leverage a central organization comprised of market access, medical affairs, patient support, marketing and operations to support these distinct field teams.

We have built out an internal research and development team and also used and plan to continue to use third-party contract research organizations, or CROs, to carry out our preclinical and clinical development. We rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to manufacture and supply our clinical materials to be used during the development of our product candidates. These CMOs are currently manufacturing commercial stage POD devices for TRUDHESA, which we used for our Phase 1 clinical trial, our registration lots and our STOP301 trial, and we intend to use for commercial launch of TRUDHESA. CMOs are currently manufacturing clinical stage POD devices for INP105 and INP107, which we expect to transition to a commercial stage POD device for pivotal studies and commercialization. The development work on the commercial stage POD device for INP105 is ongoing while the commercial formulation and drug production are scaled to commercial level.

From inception through December 31, 2020, we funded our operations primarily with an aggregate of $135.0 million in gross cash proceeds from the sale and issuance of redeemable convertible

77

preferred stock, convertible notes, debt and warrants. Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses and expect to incur significant and increasing losses in the foreseeable future as we advance our product candidates into later stages of development and, if approved, commercialization. Our net losses were $41.9 million and $45.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $138.3 million.

We expect our expenses and net losses to increase significantly as we prepare to commercialize TRUDHESA, continue our development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our other product candidates, and begin to commercialize any approved products, if any, as well as hire additional personnel, protect our intellectual property and incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year, depending on the timing of our clinical studies and trials, associated manufacturing needs, commercialization activities if our product candidates are approved and our expenditures on other research and development activities.

Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of our products, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through the sale of equity, debt financings or other capital sources, including potential collaborations with other companies or other strategic transactions. Adequate funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise capital or enter into such agreements as, and when, needed, we may have to significantly delay, scale back, or discontinue the development and commercialization of our product candidates or delay our efforts to advance and expand our pipeline.

COVID-19 Impact

We are continuing to proactively monitor and assess the novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, global pandemic. Since early March we have been monitoring the potential impact on our business that may result from this rapidly evolving crisis and to avoid any unnecessary potential delays to our programs. The safety and well-being of employees, patients and partners is our highest priority. To date, we have continued to operate without material impact on our business.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have implemented or are planning to implement various strategies to minimize any disruptions to our potential commercialization of TRUDHESA and our planned clinical trials. As of the date of this prospectus, we do not expect any disruption in our supply chain of drugs necessary to initially launch TRUDHESA and to conduct our clinical trials. However, we are continuing to evaluate our clinical supply chain in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous state and local jurisdictions have imposed, and others in the future may impose, “shelter-in-place” orders, quarantines, executive orders and similar government orders and restrictions for their residents to control the spread of COVID-19. We are supporting our employees by utilizing remote work, leveraging virtual meeting technology and encouraging employees to follow local guidance.

The global pandemic of COVID-19 continues to rapidly evolve. The extent to which COVID-19 may impact our business, including our clinical trials, and financial condition will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the duration of the pandemic, travel restrictions and social distancing in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease.

78

Financial Operations Overview

Operating Expenses

Research and Development

Research and development costs are expensed as incurred. Research and development expenses consist primarily of salaries, benefits and other staff-related costs, including associated stock-based compensation, laboratory supplies, nonclinical and clinical studies and trials, manufacturing, costs for product candidates and POD devices to support our studies and trials, to design new versions of PODs, vendor validation and quality control preparation and fees paid to other entities that conduct certain research and development activities on our behalf.

We accrue for costs incurred as the services are being provided by monitoring the status of the trial or project and the invoices received from our external service providers. Nonrefundable advance payments for goods or services to be received in future periods for use in research and development activities are deferred and capitalized. The capitalized amounts are then expensed as the related goods are delivered and the services are performed. In addition, we account for fully refundable research and development tax credits, based on 43.5% of qualified research and development expenditures of our Australian subsidiary, as an offset to research and development expenses.

We track our direct costs by product candidate, but we do not allocate overhead costs or certain external costs because they support multiple product candidates. In particular, with respect to internal costs, several of our departments support multiple product candidate research and development programs, and we do not allocate those costs by product candidate.

We expect to continue to incur significant research and development expenses over the next several years as our clinical programs progress and we seek to complete existing clinical studies and trials and initiate additional nonclinical and clinical studies and trials and pursue regulatory approval of our product candidates.

The process of conducting the necessary clinical research to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time-consuming, and the successful development of our product candidates is highly uncertain. Our research and development expenses may vary significantly based on factors such as:

∎ the phases of development of our product candidates;

∎ the progress and results of our research and development activities;

∎ the number of trials required for regulatory approval of our product candidates;

∎ the number of sites included in the trials;

∎ the countries in which the trials are conducted;

∎ the length of time required to enroll eligible subjects and initiate clinical trials;

∎ the number of subjects that participate in the trials;

∎ the drop-out and discontinuation rate of subjects;

∎ potential additional safety monitoring requested by regulatory agencies;

∎ the duration of subject participation in the trials and follow-up;

∎ the cost and timing of manufacturing of our product candidates;

∎ the receipt of regulatory approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;

∎ the timing, receipt and terms of any marketing approvals from applicable regulatory authorities;

∎ the hiring and retention of research and development personnel;

∎ the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or other future pandemics on timelines and clinical operations, which may lead to increased costs, delays or both; and

79

∎ the extent to which we establish collaboration, licensing or similar arrangements and the performance of any related third parties.

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of any of our product candidates could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate.

General and Administrative

Our general and administrative expenses consist primarily of employee-related expenses, including salaries, benefits, travel and stock-based compensation for our personnel in executive, finance and accounting, human resources, and other administrative functions, as well as fees paid for accounting, legal and tax services, consulting fees and facilities costs not otherwise included in research and development expenses. We also expect selling and marketing costs to increase significantly as we prepare for the expected commercial launch of TRUDHESA, if approved, including the build out of our specialized sales force beginning in 2021 and further growth of our commercial infrastructure thereafter. We anticipate that, following completion of this offering, we will incur additional expenses associated with operating as a public company, including increased expenses related to audit, legal, regulatory, and tax-related services associated with maintaining compliance with the rules and regulations of the SEC and standards applicable to companies listed on a national securities exchange, additional insurance expenses, investor relations activities and other administrative and professional services.

Other Expense, Net

Other expense, net, consists of interest earned on our cash and changes in the fair value of our redeemable convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities.

Consolidated Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2019 and 2020

	Year Ended December 31,						Change
	2019			2020
	(in thousands)
Operating expenses:
Research and development	$	28,812		$	27,285		$	(1,527	)
General administrative		12,754			18,049			5,295
Total operating expenses		41,566			45,334			3,768
Loss from operations		(41,566	)		(45,334	)		(3,768	)
Other expense, net		(263	)		(463	)		(200	)
Loss before income taxes		(41,829	)		(45,797	)		(3,968	)
Provision for income taxes		(30	)		(1	)		29
Net loss and comprehensive loss		(41,859	)		(45,798	)		(3,939	)
Accretion on redeemable convertible preferred stock		(505	)		(518	)		(13	)
Net loss attributable to common stockholders	$	(42,364	)	$	(46,316	)	$	(3,952	)

Research and Development

Research and development expenses were $28.8 million in 2019, compared to $27.3 million in 2020. The decrease of $1.5 million was primarily due to a $4.0 million decrease in program-specific

80

costs supporting clinical development of our product candidates, primarily for TRUDHESA, INP105 and INP107, as clinical trials either closed or neared completion. This decrease was partially offset by an increase in non program-specific costs of $2.5 million primarily related to personnel costs due to an increase in headcount.

The following table summarizes the period-over-period change in research and development expenses by product candidate for the periods indicated:

	Year Ended December 31,
	2019			2020			Change
	(in thousands)
Program-specific costs:
TRUDHESA	$	17,199		$	15,961		$	(1,238	)
INP105		1,759			222			(1,537	)
INP107(1)		1,242			82			(1,160	)
Other programs		102			55			(47	)
Total program-specific costs		20,302			16,320			(3,982	)
Non program-specific costs:
Personnel-related		7,599			9,701			2,102
Cost reimbursements and credits		(227	)		(47	)		180
Internal, overhead and other expenses		1,138			1,311			173
Total non program-specific costs		8,510			10,965			2,455
Total research and development expenses	$	28,812		$	27,285		$	(1,527	)

(1) Includes expenditures relating to a levodopa-only formulation, prior to our decision to move INP107 forward in clinical development.

General and Administrative

General and administrative expenses were $12.8 million in 2019, compared to $18.0 million in 2020. The increase of $5.3 million was primarily due to a $3.2 million increase in personnel-related expenses due to an increase in headcount, along with accrued bonus and severance for our former CEO. The increase was also due to an increase in commercialization activities in marketing, market access and sales related services of $0.9 million, and an increase in routine legal expenses of $1.1 million.

Other Expense, Net

Other expense, net was $0.3 million in 2019, compared to $0.5 million in 2020. The increase of $0.2 million was primarily due to a decrease in interest income of $0.4 million as a result of lower cash balances and an increase in interest expense of $0.2 million related to the amortization of the debt discount. This was partially offset by a decrease of expense of $0.4 million attributable to changes in the fair value of our convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities.

Unaudited Pro Forma Information

Immediately prior to the completion of this offering, all outstanding shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock will automatically convert into shares of our common stock. Unaudited pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders was computed to give effect to the (i) automatic conversion of all outstanding shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock into shares of common stock at a ratio of (a) 1:1 for Series A, C, and D, and (b) 1:2.10608 for Series B, in connection with a Qualified Public Offering, using the as-converted method as though the conversion had occurred as of the beginning of the period or the date of issuance, if later; (ii) the automatic exchange of a

81

warrant held by Avenue Venture Opportunities Fund, L.P., or Avenue, into 1,762,810 shares upon completion of this offering, and (iii) the net exercise of redeemable convertible preferred stock warrants, that would otherwise expire upon completion of the IPO, based on an assumed IPO price of         per share. Pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders does not include the shares expected to be sold in this offering or the conversion of the 2021 convertible notes.

The following table sets forth the computation of the unaudited pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to common stockholders (in thousands, except share and per share data):

	Year Ended December 31, 2020
	(Unaudited)
Numerator:
Net loss attributable to common stockholders	$	(46,316	)
Change in fair value of redeemable convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities		153
Accretion to redemption value on redeemable convertible preferred stock		518
Net loss used in computing pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted	$	(45,645	)
Denominator:
Weighted-average shares of common stock used in computing net loss per share attributable to common stockholders		8,328,911
Pro forma adjustment to reflect conversion of redeemable convertible preferred stock		205,662,100
Pro forma adjustment to reflect automatic exchange of Avenue warrant
Pro forma adjustment to reflect net exercise of redeemable convertible preferred stock warrants
Weighted-average shares of common stock used in computing pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted
Pro forma net loss per share attributable to common stockholders, basic and diluted	$

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Sources of Liquidity

Due to our significant research and development expenditures, we have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. Through December 31, 2020, we have funded our operations primarily through the issuance of convertible promissory notes, redeemable convertible preferred stock, debt and warrants with aggregate proceeds of $135.0 million. In March 2021, we issued convertible promissory notes for aggregate proceeds of $7.5 million, or the 2021 convertible notes. As of December 31, 2020, we had available cash of $7.1 million. We believe our cash as of December 31, 2020, together with the proceeds from the 2021 convertible notes, will not be sufficient for us to continue as a going concern for at least one year from the issuance date of our financial statements. We believe that this raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result, we will be required to raise additional capital. If sufficient funds on acceptable terms are not available when needed, we could be required to significantly reduce our operating expenses and delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more of our development programs. Failure to manage discretionary spending or raise additional financing, as needed, may adversely impact our ability to achieve our intended business objectives.

82

In November 2020, we entered into a debt and equity financing agreement, or the Avenue Agreement, with Avenue. The Avenue Agreement provides for a 36-month term loan of up to $20.0 million, of which $10.0 million was funded at close and an additional $10.0 million is available at our request until December 31, 2021, subject to (i) completion of an underwritten public offering with gross proceeds of at least $75.0 million, or a Qualified Public Offering, (ii) receipt of FDA approval of TRUDHESA and (iii) approval by Avenue’s investment committee. Under the agreement, Avenue also has the right to invest up to $10.0 million in our equity securities in a private placement concurrent with the closing of our initial public offering at the initial price to the public, subject to mutual agreement. Loans under the Avenue Agreement incur interest at an initial interest rate of 11% per year. Payments for the term loan are interest only for the initial 12 months and can be extended to (i) 24 months upon achieving a Qualified Public Offering or (ii) 36 months upon achieving the first interest only period extension and FDA approval of TRUDHESA. The term loan will amortize in equal payments of principal from the end of the interest only period to the expiration of the 36-month term on November 1, 2023. The term loan is subject to a final payment fee and prepayment fees. Prior to a Qualified Public Offering, the term loan is secured by substantially all of our assets, including substantially all of our intellectual property. Following closing of a Qualified Public Offering, the term loan will be secured by substantially all of our assets, excluding our intellectual property.

We also issued a warrant to Avenue to purchase, at its option, either 1,762,810 shares of our Series D redeemable convertible preferred stock or a number of shares of the preferred stock issued in our next preferred stock equity financing determined based on the sale price of such preferred stock. Upon completion of this offering, this warrant will be automatically exchanged for 1,762,810 shares of common stock for no additional consideration.

Cash Flows

	Year Ended December 31,
	2019			2020
	(in thousands)
Cash used in operating activities	$	(36,487	)	$	(39,183	)
Cash used in investing activities		(1,523	)		(1,782	)
Cash provided by financing activities		21			11,059
Net decrease in cash	$	(37,989	)	$	(29,906	)

Cash Flows From Operating Activities

For 2019, cash used in operating activities was $36.5 million, which consisted of a net loss of $41.9 million partially offset by a net change of $3.2 million in operating assets and liabilities and $2.2 million in non-cash charges. The net change in our operating assets was primarily due to increases in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $3.8 million due to an increase in the level of research and development expenses and other assets of $0.3 million partially offset by an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets and other assets of $0.9 million. The non-cash charges primarily consisted of depreciation and amortization of $0.7 million, stock-based compensation of $0.8 million and $0.7 million from a change in the fair value of our redeemable convertible preferred stock warrant liabilities.

For 2020, cash used in operating activities was $39.2 million, which consisted of a net loss of $45.8 million partially offset by $5.1 million in non-cash charges and by a net change of $1.5 million in operating assets and liabilities. The non-cash charges primarily consisted of stock-based compensation of $3.6 million, depreciation and amortization of $1.1 million, amortization of debt discounts of $0.2 million, and $0.2 million from a change in the fair value of our redeemable convertible

83

preferred stock warrant liabilities. The net change in our operating assets was primarily due to an increase in accounts payable of $1.5 million and a decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $1.4 million partially offset by a decrease in accrued liabilities of $1.2 million and an increase in other assets of $0.2 million.

Cash Flows From Investing Activities

For 2019 and 2020, cash used in investing activities of $1.5 million and $1.8 million, respectively, was related to purchases of property and equipment.

Cash Flows From Financing Activities

For 2019, cash provided by financing activities was $21,000, consisting primarily of proceeds from the exercise of stock options.

For 2020, cash provided by financing activities was $11.1 million, consisting primarily of $9.7 million in proceeds from the issuance of debt, $0.9 million in proceeds from the exercise of stock options, and $0.5 million in proceeds from the issuance of redeemable convertible preferred stock.

Funding Requirements

We use our cash to fund operating expenses, including research and development expenditures and sales and marketing in anticipation of a potential commercial launch for TRUDHESA. We will incur significant expense as we prepare for and execute a potential commercial launch for TRUDHESA. We plan to continue to incur research and development expenses for the foreseeable future as we continue clinical trials and move further into product candidate development. As a result, until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial product revenue, we expect to finance our cash needs primarily through a combination of equity or debt financings.

The timing and amount of our operating expenditures will depend largely on:

∎ the costs and timing of commercialization activities, including product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution, for any of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;

∎ the costs, timing and outcome of regulatory review of our product candidates;

∎ the number and development requirements of other product candidates that we may pursue;

∎ the costs associated with building out our operations;

∎ the revenue, if any, received from commercial sales of our product candidates for which we receive marketing approval;

∎ our ability to establish strategic collaborations;

∎ the costs and timing of preparing, filing and prosecuting patent applications, maintaining and enforcing our intellectual property rights and defending any intellectual property-related claims;

∎ the risk/benefit profile, cost and reimbursement policies with respect to our product candidates, if approved, and existing and potential future therapies that compete with our product candidates; and

∎ the costs associated with being a public company.

If we do raise additional capital through public or private equity or convertible debt offerings, the ownership interest of our existing stockholders will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights. If we raise additional capital through debt financing, we may be subject to additional liens against potentially all of our assets and covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends.

84

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

Since our inception, we have not engaged in any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined in the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Critical Accounting Polices and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and consolidated results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, as well as the reported revenue generated, and reported expenses incurred during the reporting periods. Our estimates are based on our historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are described in the notes to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus, we believe that the following critical accounting policies are most important to understanding and evaluating our reported financial results.

Research and Development

We expense research and development costs as incurred. Research and development costs consist primarily of salaries, benefits, occupancy, materials and supplies, manufacturing and assembly of devices for clinical trials, contracted research, consulting arrangements, and other expenses incurred to sustain our research and development programs. We defer and capitalize non-refundable advance payments for goods or services that will be used or rendered for future research and development activities as prepaid expenses until the related goods are delivered or services are performed. We evaluate such payments for current or long-term classification based on when such services are expected to be received.

We are required to estimate our expenses resulting from our obligation under contracts with vendors and consultants and clinical site agreements in connection with our research and development efforts. The financial terms of these contracts are subject to negotiations which vary contract to contract and may result in payment flows that do not match the periods over which materials or services are provided to us under such contracts. We match those expenses with the period in which services and efforts are expended and we account for these expenses according to the progress of our research and development efforts. We determine advance payments for research and development services and accrual estimates through discussion with applicable personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or state of communication of clinical trials, or other services completed. We adjust our rate of research and development expense recognition if actual results differ from our estimates.

Stock-Based Compensation

We maintain a stock-based compensation plan as a long-term incentive for employees, consultants and members of our board of directors. The plan allows for the issuance of incentive stock options, non-qualified stock options, restricted stock units and other forms of stock awards.

We recognize stock-based compensation expense for stock options on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period. Our stock-based compensation costs are based upon the grant date fair value of options estimated using the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model. This model utilizes

85

inputs which are highly subjective assumptions and generally require significant judgment. These assumptions include:

∎ Expected Term.    The expected term represents the period that the stock-based awards are expected to be outstanding. We use the simplified method (based on the mid-point between the vesting date and the end of the contractual term) to determine the expected term.

∎ Expected Volatility.    Since we have been privately held and do not have any trading history for our common stock, the expected volatility was estimated based on the average historical volatilities for comparable publicly traded pharmaceutical companies over a period equal to the expected term of the stock option grants. The comparable companies were chosen based on their similar size, stage in the life cycle and area of specialty. We will continue to apply this process until a sufficient amount of historical information regarding the volatility of our own stock price becomes available.

∎ Risk-Free Interest Rate.    The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury zero coupon issues in effect at the time of grant for periods corresponding with the expected term of option.

∎ Expected Dividend.    We have never paid dividends on our common stock and have no plans to pay dividends on our common stock. Therefore, we used an expected dividend yield of zero.

We recorded stock-based compensation expense of $0.8 million and $3.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2020, respectively. The fair values of the shares of common stock underlying our share-based awards are estimated on each grant date by our board of directors. Our board of directors considers, among other things, valuations of our common stock which were prepared by an unrelated third-party valuation firm in accordance with the guidance provided by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants 2013 Practice Aid, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation. In determining a fair value for our common stock, we used the Backsolve Method. The Backsolve Method utilizes a recent equity financing to back into the implied equity value. The equity value is then allocated to the equity classes using an option pricing method and then reducing the implied common stock value by a discount for lack of marketability.

Given the absence of a public trading market prior to this offering, our board of directors with input from management considered numerous objective and subjective factors to determine the fair value of common stock. The factors included, but were not limited to:

∎ third-party valuations of our common stock;

∎ our stage of development;

∎ the status of research and development efforts;

∎ the rights, preferences and privileges of our redeemable convertible preferred stock relative to those of our common stock;

∎ our operating results and financial condition, including our levels of available capital resources;

∎ equity market conditions affecting comparable public companies;

∎ general U.S. market conditions; and

∎ the lack of marketability of our common stock.

For valuations after the completion of this offering, the fair value of each share of underlying common stock will be based on the closing price of our common stock as reported on the date of grant.

The intrinsic value of all outstanding options as of December 31, 2020 was $            million based on an assumed initial public offering price of $            per share, the midpoint of the price range set forth on the cover of this prospectus.

86

Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock Warrant Liabilities

We have issued warrants to purchase shares of our redeemable convertible preferred stock that are accounted for as liabilities at fair value, because the shares underlying the warrants contain contingent redemption features outside our control. Warrants classified as liabilities are recorded on the consolidated balance sheets at their fair value on the date of issuance and remeasured to fair value on each subsequent reporting period, with the changes in fair value recognized as a component of other expense, net in the consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the warrants was determined using an option pricing model. Under this model, our estimated equity value as of the measurement date is allocated to various classes of financial instruments (such as common and redeemable convertible preferred stock and warrants to purchase redeemable convertible preferred stock) based on their rights and preferences in an assumed liquidity scenario. The liability is adjusted for changes in the fair value of these warrants until the earlier of the exercise of the warrants, the expiration of the warrants, or until such time as the warrants are no longer considered liability instruments.

Income Taxes

We recognize deferred income taxes for temporary differences between the basis of assets and liabilities for financial statement and income tax purposes. In evaluating our valuation allowance, we consider all available positive and negative evidence, including scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities, projected future taxable income, tax planning strategies, and recent financial performance. Due to uncertainty with respect to ultimate realizability of deferred tax assets, we have provided a valuation allowance against the U.S. deferred tax assets. We intend to maintain a full valuation allowance on the federal and state deferred tax assets until sufficient positive evidence exists to support reversal of the valuation allowance.

At December 31, 2020, we had federal NOL and research and development credit carryforwards of approximately $21.4 million and $6.5 million that begin to expire in 2028 and 2029, respectively. In addition, we have $98.7 million of post 2017 federal NOL carryforwards that carry forward indefinitely. Utilization of the post 2017 federal NOL carryforwards is limited to eighty-percent of taxable income generated in a given tax year.

Under Sections 382 and 383 of the IRC, substantial changes in our ownership may limit the amount of NOL and research and development credit carryforwards that could be used annually in the future to offset taxable income. The tax benefits related to future utilization of federal and state NOL carryforwards, credit carryforwards, and other deferred tax assets may be limited or lost if cumulative changes in ownership exceeds 50% within any three-year period. We have not completed an IRC Section 382/383 analysis regarding the limitation of NOL and credit carryforwards. If a change in ownership were to have occurred, the annual limitation may result in the expiration of NOL carryforwards and credits before utilization. If eliminated, the related asset would be removed from the deferred tax asset schedule with a corresponding reduction in the valuation allowance.

We record unrecognized tax benefits as liabilities and adjust these liabilities when our judgment changes as a result of the evaluation of new information not previously available. Because of the complexity of some of these uncertainties, the ultimate resolution may result in a payment that is materially different from our current estimate of the unrecognized tax benefit liabilities. These differences will be reflected as increases or decreases to income tax expense in the period in which new information is available.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this prospectus for more information.

87

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

We are exposed to market risks in the ordinary course of our business. These risks primarily include interest rate sensitivities. We held cash of $7.1 million and $37.0 million as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. We generally hold our cash in interest-bearing money market accounts. Historical fluctuations in interest rates have not been significant for us. Due to the low risk profile of our investments, an immediate 100 basis point change in interest rates would not have a material effect on the fair market value of our cash.

Emerging Growth Company and Smaller Reporting Company Status

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the JOBS Act. Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards issued subsequent to the enactment of the JOBS Act until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We elected to use this extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until the earlier of the date that we (i) are no longer an emerging growth company or (ii) affirmatively and irrevocably opt out of the extended transition period provided in the JOBS Act. As a result, these consolidated financial statements may not be comparable to companies that comply with the new or revised accounting pronouncements as of public company effective dates. We are using the extended transition period for any other new or revised accounting standards during the period in which we remain an emerging growth company.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) the last day of our first fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of this offering, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenues of at least $1.07 billion or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30^th and (ii) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities during the prior three-year period.

We are also a “smaller reporting company,” meaning that the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates plus the proposed aggregate amount of gross proceeds to us as a result of this offering is less than $700.0 million and our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year. We may continue to be a smaller reporting company after this offering if either (i) the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $250.0 million or (ii) our annual revenue is less than $100.0 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and the market value of our stock held by non-affiliates is less than $700.0 million. If we are a smaller reporting company at the time we cease to be an emerging growth company, we may continue to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are available to smaller reporting companies. Specifically, as a smaller reporting company we may choose to present only the two most recent fiscal years of audited financial statements in our Annual Reports on Form 10-K and, similar to emerging growth companies, smaller reporting companies have reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation.

88

BUSINESS

Overview

We are a late-stage pharmaceutical company focused on utilizing our proprietary technology to develop and commercialize transformative therapies for patients suffering from diseases with high unmet medical needs, with an initial focus on diseases of the CNS. Our company was founded on the premise that the upper nasal cavity can be an optimal treatment entry point for CNS and other diseases where rapid vascular absorption can result in superior clinical outcomes. Our strategy is to pair our proprietary POD upper nasal delivery technology with well-established therapeutics or other therapeutics where rapid vascular absorption is preferred to drive therapeutic benefit, improve patient outcomes, reduce drug development risk and expand the commercial opportunity within our target diseases. Since 2016, we have identified and advanced multiple product candidates, including TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine and INP105 for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression in patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder, or ASD. Our pipeline of proprietary product candidates also includes INP107 for the treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s Disease. In November 2020, we submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA, for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients. The FDA has filed and accepted the NDA for review and established a PDUFA goal date of September 6, 2021.

We have designed our proprietary POD technology to target the vascular-rich upper nasal cavity, and to provide rapid absorption, consistent drug biodistribution and ease of use for a patient, provider or caregiver. Our goal with our POD technology is to deliver injection-like clinical outcomes non-invasively. We believe that we are the first company to successfully harness the benefits of delivery to the upper nasal cavity to improve delivery and the pharmacologic potential of CNS therapies.

The following table summarizes our product candidates, each of which is wholly owned:

89

POD Technology

Using our proprietary POD technology, we have developed devices that deliver therapeutics directly to the upper nasal cavity. These devices are designed to offer several key benefits compared to traditional nasal delivery systems, including:

∎ Rapid Onset. The precise spray plume and biphasic nature of delivery to the upper nasal cavity allows for superior dose deposition and rapid absorption into the systemic circulation as compared to traditional nasal delivery systems.

∎ Consistent Drug Bioavailability. Metered propellant dosing allows for more consistent blood levels than typically seen with traditional nasal sprays and are equivalent, or superior, to those achieved through IM injections.

∎ Improved Patient-Provider Experience. Our proprietary gas propulsion mechanism eliminates the need for coordination of breathing and enables delivery of a dosing in 1/10th of a second, enabling self- or provider-administration in a manner that improves patient comfort and compliance.

∎ Manufacturability. Separation of propellant and drug within the POD device helps streamline CMC development, as we are not constrained by the limits of co-formulating our therapeutics inside of a pressurized propellant canister.

∎ Formulation Versatility. The POD device is versatile and can deliver both liquid and powder formulations in order to potentially address a wide variety of indications across multiple therapeutic areas.

∎ Strong Intellectual Property Position. We believe that we have a strong global intellectual property position relating to our POD device and product candidates. We have four U.S. issued patents and 21 patents issued in ex-U.S. jurisdictions directed to our approach of drug delivery to the upper nasal cavity, including claims directed to a nasal device with separate drug and propellant compartments. Our patent portfolio is expected to provide patent protection ranging from 2032 to 2040.

We believe that our in-house technical and development expertise positions us to address unmet medical needs across multiple therapeutic areas by delivering well-established and novel drugs consistently, rapidly and non-invasively. Our technical and development expertise has allowed us to rapidly identify and develop our product candidates to their current state in under 5 years. For example, INP105 was advanced from lead candidate selection to development of more than 20 formulations, the completion of five nonclinical studies, and ultimately a proof-of-concept clinical trial, within 16 months. We have tested over 30 small molecules and biologics for suitability of nasal drug administration with our proprietary POD technology. This depth of knowledge and experience, along with our proprietary technology, creates a platform for rapid additional pipeline expansion. In addition to our technology and development expertise, our strong intellectual property portfolio protects multiple aspects of our approach to delivering drug to the upper nasal cavity. We believe that our apparatus, composition of matter and method of use intellectual property can provide strong exclusivity protection to our product candidates.

Our Product Candidates

TRUDHESA (Acute Treatment of Migraine)

We are currently developing our lead product candidate, TRUDHESA (INP104), as an upper nasal formulation of DHE administered using our proprietary POD technology for the acute treatment of migraine. Migraine is a growing market projected to triple in size to over $10 billion by 2028 with the introduction of multiple new product offerings and an expected increase in disease diagnosis. DHE is widely used as part of a standard of care for treatment of migraines, despite being limited by IV and

90

injection delivery or traditional nasal administration. IV and injection delivery require administration administered in physicians’ offices, migraine clinics and hospitals, and traditional nasal administration has been challenged by inconsistent efficacy.

In June 2020, we announced the following exploratory efficacy results of our STOP301 trial to evaluate the safety and tolerability of long-term, intermittent use of TRUDHESA as an acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adult patients. In this trial, baseline results prior to trial initiation were based on migraine attacks where patients used their standard acute migraine medication. In the trial:

∎ 38% of patients were pain free at two hours after their first dose of TRUDHESA.

∎ 52% of patients receiving TRUDHESA were free of their most bothersome migraine symptom at two hours.

∎ Patients treated with TRUDHESA also demonstrated improvement in pain relief: 16% of patients treated with TRUDHESA had pain relief within 15 minutes of treatment, and 66% had pain relief within two hours.

The exploratory endpoints of the trial also included an assessment of the following long-term outcomes of TRUDHESA when patients were treated for six months:

∎ 38% of patients treated with TRUDHESA remained pain free at two hours through three months of treatment and 34% of patients treated with TRUDHESA remained pain free at two hours through six months of treatment.

∎ Patients who received TRUDHESA saw a 48% reduction in the frequency of their migraines compared to baseline during the six-month trial.

∎ 98% and 95% of patients achieving pain freedom at two hours on TRUDHESA did not suffer a relapse in migraine or require a rescue medication at 24 hours and 48 hours, respectively, by weeks 21 to 24.

∎ EAER data showed a meaningful reduction in the usage of healthcare resources by patients treated with TRUDHESA versus their baseline. Emergency room visits were reduced by approximately 73% and hospitalizations and urgent care visits were reduced by 100%.

Although the trial was not powered to determine statistical significance of the exploratory efficacy endpoints, we believe these exploratory endpoints provide important data for evaluating the clinical benefit of TRUDHESA and showed consistency with the generally understood benefits of DHE for the acute treatment of migraines. The primary endpoints of the STOP301 trial were safety and tolerability of long-term, intermittent use. In this trial, TRUDHESA was generally well tolerated. There were a total of seven treatment emergent SAEs none of which were determined by the investigator to be related to TRUDHESA, or led to withdrawal from the trial. There were also no significant changes to sense of smell, and no significant abnormal findings from endoscopy examinations.

In November 2020, we submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients. The FDA has filed and accepted the NDA for review and established a PDUFA goal date of September 6, 2021. The brand name TRUDHESA has been conditionally approved by the FDA.

If approved, we believe we can successfully commercialize TRUDHESA in the United States with a specialty sales force beginning with approximately 60 representatives, and increasing to approximately 120 representatives, focusing in areas with increased demand. We intend to strategically pursue high value prescribers and early adopters, beginning with 8,000 of the highest volume migraine treatment

91

prescribers. Based on recent migraine treatment product launches, such as ubrogepant and rimegepant, we believe this approach can be successful in accessing the concentrated prescriber bases in migraine. This target base includes approximately 4,000 neurologists and 4,000 high prescribing primary care physicians and headache specialists who have significant experience with prescribing DHE. These groups make up 35% of the migraine treatment prescriptions written in 2020 in the United States. In particular, neurologist prescription productivity has grown an average of approximately 15% per year over the last two years, a growth figure aided by an increase in the number of patients seeking treatment from neurologists and primary care physicians for migraine. The planned scale up to 120 representatives is intended to allow us to target an additional 8,000 high prescribing physicians that we believe will enable us to expand coverage to 45% of all migraine treatment prescriptions in the United States. We intend to build a commercial infrastructure focused on distribution, access, promotion, education and customer support. Our market research indicates that over 70% of migraine sufferers are seeking better treatments, and physicians are willing to prescribe and payors support access at profitable price and rebate points. With approximately 72% of migraine prescriptions paid by commercial payors, we believe this market presents an attractive payor mix. We anticipate using a robust sample program to ensure trial with TRUDHESA for patients seeking better treatments and outcomes. Also, as part of our commercialization strategy, we plan to educate healthcare practitioners and patients, partner with national associations and actively support advocacy groups in the migraine market. These efforts will be supplemented with non-personal promotion to all targeted and non-targeted medium value physicians. To capture the maximum commercial opportunity of TRUDHESA, we may also selectively seek partners to commercialize the product outside of our target markets, including additional penetration within the broader primary care setting, as well as in geographies outside of the United States.

INP105 (Acute Treatment of Agitation and Aggression in Autism Spectrum Disorder)

We are currently developing our second product candidate, INP105, as an upper nasal formulation of olanzapine administered using our proprietary POD technology for the treatment of agitation and aggression associated with ASD. ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting approximately 3.5 million children and adults in the United States and characterized by persistent difficulties in social communication and social interaction, coupled with restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior and higher aggression rates. Agitation and aggression are frequent and difficult to manage symptoms, and associated with negative outcomes for patients with ASD and their caregivers, including decreased quality of life, increased stress levels, and reduced availability of educational and social support. Based on a study of emergency room usage in Canada, which found that 18% of individuals with ASD aged 12 and up had visited the emergency room within the past year, and that approximately 34% of such visits were for mental health issues, we estimate that approximately 220,000 patients with ASD in the United States seek emergency room care due to mental health issues annually. Current treatment strategies include functional behavioral assessment, reinforcement strategies, functional communication training, and the use of second-generation antipsychotics. With an increasing rate of ASD diagnosis, we believe that the development of effective therapeutic and pharmacologic methods for preventing and treating aggression are essential to improving outcomes in this disorder. Currently, there is no approved treatment for patients living with ASD once there is onset of agitation leading to aggression, and we believe that INP105 has the potential to be an on-demand therapy in this indication.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose Phase 1 clinical trial in 40 healthy adults conducted in Australia, we observed similar bioavailability for INP105 compared to equivalent doses of olanzapine delivered through IM administration, as measured by the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve, or AUC, which reflects the actual body exposure to the drug after administration of a drug dose, and the maximum drug concentration, or Cmax, and achieved time to maximum drug concentration, or Tmax, 25-22% faster than that of IM olanzapine.

92

Based on its pharmacokinetic profile and method of administration, we believe INP105, if approved, has the potential to treat acute agitation and aggression events in this under-served population and in patients’ homes, potentially reducing visits to the emergency department and limiting the need to call in reinforcements to help caregivers. We plan to initiate a double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial of INP105 in adolescents with ASD in the United States by the end of 2021 and expect to report topline results in the second half of 2022.

INP107 (Treatment of OFF Episodes in Parkinson’s Disease)

We are also currently developing INP107 as an upper nasal formulation of carbidopa/levodopa administered using our proprietary POD technology for the treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s Disease, or Parkinson’s. The overall Parkinson’s market is expected to grow to over $8.4 billion by 2026, with emerging treatments for OFF episodes contributing to that growth. Current standard of care for the symptomatic treatment of Parkinson’s is oral levodopa; however when levodopa levels fall below their therapeutic range, patients may lose adequate control of motor symptoms, which are referred to as OFF episodes. Carbidopa is co-administered with levodopa to slow levodopa’s rapid absorption, thereby increasing the amount of levodopa available for the symptoms of Parkinson’s. INP107 is a self- or caregiver-administered, upper nasal therapy candidate designed to provide rapid delivery of levodopa to the brain for the treatment of OFF episodes. In 2019, we completed a Phase 2a clinical trial of INP107 and a levodopa-only formulation, in Australia, which demonstrated an encouraging pharmacokinetic profile in Parkinson’s patients. Based on results of the Phase 2a clinical trial, we expect to further develop the formulation of INP107 prior to advancing into additional clinical trials. We expect to initiate a Phase 1 pharmacokinetic and tolerability trial in Australia or the United States in 2022 for dose selection for additional clinical development of INP107.

Our Team

We have assembled a team of scientific, clinical and business leaders with deep expertise in neuroscience and a track record of building, growing and transacting pharmaceutical companies. Our Chief Executive Officer, Adrian Adams, has over 25 years of pharmaceutical experience with an emphasis on commercialization and strategic execution. Our co-founder and Chief Scientific Officer, John Hoekman, Ph.D., has over 15 years of experience in investigating upper nasal drug delivery and nose-to-brain delivery, is an inventor of our proprietary POD technology, is widely recognized as a pioneer in upper nasal cavity drug delivery and has evaluated over 30 CNS targeting compounds with over six different modalities including small molecules, proteins, peptides and antibodies as opportunities for upper nasal cavity delivery. Our Chief Financial Officer, John Leaman, M.D., has over 15 years of pharmaceutical experience with an emphasis on public company financial oversight, corporate strategy and business development. Our Chief Medical Officer, Stephen Shrewsbury, M.B. ChB., has over 30 years of experience in developing pulmonary and nasal drug delivery and CNS therapies at pharmaceutical companies including GlaxoSmithKline, Aquinox Pharmaceuticals, AVI Biopharma and MAP Pharmaceuticals, where he led the development of Levadex. Our Chief Commercial Officer, Leonard S. Paolillo, has nearly 20 years of experience with various companies in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, including Warner Chilcott and Kyowa Kirin. Our Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Lynn Gold, has over 30 years of experience of leading regulatory activities for pharmaceutical companies, including at Warner Chilcott, Pharmacia and Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, and has been involved in over 40 NDA submissions, with expertise in drug devices and delivery. We are supported by our board of directors, scientific advisory boards and a group of leading biotechnology-focused investors, including KKR Iris, Norwest Venture Partners, 5AM Venture Management, LLC, venBio and Vivo Capital.

93

Our Strategy

Our goal is to deliver transformative therapies, harnessing the benefits of delivery to the upper nasal cavity, to patients suffering from CNS diseases and other diseases with high unmet medical needs. The key tenets of our strategy to accomplish this goal include:

∎ Successfully commercialize TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine after potential regulatory approval. Based on the positive data from our STOP301 Phase 3 trial, we submitted an NDA in November 2020 for TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients. The FDA filed and accepted the NDA for review and established a PDUFA goal date of September 6, 2021. If approved, we believe we can successfully commercialize TRUDHESA in the United States with a specialty sales force beginning with approximately 60 representatives, and increasing to approximately 120 representatives, focusing in areas with increased demand. We intend to strategically pursue high value prescribers and early adopters, beginning with 8,000 of the highest volume migraine treatment prescribers. Based on recent migraine treatment product launches, such as ubrogepant and rimegepant, we believe this approach can be successful in accessing the concentrated prescriber bases in migraine. This target base includes approximately 4,000 neurologists and 4,000 high prescribing primary care physicians and headache specialists who have significant experience with prescribing DHE. These groups make up 35% of the migraine treatment prescriptions written in 2020 in the United States. In particular, neurologist prescription productivity has grown an average of approximately 15% per year over the last two years, a growth figure aided by an increase in the number of patients seeking treatment from neurologists and primary care physicians for migraine. The planned scale up to 120 representatives is intended to allow us to target an additional 8,000 high prescribing physicians that we believe will enable us to expand coverage to 45% of all migraine treatment prescriptions in the United States. These efforts will be supplemented with non-personal promotion to all targeted and non-targeted medium value physicians. To capture the maximum commercial opportunity of TRUDHESA, we may also selectively seek partners to commercialize the product outside of our target markets, including additional penetration within the broader primary care setting, as well as in geographies outside of the United States.

∎ Rapidly advance INP105 through clinical development for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression associated with ASD. We believe INP105 has the potential to become a first-line on-demand therapy for the safe and rapid treatment of agitation and aggression events in patients with ASD. Based on the positive clinical data generated to date, INP105’s rapid onset of action and non-invasive delivery, we believe it is well positioned to expand the treatment setting beyond the emergency department to administration in in-patient treatment facilities and patients’ homes by parents or caregivers. We believe INP105 has the potential to reduce emergency room visits for the approximately 220,000 ASD patients in the United States that we estimate seek care due to mental health issues annually. We plan to initiate a double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial of INP105 as an acute treatment of agitation and aggression associated with ASD in adolescents and young adults in the United States by the end of 2021, and expect to report topline results in the second half of 2022.

∎ Maximize the therapeutic and commercial potential of our proprietary POD technology platform. Based on the unique characteristics and versatility of our proprietary POD technology, and expertise with developing novel drug formulations, we believe we are positioned to address multiple therapeutic areas with unmet medical needs. Our current strategy is to pair proven therapeutics with our proprietary POD technology and, thus, reduce risk by capitalizing on these therapeutics’ known safety, efficacy and commercialization history. We also intend to pair our proprietary POD technology with new chemical entities. While our initial focus is to address CNS diseases, we intend to explore the broader therapeutic utility of

94

our POD technology in diseases where rapid vascular absorption can result in superior clinical outcomes. In doing so, we may elect to enter into collaborations for third-party product candidates for which we believe that our technologies and expertise may be valuable.

∎ Expand applications of our existing product candidates. Our goal is to maximize the commercial potential of our existing product candidates by exploring additional indications. For example, in the case of INP105, in addition to patients with ASD, we believe the product candidate has potential utility as an acute treatment of agitation and aggression associated with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. We plan to selectively pursue development in follow-on indications and in patient populations where our product candidates can deliver meaningful clinical impact, and we have a clear clinical and regulatory approval pathway and that we believe we can commercialize successfully, if approved.

∎ Independently develop and commercialize product candidates in indications and geographies where we believe we can maximize value. Given the potential of our POD technology and product candidates to treat a wide range of diseases, we believe that it will be important to maintain in-house discipline with respect to our development and commercialization efforts. We have a disciplined strategy to maximize the value of our pipeline by retaining development and commercialization rights to those product candidates, indications and geographies that we believe we can ultimately commercialize successfully on our own if they are approved. We plan to collaborate on product candidates that we believe have promising utility in disease areas or patient populations that are better served by the resources or specific expertise of other biopharmaceutical companies.

Our Technology

We have developed upper nasal cavity devices to enable differentiated clinical profiles for our product candidates. These devices utilize our proprietary POD technology propellant and a biphasic spray that creates a precise plume or stream of drug to initially reach the vascular-rich upper nasal cavity and then a second puff of propellant to further distribute drug across the upper nasal cavity. Two of our devices are depicted below.

We have designed our proprietary POD technology to target the vascular-rich upper nasal cavity, and to provide rapid absorption, consistent drug biodistribution and ease of use for a patient, provider or caregiver. Our goal with our POD technology is to deliver injection-like clinical outcomes non-invasively. We believe that we are the first company to successfully harness the benefits of delivery to the upper nasal cavity to improve the therapeutic potential of CNS therapies. Traditional nasal pumps have suffered from high variability and low overall absorption. These characteristics have generally limited the nasal route of administration to local treatment of allergies or nasal inflammation. We have pioneered research into systemic drug delivery through the upper nasal cavity,the anatomy of

95

which is depicted in the picture below, to the CNS. We have demonstrated with multiple molecules that targeting the upper nasal cavity could improve the bioavailability and biodistribution of drugs into systemic circulation. The upper nasal cavity is more permeable, has a higher density of vasculature and has a reduced clearance rate compared to the lower nasal cavity. These advantages of the upper nasal cavity may allow for a better consistency in dosing and uptake as well as the potential for faster time to onset of action. We have spent years developing device technologies and drug formulations to take advantage of this route of administration. We currently pair our technologies with established therapeutics approved through other routes of administration to create drug-device combination product candidates with the potential to address significant unmet medical needs and broaden the addressable patient population within our initial indications. This technology also offers potential to expand into other therapeutic areas.

As demonstrated in the figures below, compared to traditional nasal pumps, which have a diffuse aerosol spray, the POD technology creates a soft focused stream which consistently delivers drug to the upper nasal cavity. The figure on the top left shows a demonstrative spray pattern of DHE in our proprietary POD technology. The figure on the top right shows a demonstrative spray pattern of DHE in a traditional nasal pump. The figure on the bottom left shows the different route to the CNS as a result of upper nasal cavity delivery.

POD Technology	Traditional Nasal Pump

Potential Advantages of Upper Nasal Cavity Delivery     ∎   Rapid uptake into the blood stream     ∎   Decreased dripping and swallowing   ∎   Consistent dosing and distribution

96

Our proprietary POD technology is designed to offer a number of key benefits compared to traditional nasal delivery systems. These features include:

∎ Dose Consistency.    Consistent dosing is critical to producing predictable and reproducible clinical outcomes. Unlike existing nasal delivery systems, which rely solely on mechanical pressure to deliver the drug into the nasal cavity, our proprietary POD technology utilizes hydrofluoroalkane, or HFA, gas as a propellant to expel the drug from our device into the upper nasal cavity, allowing us to achieve dose consistency within a 15% standard deviation of the mean consistent with guidance from the FDA.

∎ Biphasic Spray.    The POD devices deliver drugs through a biphasic spray, which consists of a first phase that delivers the drug to the upper nasal cavity and then a second phase that further distributes the drug across the upper nasal cavity.

∎ Narrow Plume Geometry.    Traditional nasal delivery systems create a wide aerosol plume that is typically unable to get past the two-to-three millimeter wide nasal vestibule, which creates variability in the absorption of the drug. The POD devices use a proprietary drug flow path and nozzle to create a narrow spray plume that can deliver drug past the vestibule and into the upper nasal cavity.

∎ Reduces Human Error.    Conventional nasal spray devices rely on the user to breathe in through their nasal passages while the dose is being administered. This can be challenging for patients to perform accurately and consistently. The POD device uses HFA gas to expel drug into the upper nasal cavity. The HFA gas is metered out in a consistent manner regardless of how much force the user applies to actuate the device. The HFA gas is then able to consistently expel the drug with less chance for user error. These features allow the POD devices to be used independently of patients’ breathing coordination, which may lead to more consistent drug absorption.

∎ Separated Drug and Propellant.    In our product candidates, the drug formulation and propellant are maintained in separated compartments of the device until delivery of the dose. This separation of the drug and propellant allows us to formulate our product candidates without being constrained by the limits of formulating inside of a pressurized propellant canister. We are developing POD devices for both liquid and powder drug formulations, and we believe that these devices can deliver a wide range of total dose.

We have developed unique POD devices for each of nonclinical development, early clinical trials, and commercialization. We have spent years developing these nonclinical devices and methods to create a robust early development process. With each of our product candidates, we have done extensive nonclinical testing to assess safety and expected clinical performance. Our proprietary POD technology allows for rapid decision making when advancing product candidates into clinical development by testing a variety of doses and formulations. With our proprietary POD technology, we have evaluated in a nonclinical setting multiple additional candidates that could be developed further in the future.

In addition to our proprietary POD technology, we have expertise in developing proprietary upper nasal formulations that further improve the product profile. The flexibility of our proprietary POD technology to deliver both liquid and powder formulations allows us to develop the most appropriate formulation for the patient, indication and dosing regimen. We evaluate each molecule in early development with the goal of making the simplest formulation using inactive ingredients present in FDA-approved drug products. Since our proprietary POD technology is not reliant on breath coordination, our nasal drug formulations do not need to achieve a specific particle size range like many other nasal or pulmonary delivery devices, which allows for more flexibility in the manufacturing process. Our expertise in upper nasal formulation allows us to select therapeutics that are already in wide use and regarded as safe in other delivery formats, for our product candidate pipeline. We believe we can also pair our proprietary POD technology with new chemical entities.

97

We believe that we have the ability to use our proprietary POD technology and upper nasal formulation expertise to produce product candidates that allow for convenient, non-invasive administration with the potential for injection-like clinical outcomes. Given their ease of administration, our product candidates can be self- or caregiver-administered outside of traditional patient care settings, thus expanding patient access. Additionally, our separation of propellant and drug in the POD device allows for reduced CMC risks. The unique characteristics of our product candidates have the potential to address unmet needs across multiple CNS diseases.

We have issued patent claims covering certain devices and methods of drug delivery, as well as pending patent applications directed to certain other embodiments of our device, drug formulations and methods of using our current product candidates. We believe that this apparatus, composition of matter and method of use intellectual property can provide strong exclusivity protection to our product candidates. Our existing solely owned patent portfolio is expected to provide patent protection ranging from 2032 to 2040, unless we receive patent term adjustment or patent term extension, or both.

Our Product Candidates

TRUDHESA for the Acute Treatment of Migraine

We are currently developing TRUDHESA as an upper nasal formulation of DHE administered using our proprietary POD technology for the acute treatment of migraine. DHE is widely used as part of a standard of care for the acute treatment of migraines, in addition to the use of triptans, but is generally limited by IV and injection delivery administered in physicians’ offices, migraine clinics and hospitals. In June 2020, we announced positive results of our 360-patient STOP301 trial to evaluate the safety and tolerability of long-term, intermittent use of TRUDHESA, and in November 2020, we submitted an NDA for TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine headaches with or without aura in adult patients. The FDA has filed and accepted the NDA for review and established a PDUFA goal date of September 6, 2021.

Disease Overview and Market Opportunity

Migraine is a chronic and debilitating disorder characterized by recurrent attacks generally lasting four to 72 hours with multiple symptoms, including typically one-sided, pulsating headaches of moderate to severe pain intensity that are associated with nausea or vomiting, sound sensitivity and light sensitivity. Migraines are often preceded by transient neurological warning symptoms, known as auras, which typically involve visual disturbances such as flashing lights but may also involve numbness or tingling in parts of the body. Migraines are both widespread and disabling.

The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2016 Study rates migraine as the fifth leading cause of years lived with disability in 2016. Based on market research commissioned by us, we believe that approximately 36 million individuals in the United States suffer from migraine attacks. Most sufferers experience migraine attacks once or twice per month and over 1.2 million emergency room visits per year are for acute treatment of migraine attacks. Migraine is a growing market projected to triple in size to over $10 billion by 2028 with the introduction of multiple new product offerings and an expected rise in disease diagnosis. Additionally, with the approvals of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, or gepants, for chronic migraine and the approvals of new therapies for the acute treatment of migraine, such as oral gepants and ditans, a new specific form of triptan, the awareness of migraine and its impact and treatment are expected to continue to grow. Of the approximately 18 million diagnosed migraine patients, approximately 12 million are not on active treatment. Of the six million patients diagnosed and on prescription treatment, up to 79% of the patients are willing to try another medication for the acute treatment of migraine.

Acute Treatment of Migraine and Limitation of Current Treatments

Until the recent approval of the gepant and ditan drugs, there has been limited innovation in the acute treatment of migraine since the introduction of triptans in 1992. Additional pharmacologic agents

98

used for the acute treatment of migraine include analgesics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-emetics and ergotamines. The migraine market has steadily increased from approximately 20 million prescriptions in 2017 to approximately 27 million prescriptions in 2020, while triptans’ share of the migraine market has steadily decreased from approximately 97% in 2017 to 72% in 2020. While triptans remain the most common prescribed therapy for migraines, they possess four major limitations that result in an unmet need for migraine patients:

∎ Unmet Need for Efficacy.    Approximately 30% to 40% of migraine patients do not fully respond to triptans, and alternatives, including gepant and ditan drugs, are limited. Triptans have also been shown to be more efficacious when taken early in a migraine attack, but those patients who wait or delay treatment may not experience the full benefit of triptan therapy.

∎ Need for More Rapid Onset.    While triptans have improved the treatment of migraine, their onset of pain relief is relatively slow. Historically, estimated onset of significant pain relief with oral triptans occurs between one and three hours after dosing.

∎ Need for Longer Duration of Effect.    Published studies cite that the recurrence within 24 hours of an effectively treated migraine is a common reason given for dissatisfaction with triptans.

∎ Opportunity for Improved Tolerability Profile.    Triptans as a class are known to be associated with an increase in blood pressure.

The recent approvals of gepant and ditan drugs have introduced new migraine treatment options into the market. While these oral medications are generally an improvement over triptans, there remains a significant unmet need. As oral medications, these products have relatively low efficacy and persistence rates. Further, ditans have significant potential side effects, including significant driving impairment, sleepiness and dizziness.

DHE is an acute therapy and an alternative to existing treatments that has been used for more than 60 years to safely and effectively treat migraine. DHE is widely used as part of a standard of care for treatment of migraines, despite being limited by IV and injection delivery or traditional nasal administration. IV and injection delivery require administration in physicians’ offices, migraine clinics and hospitals, and traditional nasal administration has been challenged by inconsistent efficacy. The AUC of DHE in the first two hours of exposure, or AUC0-2hr, is thought to be critical for achievement of pain relief in acute migraine. Many headache specialists consider DHE to be the current standard of care for the treatment of status migrainosus, which is a condition characterized by debilitating migraines that last more than 72 hours. Unlike triptans, DHE is known to bind to multiple receptors theorized to be implicated in migraine onset and duration. DHE overcomes many of the limitations of other existing treatments but in its current methods of administration present a number of limitations resulting in unmet needs for migraine patients, including:

∎ Need for More Convenient and Consistent Dosing.    DHE is available for administration both intravenously and nasally. Intravenous administration of DHE requires the supervision of a healthcare provider and is typically performed in a headache clinic or hospital setting, requiring the patient to travel while suffering with the migraine. DHE administrated nasally with traditional, lower cavity devices may lead to inconsistent dosing and slower speed of effect and pain relief.

∎ Opportunity for an Improved Tolerability Profile Compared to Intravenous Administration.    One of the common side effects of conventional DHE administered intravenously is nausea, which is thought to be due to the high Cmax. Patients who receive DHE intravenously are often administered an anti-nausea medication at the same time.

A survey of neurologists commissioned by us found that most neurologists are familiar with DHE and its mechanism of action as an acute therapy for migraine, and nearly all are interested in a new DHE delivery system.

99

Our Solution: TRUDHESA

We believe TRUDHESA, if approved, has the potential to be a preferred therapy for the acute treatment of migraines. TRUDHESA delivers DHE to the richly-vascularized upper nasal cavity, offering the potential for rapid and consistent biodistribution without injection. We believe that TRUDHESA may provide patients with the following benefits when compared to existing migraine therapeutics:

∎ Rapid Onset.    The delivery of DHE through our POD technology may offer rapid onset of pain relief similar to IV DHE and investigational pulmonary inhaled DHE (MAP0004). As observed in our completed studies, TRUDHESA administration resulted in a total plasma exposure of DHE in the first two hours of dosing similar to IV administration.

∎ Long-lasting.    DHE has been shown to interact with multiple receptors theorized to be implicated in migraine onset and duration. The durability of effect, as observed in our exploratory efficacy analyses by lower migraine recurrence with DHE (18%) versus triptans (45%), is likely attributable to longer-lasting effect at receptors such as 5-HT1B and 5HT-1D. In our Phase 1 clinical trial, TRUDHESA was observed to have similar blood levels of DHE compared to IV DHE from measurements at 20-minute through 48-hour.

∎ Broad Target Population.    Based on historical DHE use, TRUDHESA, like other forms of DHE, may provide a higher response rate than triptans and has the potential to treat patients who have not previously responded to triptans. Similar to other forms of DHE, TRUDHESA may also be effective against patients who suffer from morning migraine, severe and prolonged migraine, menstrual migraine or have cluster headache. Migraine treatment with DHE has also demonstrated efficacy, independent of when the migraine treatment is initiated, based on DHE reversing central sensitization, while triptans are ineffective once the migraine becomes centralized.

∎ Convenient and Consistent Delivery.    TRUDHESA is non-injectable, with the DHE dose delivered in 3/10ths of a second with minimal coordination from the patient. TRUDHESA has demonstrated more consistent blood levels than traditional nasal spray, yielding improved blood levels and a lower coefficient of variance with doses. Further, in our STOP301 trial, 84% of trial participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that TRUDHESA was “easy to use.”

∎ Low Incidence of Side Effects.    Nausea and vomiting related to DHE therapy are linked to the high Cmax related to IV administration. In our completed clinical trials, TRUDHESA has shown to be generally well-tolerated with few instances of nausea and vomiting.

∎ Reducing the Need for Additional Healthcare Resources for Acute Treatment of Migraines. EAER data from our STOP301 trials showed a significant reduction in the usage of healthcare resources by patients treated with TRUDHESA versus their baseline. By reducing the need for emergency room visits for patients with migraines, TRUDHESA has the potential to improve patients’ quality of life and reduce resource strain on healthcare facilities.

STOP301 Trial Results

Our STOP301 trial conducted in the United States evaluated the safety and tolerability of long-term, intermittent use of TRUDHESA in 354 patients for 24 weeks, with 74% of patients completing the treatment period, with a subset of 73 patients continuing for up to a total of 52 weeks, with 90% of continuing patients completing this extended treatment period. In total, 5,273 migraines were treated over the first 48 weeks and approximately 5,650 migraines were treated over the full trial. We completed the trial and announced positive top-line data in June 2020, and we submitted data from this trial, along with the Phase 1 pharmacokinetic trial, in our NDA submission in November 2020.

This trial consisted of a four-week screening period, a 24-week treatment period for all participants, a 28-week treatment period extension with a sufficient number of participants to ensure 150 and 50 evaluable data sets in the 24 and 52 week periods, respectively, and a two-week post-treatment follow-up period for all participants. This was an outpatient trial in patients who currently suffer a minimum of two migraines per month. During the trial, participants were instructed on how to self-administer TRUDHESA. The primary endpoints of the clinical trial were:

∎ treatment emergent adverse events, or TEAEs;

100

∎ change in nasal mucosa as measured by focused, endoscopic nasal exams conducted by an ear, nose and throat physician following the Nasal Examination Manual; and

∎ change in olfactory function as assessed by the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test.

In the trial, TRUDHESA was generally well-tolerated. There were seven SAEs among five patients (1.4%) over the 52-week study. Three patients had one SAE each, consisting of one event each of ovarian mass, intestinal obstruction and miscarriage. Two patients had more than one SAE: one patient with pulmonary embolism and visual impairment and one patient with clavicle and rib fractures. none of the SAEs were nasal-related and none of the SAEs were determined by the trial investigator to be related to TRUDHESA or led to withdrawal from the trial. There were also no clinically significant changes in olfactory function, and no abnormal findings from endoscopy examinations. The majority of TRUDHESA-related TEAEs were mild and transient, with the most frequent being nasal congestion (15.0%), nausea (6.8%), nasal discomfort (5.1%) and unpleasant taste (5.1%). There were no cardiac adverse events and the discontinuation rate due to adverse events was only 6.8%. While the 12-month trial extension was initiated to gather additional data on long term use of TRUDHESA, ultimately the extension was unnecessary per trial protocol due to lack of safety signals in the 6-month cohort.

Exploratory efficacy measures were captured consisting of reporting in an electronic diary the time of onset of an aura, a migraine and associated symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, sound sensitivity and light sensitivity. After taking a dose of TRUDHESA, questions about the severity of and relief from all symptoms were repeated at 15 minutes, 30 minutes and 1, 2, 8, 24 and 48 hours post dosing. Patients were also required to undergo periodic evaluation using Migraine Disability Assessment, or MIDAS, and Headache Impact Test, or HIT-6, questionnaires.

The trial evaluated the acute treatment effects of TRUDHESA against the patient’s best previous migraine treatment and the long-term effects of TRUDHESA utilized by patients for six months as exploratory efficacy endpoints. While not powered for statistical significance, on their first dose of TRUDHESA, 38% of patients reported being pain free at two hours. This effect remained consistent with long-term administration as 39% of all patients treated with TRUDHESA through three months had pain freedom at two hours (2,559 total migraines), and 35% of all patients treated with TRUDHESA through six months had pain freedom at two hours (1,736 total migraines). TRUDHESA was also associated with a reduction in pain symptoms, as 52% of patients receiving TRUDHESA were free of their most bothersome migraine symptom at two hours. Further, as shown in the figure below, 16% of patients who were treated with TRUDHESA had pain relief within 15 minutes and 66% of patients had pain relief within 2 hours (N=354).

101

The long-term nature of the STOP301 trial also provided notable long-term data on the continued administration of TRUDHESA in an exploratory efficacy analysis conducted as part of the trial. As reflected in the figure below, patients treated with TRUDHESA reported a 48% reduction in the frequency of their migraines over baseline during the 6-month trial.

Pain freedom was consistent across multiple attacks throughout the 52-week treatment period, with between 31%-39% of patients in each measurement period achieving pain freedom at two hours. Additionally, 98% and 95% of patients achieving pain freedom at two hours on TRUDHESA did not suffer a relapse in migraine or require a rescue medication at 24 hours and 48 hours, respectively, by weeks 21 to 24.

EAER data also showed a meaningful reduction in the usage of healthcare resources by patients treated with TRUDHESA versus their baseline. Specifically, emergency room visits were reduced by approximately 73% and hospitalizations and urgent care visits were reduced by 100%.

102

Phase 1 Clinical Trial Results

We completed a randomized three-way crossover pivotal Phase 1 clinical trial in the fourth quarter of 2017. Thirty-six healthy volunteers in Australia were randomized, and 27 were included in the evaluation of pharmacokinetic measures and comparative bioavailability. Migranal and TRUDHESA were self-administered by the trial participants. Migranal is a FDA-approved nasal spray product using DHE. The primary endpoint was to compare the bioavailability of DHE following single dose administration of 1.45 mg TRUDHESA, 1mg IV DHE as a safety comparator and 2mg Migranal (a nasal pump administered DHE) as an efficacy comparator. Pharmacokinetic measures, which refers to the movement of drug through the body, were recorded from baseline through 48 hours, with measures taken at 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 50 and 60 minutes within the first hour. Secondary endpoints were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of single doses of TRUDHESA and to assess plasma concentrations of 8’-hydroxy-dihydroergotamine, the primary metabolite of DHE.

Despite containing approximately 28% less DHE per dose than Migranal, TRUDHESA achieved blood levels comparable to IV DHE, which quickly separated from Migranal blood levels at five minutes, achieved Tmax more rapidly, achieved a four-fold increase in Cmax and a three-fold increase in AUC. After 20 minutes, TRUDHESA reached and sustained DHE levels similar to those seen with IV dosing through the next 48 hours. The following figure shows the pharmacokinetic measurements of DHE with TRUDHESA, IV DHE and Migranal for the first four hours after dosing.

Unlike standard bioequivalence studies, the intent of this trial was to investigate whether Cmax, AUC and Tmax of TRUDHESA lay between the 90% confidence intervals of IV DHE and Migranal. This would permit a bridge to the FDA’s findings of safety data for the IV product with higher blood levels, and to the FDA’s efficacy findings for Migranal with lower blood levels. As the following table indicates, TRUDHESA met the preplanned statistical endpoints to satisfy this recommendation from the FDA with statistical power in excess of 95% on all endpoints. Our proprietary POD technology demonstrated more consistent dosing than a traditional nasal spray as seen with the lower coefficient of variance measures of plasma levels compared to Migranal as highlighted in the table below.

103

DHE Pharmacokinetics

	Migranal (2mg)		TRUDHESA (1.45mg)		D.H.E.45 IV (1mg)
AUC0-inf (pg*hr/ml) [%CV]		2,199 [75%]		6,275 [42%]		7,490 [17%]
Cmax (pg/ml) [%CV]		300 [92%]		1,301 [51%]		14,190 [37%]
Tmax, median (min) [%CV]		47 [59%]		30 [57%]		5 [118%]
AUC0-2 (hr*pg/ml)		388		1,603		3,022

TRUDHESA was generally well-tolerated, with no participants experiencing serious adverse events that were drug related. The most common treatment-related adverse events observed for TRUDHESA included drowsiness, headaches and muscle soreness. Participants of this trial were surveyed on preference in administration, and TRUDHESA was preferred three to one over Migranal. TRUDHESA was noted to have less dripping, less post-nasal drip, was viewed as easier to use and over two-thirds of the volunteers were “quite satisfied” or “very satisfied” with nasal delivery experience with our proprietary POD technology.

Optimized DHE delivery has been shown to yield rapid and sustained clinical benefit in pain relief and pain freedom in the acute treatment of migraines. AUC0-2hr is thought to be critical for achievement of pain relief. In a pharmacokinetic clinical trial of MAP0004, an investigational pulmonary inhaled DHE product that has not been approved by the FDA, an AUC0-2hr of 1,447 pg*hr/mL was observed.

Commercialization Strategy for TRUDHESA

If approved, we believe we can successfully commercialize TRUDHESA in the United States with specialty sales force beginning with approximately 60 representatives, and increasing to approximately 120 representatives, focusing in areas with increased demand. We intend to strategically pursue high value prescribers and early adopters, beginning with 8,000 of the highest volume migraine treatment prescribers. Based on recent migraine treatment product launches, such as ubrogepant and rimegepant, we believe this approach can be successful in accessing the concentrated prescriber bases in migraine. This target base includes approximately 4,000 neurologists and 4,000 high prescribing primary care physicians and headache specialists who have significant experience prescribing DHE. These groups make up 35% of the migraine treatment prescriptions written in 2020 in the United States. In particular, neurologist prescription productivity has grown an average of approximately 15% per year over the last two years, a growth figure aided by an increase in the number of patients seeking treatment from neurologists and primary care physicians for migraine. The planned scale up to 120 representatives is intended to allow us to target an additional 8,000 high prescribing physicians that we believe will enable us to expand coverage to 45% of all migraine treatment prescriptions in the United States. We intend to build a commercial infrastructure focused on distribution, access, promotion, education and customer support. Our market research indicates that over 70% of migraine sufferers are seeking better treatments, and physicians are willing to prescribe and payors support access at profitable price and rebate points. With approximately 72% of migraine prescriptions paid by commercial payors, we believe this market presents an attractive payor mix. We anticipate using a robust sample program to ensure trial with TRUDHESA for patients seeking better treatments and outcomes. Also, as part of our commercialization strategy, we plan to educate healthcare practitioners and patients, partner with national associations and actively support advocacy groups in the migraine market. These efforts will be supplemented with non-personal promotion to all targeted and non-targeted medium value physicians. To capture the maximum commercial opportunity of TRUDHESA, we may also selectively seek partners to commercialize the product outside of our target markets, including additional penetration within the broader primary care setting, as well as in geographies outside of the United States.

104

INP105 for the Acute Treatment of Agitation and Aggression associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder

We are currently developing INP105 as an upper nasal formulation of olanzapine administered using our proprietary POD technology for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder, or ASD. ASD is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent difficulties in social communication and social interaction, coupled with restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior or interest. Research indicates that aggression rates may be higher in individuals with ASD compared to those with other developmental disabilities. Agitation and aggression are frequent and difficult to manage symptoms, and associated with negative outcomes for patients with ASD and their caregivers, including decreased quality of life, increased stress levels, and reduced availability of educational and social support. Based on a study of emergency room usage in Canada, which found that 18% of individuals with ASD aged 12 and up had visited the emergency room within the past year, and that approximately 34% of such visits were for mental health issues, we estimate that approximately 220,000 patients with ASD in the United States seek emergency room care due to mental health issues annually. In addition to patients with ASD, we believe there is potential utility to expand the label for INP105 for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression associated with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.

We are developing INP105 as a potential acute treatment option for agitation and aggression events in this under-served population. We believe INP105 is well positioned to expand the treatment setting beyond the emergency room to new settings, such as inpatient treatment facilities and also into patients’ homes. Following additional discussion with the FDA, we plan to initiate a double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 safety and efficacy trial of a single dose of INP105 in adolescents with ASD in the United States by the end of 2021.

Disease Overview and Market Opportunity

ASD is characterized by marked impairment in social and communicative functioning combined with restricted interests and repetitive behaviors. In March 2020, the CDC released its biennial update of autism’s estimated prevalence among the nation’s children, stating that 1 in 54 children had a diagnosis of ASD by age 8 in 2016, a nearly 10 percent increase over 2014 when the estimate was 1 in 59. ASD is a serious neurodevelopmental disorder that currently affects approximately 3.5 million children and adults in the US. There is no single known cause, but it is hypothesized that genetic factors may play a role. There is no cure approved for ASD.

While there is no cure, intensive early treatment consisting of both psychotherapy and pharmacological treatment can make a big difference in the lives of many children. Approximately 58% of patients with ASD receive some kind of pharmacological treatment which targets non-core associated symptoms such as hyperactivity, agitation, aggression and self-injury.

We believe the potential value of INP105 would be in treating the approximately 1.5 million children and adolescent patients who receive pharmacological treatments for their ASD-related conditions, and in approximately 40% of such patients that exhibit agitation or aggression. There is a tremendous support from doctors, behavioral therapists, parents and payors to provide the caregivers of individuals with ASD with tools to manage the agitative and aggressive behaviors at home to avoid emergency department visits and hospitalization. ASD children have nine times more emergency department visits compared to non-ASD children due to psychiatric crises. Externalizing behaviors including aggression are the leading cause for these visits. Emergency department visits are associated with traumatic experience for the patient, loss of productivity for the parent and economic burden for the healthcare system. We believe INP105 has the potential to reduce emergency room visits for the approximately 220,000 ASD patients in the United States that we estimate seek care due to mental health issues annually.

105

Agitation Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Individuals with ASD have a high incidence of mood lability, self-injurious behavior and aggressiveness toward others. Approximately 50-70% of individuals with ASD exhibit psychological behaviors as reported by parents and caregivers, such as agitation, with a high prevalence of anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and depression. Market research sponsored by us indicates approximately 40% of ASD patients had demonstrated agitation or aggression.

The Aberrant Behavior Checklist, or ABC, scale measured the emotional, social, irritability, agitation, speech, and behavioral symptoms of autism. The ABC-I (irritability, agitation, and crying) subscale includes symptoms of aggression towards others, deliberate self-injuriousness, temper tantrums, screams, and quickly changing moods. The ABC-I subscale has been used as a key primary measurement for efficacy assessment supporting the approval of a chronic treatment of risperidone and aripiprazole for the treatment of irritability in children and adolescents with ASD.

Aggression Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Aggressive behaviors in ASD are the primary cause of residential placement and are associated with greater functional impairment and more intensive medical interventions. Additionally, aggressive behaviors in children with ASD are a frequent source of parental concern and are known to increase family stress, financial strain and demands on caregivers. Prevalence estimates of aggression in children with ASD vary based on the definitions used, but with certain finding that the prevalence of aggression in ASD may be up to 78.5%. Because of the variable nature of aggressive behavior, researchers have defined aggression in many different ways. Aggression is generally characterized as behavior that is threatening or likely to cause harm and may be verbal (e.g., threatening or cursing at another person) or physical (e.g., hitting, biting, or throwing objects at another person). A person can demonstrate one form of aggressive behavior or many, with variable frequency, intensity, and duration.

According to the ABC scale, aggression is a symptom categorized under the irritability, agitation, and crying subscale (ABC-I), and there are approved daily oral preventative products for irritability in ASD. However, recent studies have identified that irritability and aggression can be dissected. While DSM-V-defined argumentative and defiant behavior is associated with externalizing problems, angry/irritable symptoms predicted internalizing problems. It is important to distinguish between agitiative mood and acts of hostility or aggression, as their mechanisms may be different, suggesting aggression may need to be treated differently compared to irritable symptoms. Aggression is also a major cause of morbidity in subjects with ASD.

Current Agitation and Aggression Treatment Approaches and Their Limitations

The goal in treating agitation and aggression is to rapidly de-escalate the patient in crisis while ensuring no harm comes to the patient and the providers. Antipsychotics are currently the standard of care for the acute treatment of agitation and aggression in schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder but also have widespread utility, along with Behavioral Therapy, in treating agitation and aggression in ASD. Some atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, have been shown to have fewer side effects and better adherence than traditional antipsychotics prescribed for the same indications.

The side effect profile of a chronic treatment and issues with efficacy in acute settings are the biggest unmet needs in the treatment of agitation and aggression of children and adolescent patients with ASD. We commissioned a market research survey of 64 ASD providers asking about the greatest unmet needs for treatment of agitation and/or aggression associated with autism, and respondents indicated a need for faster acting, easier to administer treatments with fewer side effects for adolescents and young adults with ASD-associated agitation and aggression.

106

Our Solution: INP105

INP105 utilizes our proprietary POD technology to deliver olanzapine to the richly-vascularized upper nasal cavity. We believe that INP105 could be well positioned to disrupt the landscape in the acute treatment of ASD by rapidly delivering a preferred and widely used drug, olanzapine, in a non-invasive manner. We believe INP105 may provide the first viable treatment option that allows patients and providers the ability to treat agitation and aggression in patients with ASD before it escalates to the point of danger to the family/caregiver and patient him/herself, which may require police and/or emergency medical care intervention and/or hospital admission.

We are evaluating INP105 for its potential to provide the following specific benefits when compared to existing therapies acutely treating agitation and aggression in patients with ASD:

∎ Olanzapine for Agitation and Aggression.    Olanzapine is a preferred drug to treat agitation and aggression events generally. Specifically, IM olanzapine can have a faster onset of action, greater efficacy and fewer adverse effects than other atypical antipsychotics and other types of drugs.

∎ Rapid Onset of Action.    In clinical trials, the delivery of olanzapine through our proprietary POD technology has demonstrated shorter time to peak blood level at five minutes compared to IM olanzapine, while achieving equivalent Cmax and AUC.

∎ Non-invasive Delivery.    Our proprietary POD technology delivered olanzapine with a pharmacokinetic profile similar to IM administration. Providing a non-invasive therapy helps secure the patient-caregiver trust and improve overall outcome for the patient by enabling the provider to intervene earlier during a period of agitation and/or aggression. INP105 utilizes our proprietary POD technology to deliver olanzapine to the upper nasal cavity in less than a 3/10th of a second with the push of a button. We believe it is well positioned to expand the treatment setting beyond the emergency department to administration in in-patient treatment facilities and patients’ homes by parents or caregivers.

∎ Manageable Tolerability Profile.    Our single ascending dose trial in healthy volunteers testing three doses of olanzapine (5mg, 10mg, and 15mg) was generally well-tolerated both systemically and locally with no serious adverse events. We intend to study the 5mg dose in adolescents/young adults with ASD.

∎ Potential to avoid side effects associated with chronic treatment.     In our single ascending dose trial in healthy volunteers, INP105 demonstrated a more rapid rate of olanzapine absorption as compared to the currently approved IM olanzapine and the oral disintegrating tablet treatment, which may allow some patients to reduce their chronic medication use.

INP105 is intended to fulfill a major need for caregivers of ASD patients and is designed to be suitable for use in the home, in in-patient treatment facilities and, if necessary, in the emergency room.

INP105 Clinical Development Program

We have completed a dose ranging Phase 1b safety and pharmacokinetics trial with INP105 in healthy adults in Australia. We have also completed the formulation development and scale-up work with 12 months of stability data. We plan to initiate a Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial in adolescents with ASD in the United States by the end of 2021, with initial results expected in the second half of 2022. In this study we will be using the same dry powder POD device that was used successfully in the Phase 1b study.

107

Phase 1b Clinical Trial Results

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, single ascending dose Phase 1b trial that evaluated INP105 (5mg, 10mg and 15mg), IM olanzapine (5mg and 10mg), olanzapine (10mg) orally disintegrating tablets, or ODT, and placebo in 40 healthy volunteers in Australia. Thirty-seven evaluable subjects self-administered INP105. The primary endpoints were the safety and tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile of three single-ascending doses of INP105. Secondary endpoints evaluated the pharmacodynamic effects, which refers to the effect of drugs on the body, of three single-ascending doses of INP105 as compared to those of IM and ODT olanzapine. Pharmacokinetic timepoints were recorded at baseline through 120 hours, with measures taken at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45, and 60 minutes within the first hour and pharmacodynamic effects were measured with Visual Analog Scale, or VAS, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, or DSST, and the Agitation Calmness Evaluation Scale, or ACES.

As shown in the table below, the adverse events observed in the Phase 1b trial were similar to the side effects generally observed with olanzapine, with the most common adverse events being dizziness, light-headedness and hypotension. The frequency of these adverse events with administration through our proprietary POD technology was similar compared to IM or ODT administration of olanzapine, and we observed no serious adverse events.

	Olanzapine 5 mg IM n=20	Olanzapine 10 mg IM n=2	Olanzapine ODT 10 mg n=18	POD-OLZ 5 mg n=10	POD-OLZ 10 mg n=9	POD-OLZ 15 mg n=8	POD- Placebon=10
No. with at least one treatment related TEAE	18	2	15	8	6	6	1
	(90%)	(100%)	(83%)	(80%)	(67%)	(75%)	(10%)
Dizziness + postural dizziness	10	2	8	3	3	1	0
	(50%)	(100%)	(44%)	(30%)	(33%)	(13%)	(0%)
Presyncope (lightheadedness)	1	0	1	0	1	1	0
	(5%)	(0%)	(6%)	(0%)	(11%)	(13%)	(0%)
Hypotension + orthostatic hypotension	4	2	2	1	2	2	0
	(20%)	(100%)	(11%)	(10%)	(22%)	(25%)	(0%)

Key pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic observations are provided in the figures below. INP105 achieved similar bioavailability compared to equivalent doses of IM olanzapine as measured by AUC and Cmax, and INP105 achieved peak observable concentration more rapidly than IM olanzapine. Olanzapine ODT was significantly slower to achieve Tmax (2 hours) and had a lower overall Cmax and AUC. After 60 minutes, INP105 achieved similar bioavailability compared to equivalent doses of IM olanzapine 120 minutes after dosing. Data from two patients were excluded due to non-matching plasma levels pursuant to clinical trial procedure.

108

Olanzapine Pharmacokinetic Results, 0-1 Hour

Olanzapine Pharmacokinetic Results, 0-8 Hours

To measure pharmacodynamic effects of INP105 subjects were assessed using the DSST, ACES and VAS. As can be seen in the three graphs below, INP105 had a dose dependent effect on each of

109

these pharmacodynamic measures similar to IM olanzapine, which further supports the novel and unique profile of INP105 to provide rapid onset of effect non-invasively.

ACES is a 9-point scale that evaluates levels of agitation/calmness. A decrease in ACES score represents a reduction in agitation and in increased tranquil or calm state. Although these healthy subjects were not in an agitated state before dose administration, the increase in score indicates a transition into a more tranquil or calm state. The preliminary ACES results from our INP105-101 trial in the figure below showed that INP105 had a similar effect as IM olanzapine and a greater effect than placebo.

ACES Results from INP105 Phase 1b Study

The DSST test is a measure of change in cognitive function. Atypical antipsychotic drugs would be expected to result in a negative change from baseline. The preliminary DSST results from our INP105-101 trial in the figure below showed that INP105 had a similar effect as IM olanzapine and a greater effect than placebo.

DSST Results from INP105 Phase 1b Trial

110

Patients self-reported the VAS on three scales of 0-100 dosing feeling drowsy to alert, foggy to clear-headed and lethargic to energetic at baseline and at various times after dosing. A reduction, or negative change, in score from baseline in each measure indicates an increase in feelings of drowsiness, foggy-headedness and lethargy, respectively. The preliminary VAS results from our INP105-101 trial in the figure below showed that INP105 had a similar effect as IM olanzapine and a greater effect than placebo.

VAS Results from INP105 Phase 1b Trial

Commercialization Strategy for INP105

If approved, we believe we can successfully commercialize INP105 in the United States with a targeted, specialty sales force. We would intend to leverage the commercial and medical affairs infrastructure we would have in place for TRUDHESA for the acute treatment of migraine if approved. We plan to work with national autism associations, as well as inpatient treatment facilities to update treatment guidelines to include INP105 in treatment plans as part of behavior therapy plans for treating agitation and aggression in ASD. We plan to educate healthcare practitioners and patients, partner with national associations and actively support advocacy groups in the autism market.

INP107 for the Treatment of OFF Episodes in Parkinson’s Disease

We are currently developing INP107 as an upper nasal formulation of carbidopa/levodopa, administered using our proprietary POD technology, for the treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s. Current standard of care for the symptomatic treatment of Parkinson’s is oral levodopa, but when levodopa levels fall below their therapeutic range, patients may lose adequate control of motor symptoms, which are referred to as OFF episodes. Carbidopa is co-administered with levodopa to slow levodopa’s rapid metabolism thereby increasing the amount available for the symptoms of Parkinson’s. INP107 is a non-invasive, self- or caregiver-administered, investigational upper nasal therapy designed to provide rapid delivery of levodopa to the brain for the treatment of OFF episodes. We have conducted a Phase 2a clinical trial with one dose of INP107 in Australia, and based on the trial results, we expect to further optimize the INP107 formulation prior to advancing into future clinical development.

111

Disease Overview and Market Opportunity

Parkinson’s is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that results from the gradual death of certain dopamine producing neurons that aid in regulating motor control, among other functions. As the disease progresses, motor function gradually worsens until a patient is no longer able to perform normal daily tasks such as eating, bathing and dressing. In order to compensate for the loss of dopamine, patients are typically treated with oral carbidopa/levodopa therapy. However, as the disease progresses, dopamine levels fluctuate because of variable responses to oral treatment and insufficient levels of dopamine in the brain, causing OFF episodes.

Parkinson’s is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder worldwide and over one million people in the United States currently suffer from Parkinson’s. Its prevalence increases with age. It is estimated that over 350,000 Parkinson’s patients in the United States deal with OFF episodes on a daily basis. The overall Parkinson’s market is expected to grow to over $8.4 billion by 2026, with emerging treatments for OFF episodes contributing to that growth.

Current Parkinson’s Treatment Approaches and Inherent Limitations

There is no cure or disease-modifying treatment currently available for Parkinson’s. Current treatment strategies are focused on the management and reduction of the major symptoms of the disease and related disabilities. These therapies either aim to supplement dopamine levels in the brain, mimic the effect of dopamine in the brain by stimulating dopamine receptors or prevent the enzymatic breakdown of dopamine.

The standard of care regimen for symptomatic treatment of Parkinson’s is the oral administration of levodopa, which was the first drug approved specifically for Parkinson’s over 50 years ago. Levodopa remains the most efficacious and widely used treatment for Parkinson’s. Levodopa improves motor function as long as its levels in the brain remain within an individual’s therapeutic range.

Variations in levodopa concentrations outside of the therapeutic range are the determining factor for motor fluctuations. When levels are below the therapeutic range, patients do not experience adequate control of motor symptoms, which are referred to as OFF episodes. If levodopa levels exceed the therapeutic range, patients typically experience involuntary movements, which are referred to as dyskinesia. Using currently available oral treatment options, it is extremely challenging for physicians to create a customized patient-specific regimen that consistently maintains levodopa levels within a patient’s therapeutic range due to both the inherent nature of the levodopa chemical structure as well as the physiologic manifestations of the disease in patients.

The limitations to the use of oral levodopa include:

∎ Delayed and Variable Levodopa Clinical Effect.    Levodopa blood levels are patient-specific and occasion-specific, but generally have peak blood levels at 1 to 2 hours after dosing. This delayed onset and variability lead to difficulties in planning levodopa dosing and frequently cause patients to be out of their therapeutic window. This variability is a significant contributor to the unreliability of oral levodopa and highlights the challenge that patients face every day in not knowing when their medication will take effect, if at all.

∎ Reduced Absorption and Food Effect.    Levodopa must be actively absorbed through the gastrointestinal, or GI, tract into the bloodstream and competes with food for active transport. GI transport is frequently slowed by meals, decreasing the amount of levodopa that can be absorbed when it is given orally near mealtime. The frequency with which levodopa is administered throughout the day complicates dosing, as patients have difficulty planning meals around their complex oral dose regimens in order to minimize the impact on their levodopa absorption.

112

∎ Challenges with Swallowing.    Parkinson’s patients frequently have difficulty swallowing oral medications.

As a result of these challenges, more than 90% of Parkinson’s patients experience at least one OFF episode per day. Nearly 65% of Parkinson’s patients are OFF for two or more hours per day and 20% are OFF for more than four hours per day. Nearly half the patients experiencing OFF indicate the need to avoid or stop activities they can perform while ON. The average disability rating was almost twice when patients described their state as OFF when compared to being ON.

There is a lack of available therapies to address these OFF episodes. Injectable apomorphine has been used as a non-selective dopamine agonist and is effective in rapidly reducing OFF time, but its route of administration and significant nausea and vomiting hinder its utilization. Recently approved Inbrija, pulmonary inhaled levodopa, is indicated for the intermittent treatment of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s patients currently being treated with another form of carbidopa/levodopa. Clinical data in support of Inbrija indicate peak clinical effect, reversal of OFF, at 30 minutes after dosing.

Limitations of OFF treatments in Parkinson’s, which have resulted in unmet needs for Parkinson’s patients, include:

∎ Route of Administration.    Injectable apomorphine is invasive and challenging for a patient in an OFF episode to administer. Inhaled levodopa requires strong pulmonary function and a 30-second inhalation process. Oral levodopa, due to its route of administration, has significant GI delays and may have variability in absorption.

∎ Requires a Baseline of Carbidopa/Levodopa.    Inhaled levodopa must be used as an adjunct to oral carbidopa/levodopa to achieve maximum impact due to the high metabolism of levodopa absent a decarboxylase inhibitor.

Our Solution: INP107

We are developing INP107 as a self- or caregiver- administered, upper nasal carbidopa/levodopa therapy. Co-administration of carbidopa with levodopa increases amounts of levodopa available in the CNS to be converted to dopamine by limiting peripheral conversion of levodopa in the blood. Additionally, reducing peripheral conversion to dopamine helps to avoid side effects such as nausea and low blood pressure.

We believe that INP107 has the potential to provide the following advantages:

∎ Rapid Onset and Pronounced Effect.    Based on our initial PK and PD data, INP107 provided an encouraging bioavailability profile.

∎ Self or Caregiver Administration.     INP107 utilizes our proprietary POD technology to deliver carbidopa/levodopa to the upper nasal cavity with a propellant, which would enable either self or caregiver administration.

∎ Delivery Without Breathing Coordination.     INP107 is designed to deliver carbidopa/levodopa in a spray of 3/10ths of a second with no breathing coordination required.

∎ Potential Treatment of Morning OFF.    We have designed INP107 to potentially be utilized without oral or baseline administration of carbidopa, which could facilitate use for morning OFF episodes when the patients do not have any levodopa or carbidopa in their system.

∎ Alternative to Oral Carbidopa/Levodopa Dosing.    INP107 could be used to replace oral dosing and allow patients to better titrate their dosing due to its rapid uptake and without having to worry about food effects.

113

INP107 Clinical Development Program

We have completed a Phase 2a safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics trial in Parkinson’s patients testing INP107 and a levodopa-only formulation. The next phase of the program will be to initiate a Phase 1 pharmacokinetic and tolerability trial in Australia or the United States in 2022 to inform dose selection for further clinical development of INP107.

INP107 Clinical Results

Our Phase 2a clinical trial, completed in 2019, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of both a levodopa-only formulation pretreated with an oral decarboxylase inhibitor and INP107 (7mg carbidopa/70mg levodopa) in the absence of a decarboxylase inhibitor in PD patients during an OFF episode. The trial enrolled 32 patients in Australia who were randomized into one of four cohorts, all versus a placebo. Three cohorts consisted of a levodopa-only formulation and the fourth cohort consisted of INP107.

Patients in this trial were required to be levodopa responsive, to stop taking all Parkinson’s medications the evening before they arrived in clinic and were then confirmed to be in an OFF episode the morning of trial intervention. Once confirmed to be in an OFF episode, patients were randomized to either placebo or active treatment. Blood draws were completed at 4, 9, 14, 29, 44, 59, 89 and 119 minutes after dosing.

The primary endpoint of the trial was safety and tolerability over the immediate 240 minutes following dosing and over seven days of follow-up. In this trial, INP107 was generally well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported. Secondary endpoints included evaluating the pharmacokinetic profile of levodopa and the pharmacodynamic effect of INP107 in the 120 minutes following dosing. The latter was measured by trained assessors using the Movement Disorder Society—Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part 3. Trial results showing INP107 plasma concentrations over time are shown in the figure below.

Levodopa Plasma Concentrations Over Time from

INP107 Phase 2a Interim Analysis

114

INP107 (7mg carbidopa/70mg levodopa) plasma levels were observed to increase over time throughout the duration of blood draws and were significantly higher than placebo after the first five minutes. However, despite this increase in plasma levels, there was no significant improvement in the UPDRS Part III motor scores between INP107 and placebo. Based on this result, we intend to further develop the formulation to improve the overall plasma absorption and speed of absorption before advancing into further clinical development.

Manufacturing

All of our manufacturing processes are outsourced to third parties with oversight by our internal managers. We rely on third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP and produce sufficient quantities of drug product for use in clinical trials. We intend to continue this practice for any future clinical trials and commercialization of TRUDHESA, INP105 and INP107 and for any other potential product candidates for which we retain significant development and commercialization rights.

The active pharmaceutical ingredient and drug formulation of TRUDHESA has been developed and manufactured by a CMO located in Europe. Our CMO has extensive experience manufacturing liquid formulation of dihydroergotamine mesylate under cGMP and has the capacity to manufacture at commercial scale. This CMO has manufactured Migranal, a drug that uses the same primary container and formulation as TRUDHESA, for over 20 years. The DHE batches used in the pivotal Phase 1 clinical trial, our registration lots, and our STOP301 trial were all produced by the same manufacturer, and on the same manufacturing lines that we expect will be used for commercial launch of TRUDHESA, if approved.

The TRUDHESA POD device is manufactured by third-party CMOs. This device has been used for the pivotal Phase 1 clinical trial, our registration lots, and our STOP301 trial and is the device intended for commercial launch of TRUDHESA. The plastic component manufacturing and sub-assembly, valve manufacture, canister manufacture and canister fill with final assembly are each performed by a different third-party CMO. Each have extensive experience with medical-grade clinical and commercial scale device manufacture under cGMP. We used the same assembly group through all stages of development and intend to utilize the same assembly lines and validated processes through the NDA approval and submission process.

The INP105 and INP107 product candidates are both powder drug formulations. They have both utilized the clinical stage POD device for initial clinical trials and are both expected to transition to a commercial stage POD device for pivotal studies and commercialization. The development work on the commercial stage device for INP105 is ongoing, while the formulation has been developed and produced at commercial scale with 12 months of stability data. Both of these drug formulations have been developed with our powder formulation CMO. This CMO has the capability to produce these formulations at all scales of development including through commercialization.

Competition

The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities, government agencies and research organizations actively engaged in research and development of product candidates which may target the same markets as our product candidates. We expect any future product candidates we develop to compete on the basis of, among other things, product efficacy and safety, time to market, price, extent of adverse side effects experienced and convenience of administration and drug delivery.

For our product candidates, we are aware of the following competing efforts:

∎ TRUDHESA.    Approved acute treatments for migraine include triptans, ditans, calcitonin gene-related peptides antagonists, or gepants, lasmiditan and alternative formulations of DHE,

115

such as Migranal, which is administered intranasally. Some of these competitor products have been launched by large pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly & Co., Allergan plc, Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., and other smaller companies. Some of these competitors are also developing product candidates that utilize alternative routes of administration, including Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, OptiNose Inc., and Promius Pharma LLC, whose product candidates use nasal pumps or other nasal drug delivery technologies.

∎ INP105.    While there are no FDA-approved acute treatments for agitation and aggression in ASD, commonly prescribed treatments include mostly atypical (second generation) antipsychotics. These can include risperdone (Risperdal), olanzapine (Zyprexa), quetiapine (Seroquel), aripiprazole (Abilify), ziprasidone (Geodon) and others.

∎ INP107.    Approved treatments for the symptoms of OFF episodes in Parkinson’s include carbidopa/levodopa (both short and long-acting oral forms), MAO-B inhibitors, COM-T inhibitors, dopamine agonists, amantadine such as Gocovri, apomorphine and inhaled levodopa, such as Inbrija. In addition, there are several product candidates under development by pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly & Co., Intec Pharma Ltd. and AbbVie Inc. Some of these product candidates also utilize alternative routes of administration, such as Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., whose product candidate uses a sublingual film, and Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. whose product candidate uses a dry powder inhaler.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than us in obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance, rendering our treatments obsolete or non-competitive. Accelerated merger and acquisition activity in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity could be substantially limited in the event that our competitors develop and commercialize product candidates that are more effective, safer, less toxic, more convenient or less expensive than our comparable product candidates. In geographies that are critical to our commercial success, competitors may also obtain regulatory approvals before us, resulting in our competitors building a strong market position in advance of the entry of our product candidates. We believe the factors determining the success of our programs will be the efficacy, safety and convenience of our product candidates.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, pursuing and obtaining patent protection in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. Our patent portfolio is intended to cover, but is not limited to, our POD technology, our product candidates and components thereof, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture, and any other inventions that are commercially important to our business. We expect to rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, patent term adjustment and patent term extensions when available. Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions, and improvements; to maintain our licenses to use intellectual property owned or controlled by third parties; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including our patents; to defend against and challenge the assertion by

116

third parties of their purported intellectual property rights; and to operate without the unauthorized infringement on the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

We believe that we have a strong global intellectual property position relating to our POD device and product candidates. Our patent portfolio as of December 31, 2020 contained four U.S. issued patents and 21 patents issued in ex-U.S. jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, China, Switzerland, Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia and 16 U.S. pending applications as well as 55 patent applications pending in ex-U.S. jurisdictions including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa and three pending international patent applications owned solely by us.

Our TRUDHESA product candidate is covered by five patent families: three of the families include claims relating to the POD device used for delivery of DHE to the upper nasal cavity; the other two families include claims relating to methods of delivering DHE to the upper nasal cavity. As of December 31, 2020, from the three device patent families, three U.S. patents have issued, 17 patents have issued in ex-US jurisdictions including Australia, China, Switzerland, Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia, and 28 applications were pending in the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Israel, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa. Upon FDA approval, we intend to list the issued U.S. patents on the FDA Orange Book. As of December 31, 2020, from the two method of use patent families, three applications were pending in the U.S., and nine applications were pending in ex-U.S. jurisdictions including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, and Russia. Our issued patents, and any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, are expected to expire between 2032 and 2039, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Our INP105 product candidate is covered by three patent families: two of the families include claims relating to the POD device used for delivery of olanzapine to the upper nasal cavity; one patent family includes composition of matter claims covering our dry powder formulation and claims directed to methods of delivering olanzapine to the upper nasal cavity. As of December 31, 2020, from the two device patent families, two U.S. patents have issued, ten patents have issued in ex-US jurisdictions including Australia, China, Switzerland, Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia, and six applications were pending in the U.S., Brazil, Canada, Europe, India, and a PCT international application. As of December 31, 2021, in the composition of matter and method of use patent family, nine applications were pending in the U.S. and ex-U.S. jurisdictions including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan and Korea. Our issued patents, and any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, are expected to expire between 2032 and 2039, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Our INP107 product candidate is covered by three patent families: two of the families include claims relating to the POD device used for delivery of a combination of levodopa and carbidopa to the upper nasal cavity; one patent family includes composition of matter claims covering our dry powder formulation and claims directed to methods of delivering a levodopa/carbidopa combination to the upper nasal cavity. As of December 31, 2020, from the two device patent families, two U.S. patents have issued, ten patents have issued in ex-US jurisdictions including Australia, China, Switzerland, Germany, France, Great Britain, Japan, and Russia, and six applications were pending in the U.S., Brazil, Canada, Europe, India, and a patent cooperation treaty, or PCT, international application. As of December 31, 2020, one application was pending in the U.S. in the composition of matter and method of use patent family and one PCT international application was pending. Our issued patents, and any patents that may issue from our pending patent applications, are expected to expire between 2032 and 2039, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

In addition, we have exclusively licensed a patent portfolio that as of December 31, 2020 contained two U.S. issued patents and nine patents issued in ex-U.S. jurisdictions including Canada, Italy, Great

117

Britain, France, Spain, and Germany. This patent portfolio includes claims relating to a circumferential aerosol device for delivering drugs including to the olfactory epithelium and brain. Our issued patents that have been licensed are expected to expire between 2029 and 2031, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. None of our licensed patents are material to our current pipeline product candidates.

We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy as we develop new platform technologies and product candidates. To that end, we are prepared to file additional patent applications if our intellectual property strategy requires such filings, or where we seek to adapt to competition or seize business opportunities. Further, we are prepared to file patent applications, as we consider appropriate under the circumst ances, relating to the new technologies that we develop. In addition to filing and prosecuting patent applications in the United States, we often file counterpart patent applications in Europe and in additional countries where we believe such foreign filing is likely to be beneficial.

The term of individual patents depends upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application. However, the term of U.S. patents may be extended for delays incurred encountered during prosecution that are caused by the USPTO or due to compliance with FDA requirements. For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved drugs of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond five years, nor beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our pharmaceutical product candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those product candidates. We intend to seek patent term extensions of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO and FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. Our currently issued patents, including those owned and exclusively licensed, will likely expire on dates ranging from 2029 to 2036. If patents are issued on our pending patent applications, including those owned and exclusively licensed, the resulting patents are projected to expire on dates ranging from 2032 to 2040, unless we receive patent term adjustment or patent term extension, or both. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

The patent positions of companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. No consistent policy regarding the scope of claims allowable in patents in the field of CNS diseases has emerged in the United States. The patent situation outside of the United States is even more uncertain. Changes in the patent laws and rules, either by legislation, judicial decisions, or regulatory interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights, and more generally could affect the value of our intellectual property. In particular, our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing any of our patented inventions, either directly or indirectly, will depend in part on our success in obtaining, defending, and enforcing patent claims that cover our technology, inventions, and improvements. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our platforms and product candidates and the methods used to manufacture those platforms and product candidates.

118

Our issued patents and those that may issue in the future may be challenged, invalidated, or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing related platforms or product candidates or limit the length of the term of patent protection that we may have for our POD device and product candidates. In addition, the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may independently develop similar technologies. For these reasons, we may have competition for our POD device and product candidates. Moreover, because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any particular product candidate can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of the patent. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, platforms and product candidates, please see the section titled “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Moreover, even our issued patents do not guarantee us the right to practice our technology in relation to the commercialization of our platform’s product candidates. Third parties may have, or may obtain, blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our POD device and product candidates and practicing our proprietary technology.

We own trademark registrations and pending applications for use in connection with our product candidates in several jurisdictions, including the United States. The IMPEL mark is registered in Austria, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, United Kingdom, and the United States, and we own a pending application in Mexico. The IMPEL mark in simplified Chinese characters mark is registered in China. The IMPEL mark with the Impel NeuroPharma logo is registered in Australia. The Impel NeuroPharma logo is registered in Australia, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, United Kingdom, and the United States, and we own a pending application in Canada. The POD mark is registered in Australia, the European Union, India, United Kingdom, and the United States. The IMPELPOD mark is registered in China, Japan, Mexico, and South Korea, and we own pending applications in Canada and Mexico. The TRUDHESA mark is registered in Australia, China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom, and we own pending applications in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. We own pending applications for the TULIFTA mark and the TRUDHESA logo in the United States.

It is our policy to require our employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of employment or consulting relationships with us. These agreements provide that all confidential information concerning our business or financial affairs developed or made known to the individual during the course of the individual’s relationship with us is to be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties except in specific circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived by the individual, and which are related to our current or planned business or research and development or made during normal working hours, on our premises or using our equipment or proprietary information, are our exclusive property. In many cases our confidentiality and other agreements with consultants, outside scientific collaborators, sponsored researchers and other advisors require them to assign or grant us licenses to inventions they invent as a result of the work or services they render under such agreements or grant us an option to negotiate a license to use such inventions.

We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and we may not have adequate

119

remedies for any breach. To the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators, and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting inventions.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

FDA Approval Process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as a clinical hold, FDA refusal to approve a pending NDA, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the United States typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug application, or IND, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity, and novelty of the product or disease.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation, and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product CMC, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practices, or GCPs, which are standards meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

120

The FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an IRB for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases, the FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial may be sufficient in rare instances, including (1) where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible or (2) when in conjunction with other confirmatory evidence.

The manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical, and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, currently exceeding $2,875,000 for Fiscal Year 2021. The manufacturer or sponsor under an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee, currently exceeding $336,000 for each prescription drug product for Fiscal Year 2021. These fees are typically increased annually.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. Most applications for standard review drug products that are not new molecular entities, or NMEs, are reviewed within ten months of the date of submission of the NDA to the FDA; most applications for priority review drugs that are not NMEs are reviewed within six months of the date of submission of the NDA to the FDA. Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee—typically a panel that includes clinicians and

121

other experts—for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will generally inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMPs is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Section 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications

An alternative to the 505(b)(1) NDA pathway described above is an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA, which enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings in approving a similar product or published literature in support of its application.

505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval for modified formulations, new routes of administration, or new uses of previously approved products.

Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where at least some of the safety and efficacy information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the Section 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s prior findings of safety or effectiveness is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

122

Fast Track Designation and Accelerated Approval

The FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a Fast Track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for Fast Track Designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Under the Fast Track program, the FDA may grant Fast Track Designation for a drug if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. The FDA will determine that a product will fill an unmet medical need if it will provide a therapy where none exists or provide a therapy that may be potentially superior to existing therapy based on efficacy or safety factors.

If a submission is granted Fast Track Designation, the sponsor may engage in more frequent interactions with the FDA, and the FDA may initiate review of sections of the NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and the FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, Fast Track Designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a drug for a serious or life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the drug has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the drug has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Drugs granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

A drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval trials, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing trials, will allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for drug candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on ClinicalTrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

123

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers or deferrals for submission of data.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity—patent or nonpatent—for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Post-Approval Requirements

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports is required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging, and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drugs that are placed on the market. Advertising and promotion of drugs must be in compliance with the FDCA and its implementing regulations and only for the approved indications and in a manner consistent with the approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities.

The Hatch-Waxman Act

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an Abbreviated New Drug

124

Application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, pre-clinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carve out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.

To the extent that a Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on the FDA’s prior findings of safety or effectiveness for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Thus, approval of a 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA cannot receive any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, can be the subject of a three-year period of exclusivity if the application contains reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) conducted or sponsored by the sponsor that were essential to approval of the application. FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes the change during the exclusivity period.

125

The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase (the time between IND application and NDA submission) and all of the review phase (the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years). The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years, and only one patent can be extended. For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted.

Combination Products

A combination product is a product comprising (i) two or more regulated components, i.e., drug/device, biologic/device, drug/biologic, or drug/device/biologic, that are physically, chemically, or otherwise combined or mixed and produced as a single entity; (ii) two or more separate products packaged together in a single package or as a unit and comprising drug and device products, device and biological products, or biological and drug products; (iii) a drug, device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its investigational plan or proposed labeling is intended for use only with an approved individually specified drug, device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect and where upon approval of the proposed product the labeling of the approved product would need to be changed, for example, to reflect a change in intended use, dosage form, strength, route of administration, or significant change in dose; or (iv) any investigational drug, device, or biological product packaged separately that according to its proposed labeling is for use only with another individually specified investigational drug, device, or biological product where both are required to achieve the intended use, indication, or effect.

The FDA is divided into various branches, or Centers, by product type. Different Centers typically review drug, biologic, or device applications. In order to review an application for a combination product, the FDA must decide which Center should be responsible for the review. FDA regulations require that the FDA determine the combination product’s primary mode of action, which is the single mode of a combination product that provides the most important therapeutic action of the combination product. The Center that regulates that portion of the product becomes the lead evaluator. When evaluating an application, a lead Center may consult other Centers but still retain complete reviewing authority, or it may collaborate with another Center, by which the Center assigns review of a specific section of the application to another Center, delegating its review authority for that section. Typically, an applicant submits a single marketing application to the Center selected to be the lead evaluator, although separate applications for each constituent part may be submitted to the applicable Centers.

126

One reason to submit multiple evaluations is if the applicant wishes to receive some benefit that accrues only from approval under a particular type of application, like new drug product exclusivity. If multiple applications are submitted, each may be evaluated by a different lead Center.

In a drug/device combination product, where the device component is a prefilled drug delivery device, the primary mode of action is typically a drug mode of action with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, as the lead Center. CDER would review the NDA in consultation with the Center for Devices and Radiological Health on device-specific issues. For co-packaged or single-entity combination products, such as pre-filled drug-delivery devices, there are two ways to comply with cGMP requirements. Manufacturers can either (i) demonstrate compliance with all cGMP regulations applicable to each of the constituent parts in the combination product or (ii) in the case of drug-device combination products, demonstrate compliance with either the drug cGMP regulations or the device QSR and also demonstrate compliance with additional provisions from the other of these two sets of cGMP requirements, as specified in the combination products regulations.

Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include any of the following sanctions: warning or untitled letters, fines, injunctions, civil or criminal penalties, recall or seizure of current or future products, operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production, refusal or denial of submissions for new products, or withdrawal of clearance, authorization, or approval.

Other Healthcare Laws

In addition to FDA restrictions on marketing of pharmaceutical products, several other types of state and federal laws have been applied to restrict certain general business and marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. These laws include anti-kickback statutes, false claims, transparency, and health information privacy laws and other healthcare laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally financed healthcare programs. The Affordable Care Act, or ACA, amended the intent element of the federal statute so that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to commit a violation. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers, among others, on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor.

Federal civil and criminal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to have a false claim paid. This includes claims made to programs where the federal government reimburses, such as Medicare and Medicaid, as well as programs where the federal government is a direct purchaser, such as when it purchases off the Federal Supply Schedule. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly inflating drug prices they report to pricing services, which in turn were used by the government to set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates, and for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. In addition, certain marketing practices, including off-label promotion, may also violate false claims laws. Additionally, the

127

ACA amended the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a violation of that statute can serve as a basis for liability under the federal False Claims Act. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and civil False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

Other federal statutes pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse include the civil monetary penalties statute, which prohibits, among other things, the offer or payment of remuneration to a Medicaid or Medicare beneficiary that the offeror or payor knows or should know is likely to influence the beneficiary to order a receive a reimbursable item or service from a particular supplier, and the additional federal criminal statutes created by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing or attempting to execute a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises any money or property owned by or under the control of any healthcare benefit program in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

In addition, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published on January 25, 2013, impose obligations on certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, known as covered entities, as well as their business associates that perform certain services involving the storage, use or disclosure of individually identifiable health information, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information, and require notification to affected individuals and regulatory authorities of certain breaches of security of individually identifiable health information. HITECH increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, many state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, and often are not preempted by HIPAA.

Further, pursuant to the ACA, the CMS has issued a final rule that requires manufacturers of prescription drugs to collect and annually report information on certain payments or transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reported data is made available in searchable form on a public website on an annual basis. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties. Effective January 1, 2022, reporting on payments and transfers of value made in the previous year to covered recipients will be expanded to include physician assistants, nurse practitioners clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants, and certified nurse-midwives.

In addition, several states now require prescription drug companies to report certain expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and to report gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states. Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals. Still other states require the posting of information relating to clinical studies and their outcomes. Some states require the reporting of certain pricing information, including information pertaining to and justifying price increases, or prohibit prescription drug price gouging. In addition, certain states require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs or marketing codes. Certain states and local jurisdictions also require the

128

registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives. Compliance with these laws is difficult and time consuming, and companies that do not comply with these state laws face civil penalties.

Efforts to ensure that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations involve substantial costs. If a drug company’s operations are found to be in violation of any such requirements, it may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, the curtailment or restructuring of its operations, loss of eligibility to obtain approvals from the FDA, exclusion from participation in government contracting, healthcare reimbursement or other federal or state government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, imprisonment, and reputational harm. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action for an alleged or suspected violation can cause a drug company to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business, even if such action is successfully defended.

Reimbursement

The regulations that govern pricing and reimbursement for new drugs and therapeutic biologics vary widely from country to country. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug or therapeutic biologic before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, a drug company can obtain regulatory approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of that product.

A drug company’s ability to commercialize any products successfully will also depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. Even if one or more products are successfully brought to the market, these products may not be considered cost-effective, and the amount reimbursed for such products may be insufficient to allow them to be sold on a competitive basis. Increasingly, third-party payors who reimburse patients or healthcare providers, such as government and private insurance plans, are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices, and are seeking to reduce the prices charged or the amounts reimbursed for pharmaceutical products.

Significant delays can occur in obtaining reimbursement for newly-approved drugs or therapeutic biologics, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug or therapeutic biologic is approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug or therapeutic biologic will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that covers a drug company’s costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution.

Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs or therapeutic biologics, if applicable, may also be insufficient to cover a drug company’s costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may be based on payments allowed for lower cost drugs or therapeutic biologics that are already reimbursed, may be incorporated into existing payments for other services and may reflect budgetary constraints or imperfections in Medicare data. Net prices for drugs or therapeutic biologics may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs or therapeutic biologics from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States. Third-party payors often

129

rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

In the United States there have been, and continue to be, proposals by the federal government, state governments, regulators and third-party payors to control or manage the increased costs of health care and, more generally, to reform the U.S. healthcare system. The pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted, which was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, (i) subjected therapeutic biologics to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars by creating a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products, (ii) established a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and therapeutic biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, (iii) increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, (iv) established annual nondeductible fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and therapeutic biologics, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs, (v) established a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs and therapeutic biologics to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs and therapeutic biologics to be covered under Medicare Part D, which has since been increased to 70% by the BBA, (vi) expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories for individuals with income at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, thereby potentially increasing manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability, (vii) expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health program (viii) created a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research, and (ix) established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial, and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. The Tax Reform Act, among other things, included a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In November 2020, the United States Supreme Court held oral arguments on the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by mid-2021. It is uncertain how the Supreme Court will rule on this case. In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period to allow people to obtain health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, and instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, among others. We cannot predict how the Supreme Court ruling, other litigation, or the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact

130

our business. We are continuing to monitor any changes to the ACA that, in turn, may potentially impact our business in the future. Additionally, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminated, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on certain high-cost employer-sponsored insurance plans and the medical device excise tax, and effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. The BBA, among other things, also amended the ACA, effective January 1, 2019, by increasing from 50% to 70% the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D and closing the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In addition, CMS published a final rule that would give states greater flexibility, effective January 1, 2020, in setting benchmarks for insurers in the individual and small group marketplaces, which may have the effect of relaxing the essential health benefits required under the ACA for plans sold through such marketplaces.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension implemented under various COVID-19 relief legislation from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Congress recently introduced a bill to extend the moratorium on 2% Medicare sequester cuts through the end of 2021. We are continuing to monitor the status of this bill. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Further, there have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. In 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the CMS issued various rules that are expected to impact, among others, price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, manufacturer price reporting requirements under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including regulations that affect manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs subject to pharmacy benefit manager accumulator programs and Best Price reporting related to certain value-based purchasing arrangements. Multiple lawsuits have been brought against the HHS challenging various aspects of the rules. In January 2021, the Biden administration issued a “regulatory freeze” memorandum that directs department and agency heads to review new or pending rules of the prior administration. It is unclear whether these new regulations will be withdrawn or when they will become fully effective under the current administration. The impact of these lawsuits as well as legislative, executive, and administrative actions of the current administration on us and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole is unclear.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement

131

constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for any product candidates we may develop or additional pricing pressures. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product candidates if approved. Complying with any new legislation and regulatory changes could be time-intensive and expensive, resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

Employees

As of December 31, 2020, we had 59 full-time employees and four full-time contract employees. Of these employees, 15 have an M.D. or a Ph.D. From time to time, we also retain consultants to support our organization. As of December 31, 2020, we had 18 consultants. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good.

Diversity and Inclusion

We are committed to creating and maintaining a workplace free from discrimination or harassment on the basis of color, race, sex, national origin, ethnicity, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identification or expression or any other status protected by applicable law. Our management team and employees are expected to exhibit and promote honest, ethical and respectful conduct in the workplace.

Competitive Pay & Benefits

We strive to provide pay, comprehensive benefits and services that help meet the varying needs of our employees. Our total rewards package includes competitive pay; comprehensive healthcare benefits package for employees. In addition, we offer every full-time employee, both exempt and non-exempt, the benefit of equity ownership in the company through stock option grants.

Employee Development & Training

We focus on attracting, retaining, and cultivating talented individuals. We emphasize employee development and training by providing access to a wide range of online and instructor led development and continual learning programs. Employees are encouraged to attend scientific, clinical and technological meetings and conferences and have access to broad resources they need to be successful.

Properties and Facilities

Our principal executive office is located in Seattle, Washington, where we lease a total of approximately 11,256 square feet of office and laboratory space that we use for our administrative, research and development and other activities. Our lease expires in August 2022.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of management,

132

would have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, negative publicity and reputational harm, and other factors.

133

MANAGEMENT

Executive Officers and Directors

The following table provides information regarding our executive officers, key employee and directors as of March 15, 2021:

Name	Age		Position
Executive Officers:
Adrian Adams		70	President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
John Hoekman, Ph.D.		40	Chief Scientific Officer and Director
John Leaman, M.D.		48	Chief Financial Officer
Stephen Shrewsbury, M.B. ChB.		64	Chief Medical Officer
Leonard S. Paolillo		42	Chief Commercial Officer
Key Employee:
Lynn Gold, Ph.D.		64	Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Non-Employee Directors:
David Allison, Ph.D.		39	Director
Robert Mittendorff, M.D.		44	Director
Timothy S. Nelson		57	Director
H. Stewart Parker		65	Director
Aaron Royston, M.D.		36	Director
Ali Satvat		43	Director
Mahendra G. Shah, Ph.D.		76	Director
Diane E. Wilfong		59	Director

(1) Member of the Audit Committee.

(2) Member of the Compensation Committee.

(3) Member of the Nominating and Governance Committee.

(4) Lead Independent Director

(5) Each of Drs. Hoekman, Mittendorff and Royston has notified us that he will resign from our board of directors effective immediately prior to the effectiveness of the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part.

Executive Officers

Adrian Adams has served as Chairman of our Board of Directors since January 2020, and as our Chief Executive Officer and President since May 2020. Prior to serving as our Chief Executive Officer, from February 2016 to January 2019, Mr. Adams served as Chief Executive Officer of Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, after the merger between Pozen, Inc. and Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada, Inc., and as a member of the Aralez board of directors. From May 2015 to January 2016, Mr. Adams served as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Aralez’s predecessor, Pozen, Inc. Prior to joining Pozen, Inc., Mr. Adams served as Chief Executive Officer and President of Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty biopharmaceutical company, from December 2011 until its acquisition by Endo International plc in January 2015. Prior to joining Auxilium, from September 2011 until November 2011, Mr. Adams served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Neurologix, Inc. a biotechnology company. Before Neurologix, Mr. Adams served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where he led the company through a strategic acquisition by global pharmaceutical leader Merck & Co., Inc. in May 2011. Prior to Inspire, Mr. Adams served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sepracor, Inc. from December 2006 until February 2010, when it was acquired by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co. Mr. Adams currently serves as the Chairman of the board of directors at AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Chairman of the board of directors at Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. Mr. Adams graduated from the Royal Institute of Chemistry at Salford University in the United Kingdom. We believe that Mr. Adams is qualified to

134

serve on our board of directors because of his experience as our Chief Executive Officer and his extensive corporate development experience in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

John Hoekman, Ph.D., our co-founder, has served as our Chief Scientific Officer since July 2008. Prior to co-founding our company, Dr. Hoekman was a researcher at the Alzheimer’s Research Center in St. Paul, Minnesota from April 2004 to June 2006. Dr. Hoekman holds a B.S. in Physics from the University of Minnesota and a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutics from the University of Washington. We believe that Dr. Hoekman is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his extensive research experience and expertise in upper nasal drug delivery.

John H. Leaman, M.D. has served as our Chief Financial Officer since June 2019. From October 2017 to March 2019, Dr. Leaman served as the Chief Financial Officer and Head of Corporate Development at Selecta Biosciences Inc. From June 2016 to September 2017, he served as Head of Corporate Development at InfaCare Pharmaceutical Corp., a specialty pharmaceutical company, until it was acquired by Mallinckrodt plc. in September 2017. From August 2014 to March 2016, Dr. Leaman was the Chief Financial Officer of Medgenics Inc. He also previously held senior roles at Shire plc. and Devon Park Bioventures, a venture capital fund targeting investments in therapeutics companies, and began his career serving a range of life sciences companies as an Associate Principal at McKinsey & Company. He received an M.D. from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, an M.B.A. from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, a B.A. in psychology, philosophy and physiology from Oriel College, University of Oxford while completing a Rhodes Scholarship, and a B.S. in biology from Elizabethtown College.

Leonard S. Paolillo has served as our Chief Commercial Officer since March 2021. Prior to that, Mr. Paolillo served from August 2019 to February 2021 as Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer of Kyowa Kirin Inc., the North American affiliate of Kyowa Kirin Co. Ltd., a global specialty pharmaceutical company based in Tokyo, as well as in other roles from March 2014 to July 2019. Prior, from May 2011 to January 2014 he served as senior director of sales at Warner Chilcott Pharmaceuticals where he led the women’s healthcare, osteoporosis and urology sales forces. Mr. Paolillo began his healthcare career at EURO RSCG LIFE LM&P, a full-service healthcare advertising agency, before joining Warner Chilcott in March 2003, and holds a B.S. in business administration from Manhattan College.

Stephen Shrewsbury, M.B. ChB., has served as our Chief Medical Officer since March 2017. Prior to that, Dr. Shrewsbury was the Executive Vice President, Development, and Chief Medical Officer at Fortuna Fix Inc., a clinical biotechnology company, from June 2016 to December 2016. From April 2013 to June 2016, Dr. Shrewsbury was the Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President, Clinical Development of Aquinox Pharmaceuticals Inc., a pharmaceutical company focused on treating inflammation, inflammatory pain, and blood cancers. Prior to that, Dr. Shrewsbury served in executive positions at various other pharmaceutical companies, including MAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AVI BioPharma, Inc. and Adamas Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Shrewsbury holds an M.B. ChB. from the University of Liverpool, an MRCGP from the Royal College of General Practitioners and a Diploma in Pharmaceutical Medicine from the Royal College of Physicians.

Key Employee

Lynn Gold, Ph.D., has served as our Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs since July 2018. From November 2008 to June 2018, Dr. Gold served as Vice President, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, at Camargo Pharmaceutical Services, LLC. Dr. Gold holds a B.S. in Chemistry from the State University of New York at Buffalo and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Rochester.

Non-Employee Directors

David Allison, Ph.D., has served as a member of our board of directors since June 2019. Dr. Allison has served as a Partner at 5AM Venture Management, LLC since July 2018, and was previously a

135

Principal at 5AM Venture Management, LLC since August 2016. Dr. Allison previously served as a Principal at Versant Ventures from April 2014 to August 2016. Prior to Versant Ventures, Dr. Allison worked at Split Rock Partners as a Principal from August 2009 to August 2014, and at PTV Healthcare Capital as a Senior Associate from 2006 to 2009. Before his venture career, he worked in the diagnostics and drug discovery business unit at SurModics in 2004 and was a National Science Foundation Research Fellow at The Cleveland Clinic Foundation’s Heart Valve Laboratory. Dr. Allison currently serves on the boards of directors of various private companies. Dr. Allison received a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from Rice University with a focus in Cell Biology and Extracellular Matrix in Cardiovascular Disease. He received a B.S.E in Biomedical Engineering from The University of Iowa. We believe that Dr. Allison is qualified to serve on our board of directors based on his expertise in corporate governance, financing and financial matters and his investment experience in the health care industry.

Robert Mittendorff, M.D., has served as a member of our board of directors since December 2018. Dr. Mittendorff is a general partner and head of the healthcare group at B Capital Group, a venture firm, which he joined in March 2021. Dr. Mittendorff previously served as a partner at Norwest Venture Partners from 2012 until March 2021 and currently serves as a consultant to Norwest. He has previously served as a board member at Silk Road Medical, Inc., a public medical device company, from July 2017 until July 2020 and currently serves on the boards of various private companies, including Avalyn Pharma Inc., Neocis, Inc., Qventus, Inc., TigerConnect, Inc. and VisitPay LLC. He was previously also a board member at iCardiac Technologies, Inc., a pharmaceutical services company, and a board observer at iRhythm Technologies, Inc. Prior to Norwest, Dr. Mittendorff was the Vice President of Marketing and Business Development at Hansen Medical Inc. He has prior experience with the Boston Consulting Group and Merck. Dr. Mittendorff is a board certified emergency physician who completed his residency training at Stanford. He received his M.D. from Harvard Medical School and his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, and his B.S. in biomedical engineering (general and departmental honors) from Johns Hopkins University. He has completed fellowships under the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (neuroscience), MIT Sloan School of Management, and Harvard Business School. We believe that Dr. Mittendorff is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his medical training and his extensive investment, business and board experience in the healthcare and medical device industries.

Timothy S. Nelson has served on our board of directors since February 2017. Mr. Nelson previously served on the boards of directors of SurModics, Inc. a medical technologies company, from February 2014 to March 2015, and of MAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a development stage neurological company, from April 2005 to March 2013. Mr. Nelson has also served as Chairman of the board of Xoc Pharmaceuticals, a private biotechnology company since January 2018, and Civitas Therapeutics, Inc., a private pharmaceutical company, from December 2013 to October 2014. Mr. Nelson also serves on the board of directors of Dermavant, a private biopharmaceutical company, since April 2019. Prior to that, Mr. Nelson also held various senior management positions at other life sciences companies, including Medtronic plc, a multinational medical device company. Mr. Nelson holds a Bachelor of Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota and a Master of Management with distinction from the J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. We believe that Mr. Nelson is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his extensive experience in the pharmaceuticals industry and as a director of a public company.

H. Stewart Parker has served as a member of our board of directors since May 2014. From March 2011 to June 2014, Ms. Parker served in various roles at the Infectious Disease Research Institute, including as its Chief Executive Officer, strategic advisor and a member of the board of directors. Since January 2009, Ms. Parker has also served as a Principal at Parker BioConsulting, a biotechnology consulting firm. Prior to that, Ms. Parker has also served in various roles of leadership at other biopharmaceutical companies since 1992, including as Chief Executive Officer of Targeted Genetics Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company. Since August 2017, Ms. Parker has served on the board of directors of Achieve Life Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company. Ms. Parker has also served on the

136

board of directors of Armata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly C3J Therapeutics, Inc.) since 2010. Since June 2014, Ms. Parker has served on the board of directors of Sangamo Therapeutics, Inc., a genomic therapies company. Ms. Parker also currently serves on the board of directors of various private companies. Ms. Parker holds a B.A. in Slavic Language & Literature and an M.B.A. in Finance and International Business from the University of Washington. We believe that Ms. Parker is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of her extensive experience in the life sciences industry and as a director of other public companies.

Aaron Royston, M.D., has served as a member of our board of directors since November 2016. Dr. Royston is a Managing Partner at venBio Partners, a life sciences investment firm and has also been with venBio Partners since 2015. Prior to joining venBio Partners, Dr. Royston worked for Vivo Capital, a global life sciences investment firm from July 2014 to November 2015, Previously, Dr. Royston worked at Bain & Company, Inc. from July 2013 to July 2014 where he advised biotechnology companies on a broad range of strategic and operational issues. Earlier in his career, Dr. Royston coordinated clinical research at Mount Sinai Medical Center, where his research has been published and presented in multiple medical journals and conferences. In 2011, Dr. Royston was recognized by the Obama Administration as a Champion of Change for his work in technology and innovation. Dr. Royston previously served on the boards of directors of Akero Therapeutics, a biotechnology company, from June 2018 to August 2019 and Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company, from June 2017 to August 2019. Dr. Royston currently serves on the board of directors of several private companies. Dr. Royston received a B.S. in biological sciences from Duke University, and an M.D. and M.B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania. We believe that Dr. Royston is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his clinical and biotechnology industry experience.

Ali Satvat has served as a member of our board of directors since December 2018. Mr. Satvat joined Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., a global investment firm (together with its affiliates, “KKR”), in January 2012 and is a Partner and Co-Head of the Health Care industry team within KKR’s Americas Private Equity platform, for which he is a member of the Investment Committee and the Portfolio Management Committee. Mr. Satvat is also Global Head of KKR’s Health Care Strategic Growth platform, for which he chairs the Investment Committee and the Portfolio Management Committee. Mr. Satvat has served as a member of the boards of directors of BridgeBio Pharma, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, since March 2016, Coherus BioSciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, since May 2014, Eidos Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from June 2018 through January 2021, PRA Health Sciences, Inc., a global contract research organization, from September 2013 through April 2018, and multiple privately held companies. Prior to joining KKR, Mr. Satvat was a Principal with Apax Partners, where he invested in health care from 2006 to 2012. Previously, Mr. Satvat held various positions with Johnson & Johnson Development Corporation, Audax Group, and The Blackstone Group. Mr. Satvat holds an A.B. in History and Science from Harvard College and a M.B.A. in Health Care Management and Entrepreneurial Management from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Satvat previously served as a member of the board of directors of the Healthcare Private Equity Association. We believe that Mr. Satvat is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his extensive investment and board experience with public and private companies in the health care industry.

Mahendra G. Shah, Ph.D., has served as a member of our board of directors since November 2016. Since March 2010, Dr. Shah has served in various roles with Vivo Capital, a healthcare focused investment firm, most recently as Managing Director. Dr. Shah is also the founder and executive chairman of Semnur Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (acquired by Scilex Pharmaceuticals Inc.). Dr. Shah previously served as a board member of Soleno Therapeutics Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, from March 2018 to April 2019, Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage pharmaceutical company, from October 2015 to January 2018, and Homology Medicines, Inc., a genetic medicines company, from July 2017 to June 2019. Since July 2016, Dr. Shah has served as a member of the board of

137

directors of Verona Pharma PLC, a biopharmaceutical company. Dr. Shah also currently serves on the boards of directors of various private companies. Dr. Shah holds a Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences from St. John’s University and a B.S. and M.S. in Pharmacy from L.M. College of Pharmacy in Gujarat, India. We believe that Dr. Shah is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of his vast experience as a finance professional in the biomedical and pharmaceutical industries.

Diane E. Wilfong has served as a member of our board of directors since September 2019. Since February 2016, Ms. Wilfong has served as Senior Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer at Gilead Sciences, Inc., a biotechnology company. From November 2014 to February 2016, Ms. Wilfong served as Vice President, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer at Computer Sciences Corporation, a technology company. Prior to that, Ms. Wilfong held various finance roles at other companies since 1983. Ms. Wilfong, a certified public accountant since 1985, holds a B.S.B.A. in Accounting from the Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. We believe that Ms. Wilfong is qualified to serve on our board of directors because of her vast experience as a finance professional in the technology and biotechnology industries.

Disclosed Legal Proceedings

From February 2016 to January 2019, Mr. Adams served as Chief Executive Officer of Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, after the merger between Pozen, Inc. and Tribute Pharmaceuticals Canada, Inc., and as a member of the Aralez board of directors. From May 2015 to January 2016, Mr. Adams served as Chief Executive Officer and a member of the board of directors of Aralez’s predecessor, Pozen, Inc. In August 2018, Aralez voluntarily commenced restructuring proceedings in Canadian Court and its U.S.-based subsidiaries, including POZEN, Inc., filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

From September 2011 until November 2011, Mr. Adams also served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Neurologix, Inc. a biotechnology company which filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in 2012.

Election of Officers

Our executive officers are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, our board of directors. There are no family relationships among any of our directors or executive officers.

Board Composition

Our board of directors currently consists of ten members. Pursuant to our current voting agreement and certificate of incorporation, Adrian Adams, David Allison, John Hoekman, Robert Mittendorff, Timothy S. Nelson, H. Stewart Parker, Aaron Royston, Ali Satvat, Mahendra G. Shah, and Diane E. Wilfong, have been designated to serve as members of our board. Ms. Parker was designated by the holders of our Series A-1 and Series A-2 redeemable convertible preferred stock. Messrs. Shah, Royston and Allison were designated by the holders of our Series C redeemable convertible preferred stock. Messrs. Mittendorff and Satvat were designated by the holders of our Series D redeemable convertible preferred stock. Mr. Nelson and Ms. Wilfong were designated by agreement of all of the members of the board of directors and at least 60% of the holders of our Series C and Series D redeemable convertible preferred stock. Mr. Hoekman was elected by the holders of all of our capital stock, voting together as a single class on an as-converted basis. Mr. Adams was elected by the holders of our common stock.

The voting agreement and the provisions of our current certificate of incorporation that govern the election and designation of our directors will terminate in connection with this offering, after which no contractual obligations will concern the election of our directors. Each of our current directors will continue to serve until the election and qualification of his successor, or until his earlier death, resignation or removal.

138

Classified Board of Directors

In accordance with the terms of our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws that will become effective upon the completion of this offering, our board of directors will be divided into three staggered classes of directors. At each annual meeting of stockholders, a class of directors will be subject to re-election for a three-year term. As a result, only one class of directors will be elected at each annual meeting of our stockholders, with the other classes continuing for the remainder of their respective three-year terms. Our directors will be divided among the three classes as follows:

∎ the Class I directors will be                ,                 and                and their terms will expire at the first annual meeting of stockholders held following the completion of the offering;

∎ the Class II directors will be                 ,                 and                 and their terms will expire at the second annual meeting of stockholders held following the completion of the offering; and

∎ the Class III directors will be                 ,                 and                 and their terms will expire at the third annual meeting of stockholders held following the completion of the offering.

Each director’s term continues until the election and qualification of his or her successor, or his or her earlier death, resignation or removal. Our restated certificate of incorporation and restated bylaws that will be in effect upon the completion of this offering authorize only our board of directors to fill vacancies on our board of directors. Any increase or decrease in the number of directors will be distributed among the three classes so that, as nearly as possible, each class will consist of