inzy-10k_20201231.htm

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

Smaller reporting company

Emerging growth company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of June 30, 2020, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, there was no public market for the registrant’s common stock. The registrant’s common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on July 24, 2020. As of March 22, 2021, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on March 19, 2021 was approximately $252,391,142.

As of March 19, 2021, the registrant had 23,464,130 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding.

The registrant intends to file a definitive proxy statement pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. Portions of such definitive proxy statement are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PART I
	Item 1. Business	4
	Item 1A. Risk Factors	45
	Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments	96
	Item 2. Properties	96
	Item 3. Legal Proceedings	96
	Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures	96

PART II
	Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	97
	Item 6. Selected Financial Data	98
	Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	99
	Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	109
	Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	F-1
	Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	114
	Item 9A. Controls and Procedures	114
	Item 9B. Other Information	114

PART III
	Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	115
	Item 11. Executive Compensation	115
	Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	115
	Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	115
	Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services	115

PART IV
	Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	116
	Item 16. Form 10-K Summary	118
	Signatures	119

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, our operations and financial performance. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, objectives of management and expected market growth, are forward-looking statements. The words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “outlook,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” and the negative version of these words and other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. Such forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties. Accordingly, there are or will be important factors that could cause actual outcomes or results to differ materially from those indicated in these statements. We believe these factors include but are not limited to those described under the heading “Summary of Material Risks Associated with our Business” and the “Risk Factors” section and include, among other things:

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions and expectations disclosed in the forward-looking statements we make. We have included important factors in the cautionary statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, particularly in the “Risk Factors” section, that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements that we make. Our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, collaborations, joint ventures or investments we may make or enter into.

You should read this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the documents that we have filed as exhibits to this Annual Report on Form 10-K completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are made as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.

Our business is subject to a number of risks that if realized could materially affect our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. These risks are discussed more fully in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These risks include the following:

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors set forth in the section titled “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The risks summarized above or described in full below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not precisely known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects.

Unless the context otherwise requires, we use the term “Inozyme,” “the Company,” “we,” “us,” “our” and similar designations in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to refer to Inozyme Pharma, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries.

We are a clinical-stage rare disease biopharmaceutical company developing novel therapeutics for the treatment of diseases of abnormal mineralization impacting the vasculature, soft tissue and skeleton. Through our in-depth understanding of the biological pathways involved in mineralization, we are pursuing the development of therapeutics to address the underlying causes of these debilitating diseases. It is well established that two genes, ENPP1 and ABCC6, play key roles in a critical mineralization pathway and that defects in these genes lead to abnormal mineralization. We are initially focused on developing a novel therapy to treat the rare genetic diseases of ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies.

Our lead product candidate, INZ-701, is a soluble, recombinant, or genetically engineered, fusion protein that is designed to correct a defect in the mineralization pathway caused by ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies. This pathway is central to the regulation of calcium deposition throughout the body and is further associated with neointimal proliferation, or the overgrowth of smooth muscle cells inside blood vessels. We have generated robust preclinical proof of concept data demonstrating that in animal models INZ-701 prevented pathological calcification, led to improvements in overall health and survival and prevented neointimal proliferation. In addition, an earlier murine research version of INZ-701 achieved survival benefit in a mouse model. We plan to advance INZ-701 into two separate Phase 1/2 clinical trials, one in patients with ENPP1 deficiency in the United States and in Europe and another in patients with ABCC6 deficiency in Europe. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, have granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency. The FDA has also granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency. The FDA has also granted fast track designation for INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency, and rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA for INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency.

In December 2020, the FDA cleared our Investigational New Drug Application, or IND, for INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency, after our submission of a final study report for the three-month toxicology studies as recommended by the FDA and the resolution of a previously imposed clinical hold, and the United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, authorized our Clinical Trial Application, or CTA, for a Phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating INZ-701 in adults with ENPP1 deficiency. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the first half of 2021 and report preliminary safety and biomarker data in the second half of 2021.We expect to file subsequent CTAs with the regulatory authorities in Europe to allow us to initiate clinical development in Europe in the first half of 2021.

Subject to regulatory clearance of CTAs to be filed in Europe in the first half of 2021, we expect to initiate our planned Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 in Europe for the treatment of ABCC6 deficiency by mid-2021 and to report preliminary safety and biomarker data by the end of 2021.

Subject to successfully completing clinical development of INZ-701 in ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies, we plan to seek marketing approvals for INZ-701 on a worldwide basis. Beyond our development focus on INZ-701, we believe that our therapeutic approach has the potential to benefit patients suffering from additional diseases of abnormal mineralization, including those without a clear genetic basis. We are also currently exploring the potential for development of a gene therapy for ENPP1 deficiency.

A metabolic pathway that has been conserved throughout evolution in higher organisms is the key to regulating mineralization in the human body. If the proper function of this pathway is altered or disturbed, then both genetic and non-genetic diseases and conditions involving abnormal mineralization can result. In a properly functioning mineralization pathway, ENPP1 is responsible for converting extracellular molecules of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, to pyrophosphate, or PPi, a regulator of calcium deposition throughout the body. ENPP1 is also responsible for converting extracellular ATP into a precursor of adenosine, a regulator of neointimal proliferation. A defect in the ENPP1 gene results in low levels of PPi, leading to abnormal mineralization in the vasculature and soft tissues, and in low levels of adenosine, leading to neointimal proliferation and narrowing of blood vessels and potential development of cardiovascular disease. In a properly functioning mineralization pathway, ABCC6 is responsible for transporting ATP from inside a cell to outside the cell. A defect in the ABCC6 gene reduces the extracellular ATP available to be used by ENPP1, thus also resulting in low levels of PPi and adenosine and leading to abnormal mineralization and neointimal proliferation.

ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies are chronic, systemic, and progressive diseases occurring over the course of a patient’s lifetime, starting as early as fetal development and spanning into adulthood. These diseases represent a significant unmet medical need, with high mortality rates for infants with ENPP1 deficiency and high levels of morbidity occurring for patients with these diseases throughout their lives. ENPP1 deficiency is estimated to occur in approximately one in 200,000 births, and we believe there are between 11,000 and 12,000 patients worldwide with ENPP1 deficiency. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 3,500 patients with ENPP1 deficiency. ABCC6 deficiency is estimated to afflict approximately one per 50,000 individuals, and we believe there are more than 67,000 patients worldwide with ABCC6 deficiency. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 20,000 patients with ABCC6 deficiency. There are currently no approved therapies for either ENPP1 or ABCC6 deficiency. Currently available treatments are seeking to minimize the manifestations of these diseases.

We conducted what we believe is the largest retrospective, cross-sectional natural history study of 127 patients with a presumed diagnosis of ENPP1 deficiency. Preliminary results from this study suggest that the spectrum of manifestations for ENPP1 deficiency includes an infantile phase, a pediatric phase and an adult phase. Infants with ENPP1 deficiency have pathological vascular calcification, which has been referred to in the medical literature as generalized arterial calcification of infancy, or GACI, in which abnormal mineralization and neointimal proliferation result in narrowed blood vessels that can cause heart and kidney failure. Approximately 45% to 50% of infants with ENPP1 deficiency die within 12 months of birth. In childhood and adulthood, the survivors with ENPP1 deficiency experience ongoing risk for vascular calcification and organ dysfunction, debilitating rickets, which has been referred to in the medical literature as autosomal-recessive hypophosphatemic rickets type 2, or ARHR2, skeletal deformity, short stature, osteomalacia, and severe bone and joint pain, fatigue, muscle weakness, hearing loss, and are at risk for bone fractures, all symptoms that lead to poor quality of life and function. We plan to conduct a prospective, longitudinal natural history study of patients with ENPP1 deficiency designed to test and validate our findings from the retrospective natural history study.

ABCC6 deficiency is associated with pathological mineralization in blood vessels and soft tissues throughout the body resulting in significant morbidity, including blindness, potentially life-threatening cardiovascular complications and skin calcification. Some infants with ABCC6 deficiency are diagnosed with a vascular calcification condition resembling the acute infantile form of ENPP1 deficiency. In older patients, ABCC6 deficiency presents as pseudoxanthoma elasticum, or PXE, a rare disorder in which individuals develop calcification of soft connective tissues, including in the eyes, cardiovascular system and skin.

Our lead product candidate, INZ-701, targets the restoration of a normal balance in PPi and adenosine. In our preclinical studies conducted in ENPP1-deficient mouse models, dosing with INZ-701 resulted in increased plasma PPi levels, reduction in calcium deposits in a variety of tissues, prevention of calcification in the heart and aorta, and improvements in overall health. In ABCC6-deficient mouse models, dosing with INZ-701 also increased plasma PPi levels and reduced calcification in key tissues. In addition to normalizing levels of PPi, in preclinical studies, INZ-701 prevented neointimal proliferation in both wild-type and ENPP1-deficient mice, which we believe is attributable to increased levels of adenosine.

Beyond ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies, we believe that INZ-701 has the potential to provide therapeutic benefit to patients suffering from additional diseases of abnormal mineralization related to low PPi levels and diseases of neointimal proliferation related to low levels of adenosine, including diseases without a clear genetic basis. For example, calciphylaxis, a manifestation of chronic kidney disease, or CKD, may represent a particularly attractive area for drug development for abnormal mineralization. Calciphylaxis is characterized by pathological calcification of the vasculature in the skin and fat leading to skin ulcers, likely as a result of low PPi levels. There are currently no approved therapies for calciphylaxis, and the condition has a reported one-year survival rate of approximately 50%. We are currently in the early stages of development of INZ-701 for the treatment of calciphylaxis and are aware of competition at a more advanced stage of clinical development for this disease.

We retain worldwide, exclusive development and commercialization rights to our pipeline and programs, including INZ-701. Our current development programs are protected through exclusive intellectual property rights, including with filed and issued patents covering composition of matter for ENPP1-Fc fusion proteins, including INZ-701, and methods of treatment. We obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to our foundational intellectual property rights from Yale University, or Yale, in January 2017. In July 2020, we entered into an intellectual property asset purchase agreement with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Alexion, pursuant to which Alexion sold and assigned to us its right, title and interest in and to specified patent rights and other specified assets solely related to ENPP1.

We have assembled a leadership team with a strong track record and experience in building and managing biopharmaceutical companies and in rare disease research, development and commercialization. Our executives have experience, in particular, in developing new markets, obtaining marketing approval for and commercializing therapies for rare diseases that had not previously been the focus for drug development. Axel Bolte, our President and Chief Executive Officer and a co-founder of our company, previously had a successful career in healthcare venture capital, investing in and serving on the boards of directors of multiple private and public biopharmaceutical companies. Members of our science and medical leadership team previously led various discovery, development and manufacturing programs at Genzyme Corp., Sanofi S.A., Amgen Inc., BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., Alexion, Pfizer Inc., Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc., IMARA Inc., Vtesse (later acquired by Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and GlaxoSmithKline, among other companies. To date, we have funded our operations primarily with proceeds from the sales of convertible preferred stock and sales of our common stock in our initial public offering, or IPO.

Our goal is to develop and commercialize safe and effective therapies for the treatment of patients suffering from a broad range of genetic and non-genetic diseases of abnormal mineralization. The critical components of our strategy to achieve this goal include:

•

Build a patient-focused company to treat diseases of abnormal mineralization. We intend to continue to engage with patient advocacy groups, medical centers of excellence and medical specialists in an effort to expeditiously bring our therapy to patients. In building a patient-focused company to address the needs of both genetically defined and broader patient populations, we are working with clinicians and patient organizations to better understand the symptoms and consequences of diseases of abnormal mineralization and to increase awareness of the commonalities among these diseases. We have completed a retrospective, cross-sectional natural history study of patients who had GACI or any presentation of ENPP1 deficiency. We have also completed a burden of disease study in ENPP1 deficiency and ABCC6 deficiency with GACI Global, a patient advocacy organization dedicated to bettering the lives of families affected by GACI and/or ARHR2 to characterize the burden of disease and understand the systemic progression of disease from the perspective of a patient and/or caregiver. We have several ongoing and planned programs, including a prospective natural history study, which we plan to initiate in the first half of 2021. We believe that the findings from this study and others like it will be important in supporting future trial design and patient enrollment.

•

Continue to expand our scientific understanding of abnormal mineralization, our related intellectual property portfolio and our rights to complementary technologies. We intend to continue to pursue new scientific and therapeutic insights to position ourselves as leaders in the treatment of diseases of abnormal mineralization impacting the vasculature, soft tissue and skeleton. Both in our company laboratory and in collaboration with academic and research institutions, we plan to continue to conduct translational experiments, validate disease models and evaluate new treatment modalities in our area of focus. Our current development programs are protected through exclusive intellectual property rights, including with filed and issued patents covering composition of matter for ENPP1-Fc fusion proteins, including INZ-701, and methods of treatment. We expect to expand the breadth of our intellectual property portfolio over time to incorporate novel insights we obtain through our research. In addition, we may further expand our development pipeline by opportunistically in-licensing or acquiring the rights to complementary technologies and product candidates. For example, in July 2020, we expanded our intellectual property portfolio when we acquired specified patent rights and other specified assets related to ENPP1 from Alexion.

Our lead development programs, for which we retain worldwide, exclusive development and commercialization rights, are summarized in the table below.

Mineralization is a biological process during which an organism deposits hydroxyapatite, an organic extracellular matrix that gives rise to essential structures, such as bone and teeth in humans. In human development, this normal mineralization process begins as early as fetal development and continues throughout life. Diseases of abnormal mineralization have high levels of morbidity and mortality and can have a genetic and non-genetic basis.

A metabolic pathway that has been conserved throughout evolution in higher organisms is the key to regulating mineralization in the human body. Multiple enzymes and other proteins perform sequential reactions in this pathway as part of a normal mineralization process.

In a properly functioning mineralization pathway, the protein encoded by the ABCC6 gene (ATP-Binding Cassette in the C6 family) located on the cellular membrane is responsible for transporting adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, from inside a cell to outside the cell. The enzyme encoded by the ENPP1 gene (ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 1) then cleaves ATP into pyrophosphate, or PPi, and adenosine monophosphate, or AMP. PPi is a potent regulator of mineralization and, in particular, controls the rate of calcium crystal deposition in bone. AMP is further metabolized into adenosine, a potent regulator of cellular proliferation that, in particular, modulates a blood vessel’s response to injury and is responsible for preventing neointimal proliferation, or the overgrowth of smooth muscle cells inside blood vessels.

The normal function of this mineralization pathway is depicted in the figure below.

If the proper function of the key mineralization pathway is altered or disturbed, then both genetic and non-genetic diseases and conditions involving abnormal mineralization can result. Genetic mutations affecting ENPP1, a critical enzyme in the mineralization pathway, result in low levels of PPi and AMP, a precursor of adenosine. Genetic mutations affecting ABCC6, a critical protein in the mineralization pathway, decrease the availability of extracellular ATP required for proper ENPP1 function and give rise indirectly to low levels of PPi and AMP, a precursor of adenosine.

Low levels of PPi lead to abnormal mineralization and pathological calcification in areas of the body where it should not occur, referred to as ectopic calcification. This ectopic calcification occurs in the vasculature and soft tissue, including multiple organ systems, and results in disease. The heart, kidney, and skin are especially vulnerable to the effects of abnormal mineralization and pathological, ectopic calcification. Pathological, ectopic calcification in blood vessels inside bones can also interfere with normal skeletal mineralization. Low levels of adenosine lead to the narrowing and obstruction of blood vessels caused by neointimal proliferation and potential development of cardiovascular disease. ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies are chronic, systemic, and progressive diseases occurring over the course of a patient’s lifetime, starting as early as fetal development and spanning into adulthood.

The consequences of genetic mutations affecting ENPP1 are depicted in the figure below.

The consequences of genetic mutations affecting ABCC6 are depicted in the figure below.

ENPP1 deficiency is a rare, inherited, genetic inborn error of metabolism caused by inactivating mutations in the ENPP1 gene. The condition is inherited as a recessive trait in which mutations in the ENPP1 gene result in decreased or absent activity of the ENPP1 enzyme. ENPP1 deficiency results in low plasma levels of PPi and neointimal proliferation, and is a single, chronic, systemic, and progressive disease with high mortality and morbidity. The spectrum of manifestations for ENPP1 deficiency includes an infantile phase, a pediatric phase and an adult phase.

In the acute infantile phase, which has been referred to as GACI in the medical literature, ENPP1 deficiency is characterized by narrowing of large and medium arteries caused by severe and pathological vascular calcification and neointimal proliferation, resulting in dysfunction and potential failure of major organs, such as the heart and kidneys. The disease can be diagnosed prenatally when an ultrasound shows characteristic calcifications in the fetus. Infants with ENPP1 deficiency have clinical signs of hypertension, heart disease and kidney disease even at birth. Mortality caused by ENPP1 deficiency is at the highest during the infantile phase and occurs predominantly in the first 12 months of life. Approximately 45% to 50% of infants with ENPP1 deficiency die within 6 months of birth. If they survive the crisis of infancy during the first 6 months of life, individuals with ENPP1 deficiency are likely to survive through adolescence and beyond, but with significant morbidity and a low quality of life.

In the pediatric phase, in addition to continuing vascular and organ calcification, ENPP1 deficiency is characterized by the onset of rickets, which has been referred to in the medical literature as autosomal-recessive hypophosphatemic rickets type 2, or ARHR2. This is associated with an excess circulating concentration of a hormone known as fibroblast growth factor-23 (FGF23), which in turn causes the kidneys to waste phosphate, giving rise to rickets. ENPP1 deficiency is also associated with severe skeletal deformities, short stature, and severe bone pain. In addition, children with ENPP1 deficiency may experience excess calcification in joints and ligaments and dental problems caused by disrupted tooth movement and exfoliation. Early onset of hearing loss has also been reported in these children. Patients with pediatric ENPP1 deficiency experience impaired growth and development and generally decreased quality of life, including impaired ability to engage in normal childhood activities.

In the adult phase following closure of the bone growth plates at the end of adolescence, in addition to continuing vascular and organ calcification, patients with ENPP1 deficiency continue to have osteomalacia, severe bone pain, fatigue, muscle weakness and risk of recurring bone fractures. Adults with ENPP1 deficiency experience significant functional and cognitive impairment and generally decreased quality of life, including impaired activities of daily living.

The graphs below, adapted from a third-party study, show that patients with ENPP1 deficiency have decreased levels of PPi and elevated levels of ATP in the plasma. This study measured plasma levels of PPi and plasma levels of ATP in healthy volunteers between 19 and 40 years of age and in patients with ENPP1 deficiency between the ages of one month and 19 years of age. A p-value is a conventional statistical method for measuring the statistical significance of clinical results. A p-value of less than 0.05 is generally considered to represent statistical significance, meaning that there is a less than 5% likelihood that the observed results occurred by chance. Values are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). In these graphs, the symbol ** represents a p-value of less than 0.005 and the symbol *** represents a p-value of less than 0.001.

We conducted what we believe is the largest retrospective, cross-sectional, natural history study of infants, children and adults who had GACI or any presentation of ENPP1 deficiency, including subjects with the acute form of ABCC6 deficiency who were diagnosed with GACI as infants. The U.S. National Institutes of Health, or NIH, and the University of Münster in Germany contributed data on 127 subjects across 18 countries to this natural history study. Preliminary results from the study suggest that ENPP1 deficiency, regardless of its phenotypic manifestation or original diagnosis as GACI or ARHR2, appears to be a chronic, systemic, and progressive disease that occurs over the course of a patient’s lifetime.

As shown in the graph below, in our natural history study, arterial calcification preceded skeletal abnormalities, which preceded postnatal rickets. This data is shown using a Kaplan–Meier curve, also known as the product limit estimator, a non-parametric statistic used to estimate the probability of an event occurring given a defined time frame. While they occur at a defined rate, these manifestations occur simultaneously and concurrently following birth. The data indicate that the condition referred to as GACI in the medical literature is not independent of the condition referred to as ARHR2 in the medical literature. Preliminary results from our study suggest that arterial calcification and rickets are inseparable and dependent phenomena of ENPP1 deficiency.

The data also suggest that patients who survive their first 12 months of life continue developing a systemic, progressive disease involving arterial, skeletal and other organ calcifications, leading to physiological dysfunction across many systems. The graph below shows the Kaplan–Meier curve demonstrating systemic progression of the disease. The following manifestations of disease occur in progression: arterial calcification, cardiac dysfunction, organ calcification, pulmonary dysfunction and neurological dysfunction.

The data suggest that arterial calcification, organ calcification and organ dysfunction proceed in a progressive manner, with organ-specific symptoms emerging sequentially with time well into adulthood.

Based on our retrospective natural history study, we believe that ENPP1 deficiency is characterized by concurrent onset of manifestations, albeit at different rates, and that ENPP1 deficiency is a chronic, systemic, and progressive disease.

We plan to initiate a prospective, longitudinal natural history study of patients with ENPP1 deficiency in the first half of 2021 designed to test and validate our findings from the retrospective natural history study.

ENPP1 deficiency is estimated to occur in approximately one in 200,000 births, and we believe there are between 11,000 and 12,000 patients worldwide with ENPP1 deficiency. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 3,500 patients with ENPP1 deficiency. There are approximately 200 published cases of ENPP1 deficiency in the medical literature. To gather more information about patient symptoms and diagnoses of ENPP1 deficiency, we conducted an online physician survey in 2019. In our survey, which included select physician specialties in the United States, Canada and five major European countries, we identified 623 alive patients in these countries affected by ENPP1 deficiency following completion of 1,001 physician-conducted patient surveys. We have also completed an epidemiological study that projects the worldwide prevalence of ENPP1 deficiency. Based on this study and our physician survey, we believe that there are approximately 11,850 patients worldwide with ENPP1 deficiency.

There are currently no approved therapies for ENPP1 deficiency. Currently available treatments are seeking to minimize the manifestations of this disease. Some retrospective studies have reported potential therapeutic effect in infants of the bisphosphonate etidronate, a first-generation bisphosphonate developed to treat osteoporosis. However, these findings have been controversial due to selection bias in the study. In addition, etidronate has been discontinued in the United States, and bisphosphonate use can be associated with longer term adverse effects on skeletal development. Administration of vitamin D3 and oral phosphate are sometimes used to address the rickets of ENPP1 deficiency, although use of oral phosphate may actually increase the risk of pathological calcification. In a third-party healthy volunteer study, treating PPi deficiency by adjusting the diet was an inefficient process, with only a small fraction of dietary PPi being absorbed.

ABCC6 deficiency is a rare, inherited, genetic inborn error of metabolism caused by inactivating mutations in the ABCC6 gene. The systemic and progressively debilitating condition is inherited as a recessive trait in which mutations in the ABCC6 gene result in decreased or absent activity of the ABCC6 protein.

ABCC6 deficiency results in low plasma levels of ATP and PPi and is associated with pathological mineralization in blood vessels and soft tissues throughout the body, resulting in significant morbidity, including blindness, potentially life-threatening cardiovascular complications and skin calcification. The pathological mineralization associated with ABCC6 deficiency is the result of ectopic calcification in elastic fibers. Elastic fibers are a component of connective tissue, which provides strength and flexibility to structures throughout the body. Ectopic calcification can affect function in elastic fibers in the eyes, blood vessels and skin, and less frequently in other areas such as the digestive tract.

Some infants with ABCC6 deficiency are diagnosed with a vascular calcification condition resembling the acute infantile form of ENPP1 deficiency. In older patients, ABCC6 deficiency presents as pseudoxanthoma elasticum, or PXE, a rare disorder in which individuals develop calcification of soft connective tissues, including in the eyes, cardiovascular system and skin.

Individuals with PXE often have abnormalities in the eyes, such as a change in the pigmented cells of the retina or angioid streaks that occur when tiny cracks form in the elastic membrane, referred to as Bruch’s membrane, under the retina. Bleeding and scarring of the retina occur as well as choroidal neovascularization, which can cause vision loss. A recent report stated that 37% of PXE patients over the age of 50 experienced visual impairment and 15% were legally blind. Pathological mineralization of the blood vessels that carry blood from the heart to the rest of the body may cause other signs and symptoms of PXE. Ectopic calcification narrows blood vessels, particularly in the lower extremities, and leads to claudication, characterized by cramping and pain during exercise due to decreased blood flow to the arms and legs. Individuals with PXE may also have yellowish bumps called papules on their neck, underarms and other areas of the skin surrounding joint bends. These papules coalesce, and the skin becomes loose and wrinkled and are an indication of a general systemic pathological soft tissue calcification process.

Neointimal proliferation is also a pathophysiological feature of PXE. Narrowing of blood vessels accelerates in PXE patients, resulting in higher than normal cardiovascular incidents, such as ischemic stroke and early myocardial infarctions. The number of PXE patients with cardiovascular involvement is estimated at more than 21,000 worldwide. Bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract, in particular the stomach, has been reported to occur in approximately 13% of PXE patients.

The graphs below, adapted from a third-party study, show that patients with PXE have decreased levels of PPi and ATP in the plasma. This study measured plasma levels of PPi and plasma levels of ATP in healthy volunteers with an average age of 45 years (SD 11 ± years) and in patients with PXE with an average age of 46 years (SD ± 13 years). A p-value is a conventional statistical method for measuring the statistical significance of clinical results. Values are presented as the mean ± SD. In these graphs, the symbol ### represents a p-value of less than 0.005.

ABCC6 deficiency is estimated to afflict approximately one per 50,000 individuals, with the disease being diagnosed twice as frequently in females as in males, and we believe there are more than 67,000 patients worldwide with ABCC6 deficiency. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 20,000 patients with ABCC6 deficiency.

There are currently no approved therapies for ABCC6 deficiency. Currently available treatments are seeking to minimize the manifestations of this disease. Ophthalmic symptoms are typically treated with intravitreal injections of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors to slow the progression of choroidal neovascularization. However, damage to Bruch’s membrane in these patients leads to continued and recurring choroidal neovascularization, causing vision loss. The current treatment approach for slowing or limiting the cardiovascular manifestations of PXE is based on the reduction of cardiovascular risk factors through lifestyle changes or in some cases by taking cholesterol-lowering agents. In the event of severe vascular disease, patients may undergo standard surgical bypass or angioplasty procedures.

Abnormal mineralization and neointimal proliferation may also manifest in non-genetic diseases, such as calciphylaxis. Calciphylaxis, a manifestation of CKD, is associated with low levels of PPi and is characterized by pathological calcification of the vasculature in the skin and fat leading to skin ulcers. This disease has a reported one-year survival rate of approximately 50%. Calciphylaxis affects between 1% and 4% of patients with end stage renal disease. The estimated incidence of calciphylaxis is at least 1,800 new patients per year in the United States. There are currently no approved therapies for calciphylaxis, although use of sodium thiosulfate, a chelating agent intended to lower calcium content in the blood, reportedly improves wound healing. Patients also are often advised to maintain a low phosphate diet. Neointimal proliferation in the vasculature is a hallmark of a number of non-genetic diseases in which arteries have been damaged or disrupted by insertion of a stent, bypass graft occlusion, transplant vasculopathy or inflammation known as arteritis.

INZ-701 is a soluble, recombinant protein containing the extracellular domain of native human ENPP1 fused to the Fc domain of the immunoglobulin IgG1. In its native form, ENPP1 is a transmembrane enzyme with a modular structure consisting of a short intracellular domain, a single transmembrane domain and an extracellular domain that contains a conserved catalytic site responsible for enzymatic activity. ENPP1 is expressed predominantly in the liver and, to a lesser extent, in the kidney and bone. INZ-701 contains the extracellular soluble domain of ENPP1 fused to the Fc domain of IgG1 to minimize immunogenicity, stabilize the construct, increase the plasma half-life and allow ease of purification.

INZ-701 is designed to replace the lost enzymatic function of genetically deficient ENPP1 by restoring the normal balance in PPi and adenosine for ENPP1 deficiency and providing therapeutic effect to treat other diseases, like ABCC6 deficiency, involving low PPi levels. In contrast to native ENPP1, INZ-701 is a soluble protein that is designed to circulate throughout the body and access extracellular ATP and other nucleotide proteins. Like native ENPP1, INZ-701 cleaves ATP into PPi and AMP, a precursor of adenosine. Pharmacologically, INZ-701 is designed to have prolonged distribution and elimination phases, leading to steady-state concentrations in the blood over time and making dosing possible at infrequent intervals, potentially as long as weekly. INZ-701 is formulated for subcutaneous delivery.

In our preclinical studies conducted in ENPP1-deficient mouse models, dosing with INZ-701 resulted in increased plasma PPi levels, reduction of ectopic calcium deposits in a variety of tissues, prevention of calcification in the heart and aorta, and improvements in overall health. In ABCC6-deficient mouse models, dosing with INZ-701 also increased plasma PPi levels and reduced calcification in key tissues. In addition to normalizing levels of PPi, in preclinical studies, INZ-701 prevented neointimal proliferation in both wild-type and ENPP1-deficient mice, which we believe is attributable to increased levels of adenosine. The nonclinical INZ-701 toxicology studies that we conducted in two animal species showed no systemic adverse effects at doses that significantly exceeded potential human doses.

The FDA has granted orphan drug designation, fast track designation and rare pediatric disease designation to INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency and has granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency. The EMA has also granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency.

We determined preclinical proof of concept for INZ-701 using multiple mouse models containing inactivated genes for ENPP1. In these ENPP1-deficient mouse models, the animals have an increased propensity for vascular calcification and replicate key aspects of human disease due to ENPP1 deficiency. For example, an asj mouse contains a missense mutation in the ENPP1 gene and develops severe vascular calcification and skeletal abnormalities. In these mice, vascular calcification develops in newborn pups beginning around two weeks of age to fourteen weeks of age. This vascular calcification resembles that seen in human disease in infants due to ENPP1 deficiency, although in humans, extensive vascular calcification begins as early as fetal development.

In our preclinical studies, we also used an ABCC6 mouse model with targeted ablation of the ABCC6 gene. In these mice, ectopic calcification in tissues resembles that seen in human disease due to ABCC6 deficiency. ABCC6 is primarily expressed in the liver. In mice, ABCC6 is responsible for approximately 90% of the levels of extracellular ATP, the primary source of extracellular PPi. Mice in which the gene for ABCC6 has been inactivated exhibit significantly reduced levels of extracellular PPi in blood.

As a result of an ENPP1 gene mutation, asj mice have very low or nondetectable levels of circulating PPi. Treatment of these mice with 0.2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg of INZ-701 by subcutaneous injection every other day for a period of eight weeks led to significant increases in ENPP1 enzyme activity and PPi levels in plasma to approximately wild-type levels. These increases compensated for the loss of ENPP1 activity in this strain of mice. Mice treated with vehicle control lacked any ENPP1 activity and plasma PPi, as expected.

In addition to its ability to increase PPi levels in ENPP1-deficient mice, these initial studies showed that it is possible to administer doses of INZ-701 that normalized PPi levels in mice. We believe that increasing the amount of ENPP1 enzymatic activity by administration of INZ-701 could lead to further increases of PPi. We further believe this suggests that ENPP1 has the potential to provide therapeutic benefit in non-genetic diseases that involve ectopic calcification.

We also believe that our preclinical findings provide strong support for the eventual use of INZ-701 to treat patients with ABCC6 deficiency. Individuals with PXE have dysfunctional ABCC6 and decreased levels of plasma PPi due to deficiencies in exporting ATP from within the cell. In studies in mice with defects in the ABCC6 gene, plasma PPi levels are significantly reduced relative to wild-type mice but still higher than those seen in asj mice, which have an inactivated ENPP1 gene. In other studies, overexpression of ENPP1 in asj mice containing inactivated ENPP1 normalized plasma PPi levels. Addition of the same transgene of ENPP1 in ABCC6 mutant mice normalized PPi levels, suggesting that even in the case of limiting extracellular ATP, an increase in ENPP1 activity led to the formation of additional PPi.

Studies in mice with a genetic defect in ABCC6 led to the hypothesis that low levels of plasma PPi in patients with ABCC6 deficiency contributes to ectopic calcification. In studies in ABCC6-deficient mice, vascular calcification was correlated with plasma PPi level and overexpression of ENPP1 through transgene expression led to high levels of PPi resulting in significant reductions in cardiac calcium deposits. We believe these findings confirm the link between ABCC6, PPi and calcification. It also suggests that increasing plasma PPi in PXE patients offers potentially significant therapeutic benefit.

To further illustrate the potential of our approach, we dosed ABCC6-deficient mice with 1 mg/kg of INZ-701 and vehicle control for eight weeks. Treatment with INZ-701 resulted in an increase in plasma PPi levels consistent with those in normal healthy mice. The increase in plasma PPi levels was also associated with a decrease in pathological calcification of the eye, a target organ for ABCC6 deficiency and patients with PXE. The results of this study are shown in the graphs below. We believe these data support the use of INZ-701 in patients who carry mutations in the gene for ABCC6 and have soft tissue calcification due to low PPi levels.

The above findings in ABCC6-deficient mice were also observed in another study, as shown in the graph below, where doses of mENPP1-Fc, a research version of INZ-701 containing a mouse Fc domain, ranging from 2 mg/kg to 8 mg/kg increased plasma PPi levels to wild-type levels. We believe that the data from these two studies in ABCC6-deficient mice suggest the potential of ENPP1-Fc fusion proteins to increase plasma PPi levels and thereby reduce abnormal tissue calcification.

Asj mice fed a diet rich in phosphorous and low in magnesium, referred to as an acceleration diet, develop a number of complications due to calcification defects. These defects limit their locomotion, restrict their growth, cause calcium deposits in the vasculature and soft tissues and lead to a shortened lifespan. We dosed mice on the acceleration diet, starting at week two, with both INZ-701 and vehicle control every other day for eight weeks. INZ-701 delivered to asj mice at doses of 0.2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg significantly reduced ectopic calcification in the kidney, spleen, lung and liver. As shown in the graphs below, treatment with as little as 0.2 mg/kg of INZ-701 reduced calcium deposits in all tissues, and mice treated with 5 mg/kg of INZ-701 showed no differences in calcification compared to wild-type controls.

We obtained evidence of changes in vascular calcification in asj mice on the acceleration diet by carrying out scans of the heart and aorta using a technique known as high resolution micro computed tomography, or micro CT. All nine asj mice dosed with vehicle control showed variable but extensive calcification in the aorta, coronary artery and heart. All nine asj mice dosed with 0.2 mg/kg of INZ-701 showed a pattern and intensity of calcification signals similar to that shown when mice were dosed with vehicle control. In almost all cases, increasing the dose of INZ-701 to 1 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg completely prevented calcification in the heart and in the aorta. Only one out of nine mice from the 1 mg/kg group showed some evidence of cardiovascular calcification. Treatment with 5 mg/kg of INZ-701 completely prevented calcification in the heart and aorta in all eight mice dosed in the 5 mg/kg group. The dose response and degree of calcification measured by micro CT of the heart and aorta for each mouse in this study are illustrated below in increasing shades of blue and green. We believe these results suggest that INZ-701 may have the ability to significantly reduce the extent of ectopic calcification due to ENPP1 deficiency. In the study represented by the illustration below, the p-value for the degree of calcification for asj mice dosed with INZ-701 compared to asj mice dosed with vehicle control was 0.5341 for the 0.2 mg/kg group and 0.0004 for both the 1 mg/kg group and 5 mg/kg group.

To investigate whether increasing plasma PPi levels would prevent ectopic calcification in ABCC6-deficient mice, we dosed ABCC6-deficient mice with 2 mg/kg of INZ-701, 10 mg/kg of INZ-701 or vehicle control from two weeks of age for eight weeks every other day. At 10 weeks of age, all of the mice were euthanized and the mineralization and blood biochemistry was measured. In this study, ABCC6-deficient mice exhibited low plasma PPi levels and significantly increased muzzle skin calcification. However, treatment of ABCC6-deficient mouse with INZ-701 caused a significant increase in plasma PPi at doses of 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg and a significant reduction in the extent of calcification noted in the muzzle skin to wild-type levels. This increase in plasma PPi levels in the ABCC6-deficient mice contributed to the reduction in pathological tissue calcification. We believe that these data suggest that ABCC6 deficiency contributes to increased ectopic calcification and that ENPP1, through PPi, may be able to reduce the extent of calcification. In this graph, the symbol * represents a p-value of less than 0.005 and the symbol **** represents a p-value of less than 0.0001 relative to ABCC6 deficient mice treated with vehicle.

In addition to the measured changes in calcium deposition, treatment of asj mice with 0.2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg of INZ-701 and vehicle control every other day also led to improvements in overall health. Mice treated with INZ-701 had a dose-dependent increase in body weight compared to mice treated with vehicle control, whose average weight at 27 to 56 days was only 60% that of wild-type mice. Compared to asj mice treated with vehicle control, mice treated with INZ-701 at 1 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg showed significant increases in body weight. The results of this study are shown in the graph below.

In addition to body weight, treatment of asj mice with INZ-701 at 1 mg/kg and 5 mg/kg every other day led to improvement in a number of clinical signs associated with ENPP1 deficiency in mice, including pinned ear, hunched back, stilted and stiff legs, dehydration and rough hair coat. Treatment with INZ-701 also prevented asj mice from early mortality associated with becoming moribund.

In another experiment, we treated mice with either 1 mg/kg of mENPP1-Fc, a research version of INZ-701 containing a mouse Fc domain, or vehicle control starting on the fourteenth day of life and until day 55. In this experiment, all eight mice treated with mENPP1-Fc survived the full 55 days of the trial (represented by the blue line in the graph below), while the median lifespan of the untreated mice decreased from 58 days to 35 days (represented by the black hatched line in the graph below).

In another experiment, we treated asj mice with 0.2 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg of INZ-701 and vehicle control for 56 days to analyze by micro CT the femora and tibiae bones and measure both trabecular number and cortical thickness, which are two important contributors of bone strength. The strength of a bone and its ability to resist fracture is dependent upon these two structural parameters. Treatment of asj mice with INZ-701 corrected the bone defects, leading to a dose-dependent increase in bone length, trabecular number and cortical thickness as compared to asj mice treated with vehicle control.

Neointimal proliferation resulting from ENPP1 deficiency was also replicated in corresponding animal models. In animal models, neointimal proliferation is accelerated during conditions of injury including ligation of the artery. The exact mechanism linking ENPP1 deficiency to neointimal proliferation is under investigation, but is believed to directly involve the adenosine pathway.

The increase in neointimal proliferation can be observed in a strain of ENPP1-deficient mice known as ttw/ttw mice in a carotid artery ligation model. These mice have a single base pair change in the ENPP1 gene producing ENPP1 deficiency. The ttw/ttw mice were treated with 10 mg/kg of INZ-701 or vehicle control every other day for seven days before carotid artery ligation surgery and for 14 days following carotid artery ligation surgery. Vehicle control-treated ttw/ttw mice showed a significant increase in neointimal proliferation in the area of the artery at the sites of ligation. We believe these data, shown in the graph below, confirm that the INZ-701 treatment aligns with the earlier published findings indicating that ENPP1 treatment in mice inhibited ligation-induced neointimal proliferation.

Importantly, as shown in the graph below, INZ-701 also inhibited ligation-induced neointimal proliferation in wild-type mice without ENPP1 deficiency. These important findings in wild-type mice suggest that increasing levels of ENPP1 above normal may be useful in diseases in which vascular neointimal proliferation is increased.

To further evaluate INZ-701’s effects on neointimal proliferation, we conducted a pilot study in a swine model. In this study, three pigs underwent surgery in which stents were inserted into the coronary, profunda and femoral arteries. At day 14, the stents were re-injured with balloon dilation to initiate additional neointimal proliferation at the stented arterial sites. The sites were then evaluated with angiography and optimal coherence tomography, or OCT. We dosed the pigs with vehicle control and 10 mg/kg of INZ-701 every four days, with the first dose administered on day 10. At day 42, the pigs again underwent angiography and OCT, and quantification of neointimal proliferation was performed in the OCT images and compared to the day 14 OCT evaluation.

In this study, INZ-701 significantly (p<0.05) inhibited stenosis or neointimal proliferation in the profunda artery over 28 days. These results in a large animal model of neointimal proliferation support the results from the studies in the mouse model of neointimal proliferation. We plan to conduct additional studies to better understand the mechanism of action of INZ-701 at inhibiting neointimal proliferation due to arterial injury.

We evaluated INZ-701 in toxicology studies in rats, mice, and non-human primates. In single and multiple administration studies in rats and non-human primates, the maximum tolerated doses of INZ-701 were determined to be 180 and 100 mg/kg, respectively. In these studies, no systemic adverse effects or pathological effects were noted with INZ-701. Because both non-human primates and mice are relevant species, based on gene sequence homology and biologic activity, we subsequently conducted 28-day good laboratory practices, or GLP, IND-enabling studies in each species. In these studies, there were no adverse events and we observed normal histopathology and clinical pathology. In addition, we conducted a 28-day GLP cardiovascular study in non-human primates and, a 28-day GLP central nervous system and respiratory risk study in mice. There were no adverse observations in any of these studies at doses up to 30 mg/kg of INZ-701, which was the highest dose tested. The 28-day studies were followed by three-month GLP IND enabling toxicology studies in mice and non-human primates. There were no adverse observations in these studies at doses up to 60 mg/kg of INZ-701 in mice and 30 mg/kg of INZ-701 in non-human primates, which were the highest doses tested in each species. Overall, in our nonclinical toxicology studies, INZ-701 exhibited a good safety profile and an acceptable therapeutic index.

In July 2020, we submitted our IND for INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency to the FDA. In August 2020, at the end of the 30-day FDA review period, we were notified that the IND was placed on clinical hold, pending the submission of the final study report for our ongoing three-month toxicology studies in mice and non-human primates being performed in accordance with GLP regulations.

In October 2020, we filed a CTA with regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom to allow us to initiate clinical development for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency.

Following submission of the final study report for the three-month GLP toxicology studies in mice and non-human primates as recommended by the FDA and resolution of our clinical hold, in December 2020, the FDA cleared our IND and the MHRA authorized our CTA for a Phase 1/2 clinical trial evaluating INZ-701 in adults with ENPP1 deficiency. We plan to file subsequent CTAs with the regulatory authorities in Europe to allow us to initiate clinical development in Europe in the first half of 2021.

The INZ-701 Phase 1/2 clinical trial is a multi-center, open-label, first-in-human, multiple ascending dose trial in adults with ENPP1 deficiency. The trial is expected to enroll nine adult subjects across three dose cohorts with three subjects per cohort. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial in the first half of 2021 and report preliminary safety and biomarker data in the second half of 2021. Subjects will participate in a pre-dosing screening period followed by a four-week treatment period in which subjects will receive INZ-701 subcutaneously twice weekly. The Phase 1/2 clinical trial will primarily investigate the safety and tolerability of INZ-701 and characterize its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, including plasma PPi and other biomarker levels, to establish a recommended dosing regimen for further clinical development. Exploratory objectives include obtaining baseline measurements of calcification, patient reported outcomes and quality of life. An open label extension period will follow to assess long term safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of continued treatment with INZ-701.

If a safe dose is identified for further development, we plan to conduct Phase 2/3 clinical trials of INZ-701 in adult, infant and pediatric patient populations with ENPP1 deficiency. We intend to design these Phase 2/3 clinical trials as pivotal trials for registrational purposes. Many companies pursuing marketing approval for enzyme replacement therapies in rare diseases have followed a similar clinical development strategy.

Prior to initiating these Phase 2/3 clinical trials, we plan to engage with the regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions to determine appropriate primary efficacy endpoints and other requirements for potential marketing approval. In particular, if we propose new or novel endpoints or methodologies for our clinical trials, regulatory authorities will ultimately need to conclude that the endpoints of our clinical trials have provided clinically meaningful results before we are able to obtain potential marketing approval. We anticipate that data from our Phase 1/2 clinical trial will provide background information useful in the design of our planned Phase 2/3 clinical trials. If successful, the Phase 1/2 clinical trial would allow us to obtain evidence of the mechanism of action of INZ-701 through restoration of plasma PPi levels. Our clinical strategy, subject to ongoing discussions with the regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions, is to pursue registration of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency by linking the restoration of plasma PPi levels to measures of physiological and clinical efficacy in this patient population.

The FDA has granted orphan drug designation, fast track designation and rare pediatric disease designation to INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency. The EMA has also granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency.

We expect to file CTAs with regulatory authorities in Europe for INZ-701 in the first half of 2021 to allow us to initiate clinical development for the treatment of ABCC6 deficiency. Subject to regulatory clearance, we expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 by mid-2021, which is designed as an open-label, dose-escalation trial in adult patients with ABCC6 deficiency in Europe, and to report preliminary safety and biomarker data by the end of 2021. We expect to enroll nine patients in this trial for dosing over a period of seven weeks. The Phase 1/2 clinical trial will primarily investigate the safety and tolerability of INZ-701 and characterize its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, including plasma PPi levels, to establish a recommended dosing regimen. Secondary endpoints will include assessment of immunogenicity and other biochemical and physiological biomarkers associated with ABCC6 deficiency. An open label extension period will follow to assess long term safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of continued treatment with INZ-701.

If a safe dose is identified for further development, we plan to conduct a Phase 2/3 clinical trial of INZ-701 in adults with ABCC6 deficiency. We intend to design this Phase 2/3 clinical trial as a pivotal trial for registrational purposes. Prior to initiating this Phase 2/3 clinical trial, we plan to engage with the regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions to determine appropriate primary efficacy endpoints and other requirements for potential marketing approval. In particular, if we propose new or novel endpoints or methodologies for our clinical trials, regulatory authorities will ultimately need to conclude that the endpoints of our clinical trials have provided clinically meaningful results before we are able to obtain potential marketing approval. We anticipate that data from our planned Phase 1/2 clinical trial will provide background information useful in the design of our planned Phase 2/3 clinical trial. If successful, the Phase 1/2 clinical trial would allow us to obtain evidence of the restoration of plasma PPi levels. Our clinical strategy, subject to ongoing discussions with the regulatory authorities in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions, is to pursue registration of INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency by linking the restoration of plasma PPi levels to measures of physiological and clinical efficacy in this patient population.

Based on its mechanism of action, we believe that INZ-701 has the potential to normalize plasma PPi levels and provide therapeutic benefit to patients beyond those with monogenic defects in the ENPP1 or ABCC6 gene.

We intend to explore the potential of INZ-701 as a therapy in other, non-genetic diseases of abnormal mineralization associated with low levels of PPi. Calciphylaxis, a manifestation of CKD, is a non-genetic condition associated with vascular calcification and low PPi levels with a reported one-year survival rate of approximately 50%. The estimated incidence of calciphylaxis is at least 1,800 new patients per year in the United States. There are currently no approved therapies for calciphylaxis, although use of sodium thiosulfate, a chelating agent intended to lower calcium content in the blood, reportedly improves wound healing. Patients are often also advised to maintain a low phosphate diet. We are collaborating with a major academic institution to confirm that PPi levels are low in patients with calciphylaxis and to investigate associated manifestations that may be treated with INZ-701.

Diseases of neointimal proliferation include diseases without a clear genetic basis. In preclinical studies, INZ-701 prevented neointimal proliferation in both wild-type and ENPP1-deficient mice, which we believe is attributable to increased levels of adenosine. We plan to continue to explore the potential of INZ-701 in non-genetic diseases in which arteries have been damaged or disrupted by insertion of a stent, bypass graft occlusion, transplant vasculopathy or inflammation known as arteritis.

We plan to continue to develop new and innovative therapies to treat ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies. We believe we are well-positioned to do so because of our in-depth knowledge of the biological pathways involved in mineralization and of diseases of abnormal mineralization. For example, we have identified a gene therapy construct having an optimized ENPP1-Fc sequence driven by a tissue specific promoter in our enzyme replacement therapy program that has shown restoration and sustained enzyme activity leading to normalization of plasma PPi levels in preclinical experiments without adverse effects. Our results to date encourage us to continue to optimize our gene therapy construct as a potential new modality to treat diseases of abnormal mineralization impacting the vasculature, soft tissue and skeleton, in furtherance of our mission to become leaders in the treatment of such diseases.

Treatment of asj/2j mice with, ENPP1 deficiency with an AAV vector containing a modified ENPP1-Fc driven by a tissue specific promoter at three different doses by a single intravenous injection for a period of ten weeks led to a dose dependent increase in PPi levels. Mice treated with vehicle control lacked any plasma PPi, as expected.

While we have personnel with substantial manufacturing experience, we do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of both drug substance and finished drug product for INZ-701 and any future product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval. We also rely on these third parties for packaging, labeling, sterilization, storage, distribution and other production logistics. We have only limited supply agreements in place with respect to our product candidates, and these arrangements do not extend to commercial supply. We obtain supplies of drug substance and finished drug product for INZ-701 on a purchase order basis. We do not have long term committed arrangements with respect to any of our product candidates or other materials.

Manufacturing biologics is complex, especially in large quantities. Biologic products must be made consistently and in compliance with a clearly defined manufacturing process. We have obtained from our third-party manufacturers a supply of INZ-701 that we believe is sufficient for our currently planned clinical trial of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency, which we expect to initiate in the first half of 2021, and for our currently planned clinical trial of INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency. However, we are continuing the process of scaling up our manufacturing processes and capabilities with our third-party manufacturers to support longer term clinical development. In addition, if we receive marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we will need to establish an agreement for commercial manufacture with a third party. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. If any of our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our product candidates, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement or be unable to reach agreement with an alternative manufacturer.

We retain worldwide, exclusive development and commercialization rights to our pipeline and programs, including INZ-701. At this stage, we have not yet established our own commercial organization or distribution capabilities as we have only recently begun transitioning to the clinical development of INZ-701. We believe that we will be able to commercialize INZ-701, if approved, for ENPP1 or ABCC6 deficiency with a small, targeted, internal sales and commercial organization in the United States and other major markets. We may explore the use of a variety of types of collaboration, co-promotion, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize our product candidates in smaller markets outside the United States or for other situations in which a larger sales and marketing organization is required.

We intend to continue to engage with patient advocacy groups, medical centers of excellence and medical specialists in an effort to expeditiously bring our therapy to patients.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, expertise, scientific knowledge and intellectual property provide us with competitive advantages, we face and will continue to face competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future. Moreover, our industry is characterized by the existence of large numbers of patents and frequent allegations of patent infringement.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and price, the level of competition and the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. If any of our product candidates are approved and successfully commercialized, it is likely that we will face increased competition as a result of other companies pursuing development of products to address similar diseases.

There are currently no approved therapies for the treatment of either ENPP1 or ABCC6 deficiency. Currently available treatments are only seeking to minimize the manifestations of these diseases. Although a number of companies generally are pursuing development of different enzyme replacement therapies or treatments for vascular calcification disorders and many other companies are focused on rare disease markets, we are not aware of any product candidate currently in clinical development for ENPP1 deficiency. SNF472, a calcification inhibitor, is currently in Phase 3 clinical development for calciphylaxis by Sanifit Inc., DS-1211, a tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase inhibitor, is currently in preparation for Phase 2 clinical development for PXE by Daiichi Sankyo Company, and Inositec has product candidates in preclinical development for calcification inhibitors.

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

We may pursue the in-license or acquisition of rights to complementary technologies and product candidates on an opportunistic basis. The acquisition and licensing of technologies and product candidates is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies also have similar strategies to in-license or acquire technologies and product candidates that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to in-license or acquire the relevant technology or product candidate on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. Because of our primary focus on rare diseases, if our product candidates achieve marketing approval, we expect to seek premium pricing.

In January 2017, we entered into a license agreement with Yale, which was amended in May 2020 and July 2020, pursuant to which Yale granted us (1) an exclusive, worldwide license, with specified rights to sublicense, under Yale’s interest in specified intellectual property rights and materials for specified therapeutic and prophylactic products, (2) a nonexclusive, worldwide license under Yale’s interest in the same intellectual property rights and materials for specified diagnostic products, and (3) a nonexclusive, worldwide license under Yale’s interest in specified know-how for specified products, in each case that use any ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase enzymes, or ENPPs, or an agonist or antagonist of ENPP, its receptors, substrates, or ENPP enzymatic products, subject to certain exceptions. These licensed intellectual property rights, materials and know-how arose, and may in the future continue to arise, primarily from research conducted by Dr. Demetrios Braddock and members of his laboratory at Yale. During the period in which Professor Braddock serves as a member of our scientific advisory board or has another arrangement with us pursuant to which he provides regular advice to us or has an active consulting arrangement with us, and so long as he is an employee or faculty member (including emeritus faculty member) at Yale, Yale is restricted from granting any third party any rights for any therapeutic or prophylactic uses for any ENPP technology made, created, developed, discovered, conceived or first reduced to practice by or on behalf of Professor Braddock or his laboratory. Under the license agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to pursue development and commercialization of specified ENPP products and licensed methods.

Pursuant to the license agreement, as partial upfront consideration, we paid to Yale approximately $60,000, which amount reflected unreimbursed patent expenses incurred by Yale prior to the date of the license agreement. We are responsible for paying Yale an annual license maintenance fee in varying amounts throughout the term ranging from the low tens of thousands of dollars to the high tens of thousands of dollars. As of December 31, 2020, we have incurred a total of $74,000 in license maintenance fees to Yale. We are required to pay Yale $3.0 million, based on the achievement of a specified net product sales milestone or specified development and commercialization milestones, for each therapeutic and prophylactic licensed product developed. We are required to pay Yale an amount in the several hundreds of thousands of dollars, based on the achievement of a specified net product sales milestone or specified development and commercialization milestones, for each diagnostic licensed product developed. While the agreement remains in effect, we are required to pay Yale low single-digit percentage royalties on aggregate worldwide net sales of certain licensed products, which may be subject to reductions. Yale is guaranteed a minimum royalty payment amount (ranging in dollar amounts from the mid six figures to low seven figures) for each year after the first sale of a therapeutic or prophylactic licensed product that results in net sales. Yale is guaranteed a minimum royalty payment amount (ranging from the low tens of thousands of dollars to the mid tens of thousands of dollars) for each year after the first sale of a diagnostic licensed product that results in net sales. Such minimum royalty payment amounts are summed for each year after the first sale of both a therapeutic or prophylactic licensed product and a diagnostic licensed product has occurred. We must also pay Yale a percentage in the twenties of certain types of income we receive from sublicensees. We are also responsible for costs relating to the prosecution and maintenance of the licensed patents. Finally, subject to certain conditions, all payments due by us to Yale will be tripled following any patent challenge or challenge to a claim by Yale that a product is a licensed product under the agreement made by us against Yale if Yale prevails in such challenge.

We have also agreed to pay for ENPP research support from Yale pursuant to a sponsored research agreement that we entered into with Yale in January 2017 and amended in February 2019. Under the sponsored research agreement, as amended, we agreed to pay Yale an aggregate of $2.4 million over five years, ending in the fourth quarter of 2021, and as of December 31, 2020, we had paid Yale an aggregate of approximately $1.9 million. The research is performed by and under the supervision and direction of Professor Braddock for so long as he is employed by Yale.

The license agreement remains in effect until the latest of, on a country-by-country basis, (a) the date on which the last claim of the licensed patents in such country expires; (b) 10 years after the last licensed know-how, licensed materials or licensed methods have been provided to us by Yale; and (c) 10 years after the first sale of a specified ENPP product; but in no event later than the date that is 30 years after the effective date of the agreement. We may terminate the agreement for Yale’s uncured material breach of the agreement, we may terminate the agreement for convenience upon six months’ prior notice, and Yale may terminate the agreement for our uncured material breach of certain provisions or if we fail to make a payment when due, fail to obtain or maintain adequate insurance coverage or fail to engage in specified development and regulatory activities. The agreement will automatically terminate if we become insolvent or the subject of a bankruptcy event. Upon termination for any reason other than Yale’s breach of the agreement, in certain circumstances, Yale is permitted to use all regulatory approvals of, or clinical trials or other studies conducted by or on behalf of us on, and all filings made by or on behalf of us with regulatory agencies with respect to, certain licensed technology.

In July 2020, we entered into an intellectual property asset purchase agreement with Alexion pursuant to which Alexion sold and assigned to us Alexion’s right, title and interest in and to specified patent rights and other specified assets solely related to ENPP1. We issued 8,294,360 shares of our Series A-2 Convertible Preferred Stock to Alexion in consideration for the sale and assignment to us of such assets, which shares of preferred stock converted into 1,109,910 shares of our common stock in connection with our IPO. Under the intellectual property asset purchase agreement, we also granted a non-exclusive license to Alexion and its affiliates to continue to use the assets we acquired for Alexion’s and its affiliates’ internal, non-clinical research purposes. In addition, subject to certain specified qualifications set forth in the intellectual property assets purchase agreement, Alexion is obligated to assign to us its rights with respect to any other assets owned by it that are solely related to ENPP1.

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including by seeking, maintaining and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in our field. Additionally, we intend to rely on regulatory protection afforded through rare drug designations, data exclusivity and market exclusivity as well as patent term extensions, where available.

Our future commercial success depends, in part, on our ability to: obtain, maintain and enforce patent and other proprietary protection in the United States and other countries for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce in our intellectual property rights, in particular our patents rights; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing, misappropriating or violating the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies like ours are generally uncertain and can involve complex legal, scientific and factual issues. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient proprietary protection from competitors. We also cannot ensure that patents will issue with respect to any patent applications that we or our licensors may file in the future, nor can we ensure that any of our owned or licensed patents or future patents will be commercially useful in protecting our product candidates and methods of manufacturing the same. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application may be significantly reduced before a patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted and even challenged after issuance. As a result, we cannot guarantee that any of our products will be protected or remain protectable by enforceable patents. Moreover, any patents that we hold may be challenged, circumvented or invalidated by third parties. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property.

We generally file patent applications directed to our key programs in an effort to secure our intellectual property positions with respect to these programs. As of March 15, 2021, we owned or possessed exclusive rights to approximately 15 issued U.S. patents, 11 pending U.S. provisional patent applications, nine pending U.S. non-provisional patent applications, two allowed U.S. non-provisional patent applications, 10 issued foreign patents (including two issued European patents), 46 pending foreign patent applications, and three pending Patent Cooperation Treaty applications. As of March 15, 2021, we co-own with a third party six of the aforementioned pending U.S. provisional patent applications, one of the U.S. pending non-provisional applications, and one pending foreign patent application, and have an exclusive option to acquire a worldwide royalty-bearing license of all of such party’s rights in the aforementioned pending co-owned provisional patent applications.

In addition, as of March 15, 2021, we owned approximately one pending U.S. trademark application, one allowed U.S. trademark application, one pending foreign trademark application, and two foreign registered trademark applications.

The intellectual property portfolio for INZ-701, our most advanced program, as of March 15, 2021, is summarized below. Prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may be significantly narrowed before issuance, if issued at all. We expect this may be the case with respect to some of our pending patent applications referred to below.

Currently, our patent protection includes patents and patent applications that we have exclusively licensed under our license agreement with Yale. This licensed patent portfolio includes:

Through our acquisition of intellectual property assets from Alexion, we have acquired, among other assets:

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in 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 a non-provisional patent application.

In the United States, the term of a patent covering an FDA-approved drug may, in certain cases, be eligible for a patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 as compensation for the loss of patent term during the FDA regulatory review process. The period of extension may be up to five years, but cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. It is possible that issued U.S. patents covering the use of INZ-701 and products from our intellectual property may be entitled to patent term extensions. If our use of product candidates or the product candidate itself receive FDA approval, we intend to apply for patent term extensions, if available, to extend the term of patents that cover the approved use or product candidate. We also intend to seek patent term extensions in any jurisdictions where available, however, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions.

In addition to patent protection, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets and confidential know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. However, trade secrets and confidential know-how are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with any collaborators, scientific advisors, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees. We also have agreements requiring assignment of inventions with selected consultants, scientific advisors and collaborators. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection. These agreements may also be breached, and we may not have an adequate remedy for any such breach. In addition, our trade secrets and confidential know-how may become known or be independently developed by a third party, or misused by any collaborator to whom we disclose such information. Despite any measures taken to protect our intellectual property, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy aspects of our products or to obtain or use information that we regard as proprietary. Although we take steps to protect our proprietary information, third parties may independently develop the same or similar proprietary information or may otherwise gain access to our proprietary information. As a result, we may be unable to meaningfully protect our trade secrets and proprietary information. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to our Intellectual Property” for a more comprehensive description of risks related to our intellectual property.

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, pricing, reimbursement, sales, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products, including biological products. The processes for obtaining marketing 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.

In the United States, our product candidates would be regulated as biological products, or biologics, under the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations and guidance. The failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, including preclinical testing, clinical testing, the approval process, or post-approval process, may subject an applicant to delays in the conduct of the study, regulatory review, and approval, and/or administrative or judicial sanctions.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new biologic in the United States generally must satisfactorily complete each of the following steps:

Before testing any biologic product candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate the potential for efficacy and toxicity in animal studies. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with federal regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND application.

An IND is an exemption from the FDCA that allows an unapproved product candidate to be shipped in interstate commerce for use in an investigational clinical trial and a request for FDA authorization to administer such investigational product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions about the product or conduct of the proposed clinical trial, including concerns that human research subjects will be exposed to unreasonable health risks. In that case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns before the clinical trials can begin or recommence.

As a result, submission of the IND may result in the FDA not allowing the trials to commence or allowing the trial to commence on the terms originally specified by the sponsor in the IND. If the FDA raises concerns or questions either during this initial 30-day period, or at any time during the IND process, it may choose to impose a partial or complete clinical hold. Clinical holds are imposed by the FDA whenever there is concern for patient safety and may be a result of new data, findings, or developments in clinical, preclinical, and/or chemistry, manufacturing, and controls. This order issued by the FDA would delay either a proposed clinical trial or cause suspension of an ongoing trial, until all outstanding concerns have been adequately addressed and the FDA has notified the company that investigations may proceed. This could cause significant delays or difficulties in completing our planned clinical trial or future clinical trials in a timely manner.

Expanded access, sometimes called “compassionate use,” is the use of investigational products outside of clinical trials to treat patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases or conditions when there are no comparable or satisfactory alternative treatment options. The rules and regulations related to expanded access are intended to improve access to investigational products for patients who may benefit from investigational therapies. FDA regulations allow access to investigational products under an IND by the company or the treating physician for treatment purposes on a case-by-case basis for: individual patients (single-patient IND applications for treatment in emergency settings and non-emergency settings); intermediate-size patient populations; and larger populations for use of the investigational product under a treatment protocol or treatment IND application.

When considering an IND application for expanded access to an investigational product with the purpose of treating a patient or a group of patients, the sponsor and treating physicians or investigators will determine suitability when all of the following criteria apply: patient(s) have a serious or immediately life-threatening disease or condition, and there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy to diagnose, monitor, or treat the disease or condition; the potential patient benefit justifies the potential risks of the treatment and the potential risks are not unreasonable in the context or condition to be treated; and the expanded use of the investigational drug for the requested treatment will not interfere initiation, conduct, or completion of clinical investigations that could support marketing approval of the product or otherwise compromise the potential development of the product.

There is no obligation for a sponsor to make its drug products available for expanded access; however, as required by the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, passed in 2016, if a sponsor has a policy regarding how it evaluates and responds to expanded access requests, sponsors are required to make such policies publicly available upon the earlier of initiation of a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial, or 15 days after the investigational drug or biologic receives designation as a breakthrough therapy, fast track product, or regenerative medicine advanced therapy.

In addition to and separate from expanded access, on May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a manufacturer to make its investigational products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients with the disease or condition to be treated under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. When a foreign clinical trial is conducted under an IND, all FDA IND requirements must be met unless waived. When a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor must ensure that the trial complies with certain regulatory requirements, including GCP requirements, of the FDA in order to use the trial as support for an IND or application for marketing approval. The GCP requirements encompass both ethical and data integrity standards for clinical trials. The FDA’s regulations are intended to help ensure the protection of human subjects enrolled in non-IND foreign clinical trials, as well as the quality and integrity of the resulting data. They further help ensure that non-IND foreign trials are conducted in a manner comparable to that required for clinical trials in the United States.

Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB either centrally or individually at each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. The IRB will consider, among other things, clinical trial design, patient informed consent, ethical factors, the safety of human subjects, and the possible liability of the institution. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. The FDA, IRB, or the clinical trial sponsor may suspend or discontinue a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a finding that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Clinical testing also must satisfy extensive GCP rules and the requirements for informed consent.

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, or DSMB. This group may recommend continuation of the trial as planned, changes in trial conduct, or cessation of the trial at designated check points based on certain available data from the trial to which only the DSMB has access.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Additional studies may be required after approval.

In some cases, the FDA may approve a BLA for a product but require the sponsor to conduct additional clinical trials to further assess the product’s safety and effectiveness after approval. Such post-approval trials are typically referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication and to document a clinical benefit in the case of biologics approved under accelerated approval regulations. If the FDA approves a product while a company has ongoing clinical trials that were not necessary for approval, a company may be able to use the data from these clinical trials to meet all or part of any Phase 4 clinical trial requirement or to request a change in the product labeling. The failure to exercise due diligence with regard to conducting Phase 4 clinical trials could result in withdrawal of approval for products.

Information about applicable clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the NIH for public dissemination on its ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, or PREA, a BLA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. Sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. The FDA maintains a list of diseases that are exempt from PREA requirements due to low prevalence of disease in the pediatric population. In 2017, with passage of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA, Congress further modified these provisions. Previously, drugs that had been granted orphan drug designation were exempt from the requirements of the PREA. Under the amended section 505B, beginning on August 18, 2020, the submission of a pediatric assessment, waiver or deferral will be required for certain molecularly targeted cancer indications with the submission of an application or supplement to an application.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in full compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products like biologics whose attributes cannot be precisely defined.

Manufacturers and others involved in the manufacture and distribution of products must also register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Both domestic and foreign manufacturing establishments must register and provide additional information to the FDA upon their initial participation in the manufacturing process. Any product manufactured by or imported from a facility that has not registered, whether foreign or domestic, is deemed misbranded under the FDCA. Establishments may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by government authorities to ensure compliance with cGMPs and other laws. Inspections must follow a “risk-based schedule” that may result in certain establishments being inspected more frequently. Manufacturers may also have to provide, on request, electronic or physical records regarding their establishments. Delaying, denying, limiting, or refusing inspection by the FDA may lead to a product being deemed to be adulterated.

The results of product candidate development, preclinical testing, and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting license to market the product. The BLA must contain extensive manufacturing information and detailed information on the composition of the product and proposed labeling as well as payment of a user fee. Under federal law, the submission of most BLAs is subject to an application user fee, which for federal fiscal year 2021 is $2,875,842 for an application requiring clinical data. The sponsor of a licensed BLA is also subject to an annual program fee, which for fiscal year 2021 is $336,432. Certain exceptions and waivers are available for some of these fees, such as an exception from the application fee for products with orphan designation and a waiver for certain small businesses.

The FDA has 60 days after submission of the application to conduct an initial review to determine whether it is sufficient to accept for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission has been accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the application. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the PDUFA, the FDA has ten months in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months for a priority review of the application. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority BLAs. The review process may often be significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification. The review process and the PDUFA goal date may be extended by three months if the FDA requests or if the applicant otherwise provides additional information or clarification regarding information already provided in the submission within the last three months before the PDUFA goal date.

Under the PHSA, the FDA may approve a BLA if it determines that the product is safe, pure, and potent, and the facility where the product will be manufactured meets standards designed to ensure that it continues to be safe, pure, and potent. On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the application and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities and any FDA audits of preclinical and clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCPs, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. If the application is not approved, the FDA will issue a complete response letter, which will contain the conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the application, and when possible will outline recommended actions the sponsor might take to obtain approval of the application. Sponsors that receive a complete response letter may submit to the FDA information that represents a complete response to the issues identified by the FDA.

The FDA may also refer the application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation, and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. In particular, the FDA may refer applications for novel biologic products or biologic products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates, and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

If the FDA approves a new product, it may limit the approved indication(s) for use of the product. It may also require that contraindications, warnings, or precautions be included in the product labeling. In addition, the FDA may call for post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, to further assess the product’s efficacy and/or safety after approval. The agency may also require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the product 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 patent registries. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

The FDA is authorized to expedite the review of BLAs in several ways. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a product candidate may request the FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Candidate products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track application before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

Any product candidate submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a Fast Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as breakthrough therapy designation, priority review and accelerated approval.

None of these expedited programs change the standards for approval but they may help expedite the development or approval process of product candidates.

If regulatory approval for marketing of a product or new indication for an existing product is obtained, the sponsor will be required to comply with all regular post-approval regulatory requirements as well as any post-approval requirements that the FDA have imposed as part of the approval process. The sponsor will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, provide updated safety and efficacy information and comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling requirements. Manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with ongoing regulatory requirements, including cGMP regulations, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon manufacturers. Accordingly, the sponsor and its third-party manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP regulations and other regulatory requirements.

A product may also be subject to official lot release, meaning that the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official lot release, the manufacturer must submit samples of each lot, together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot, to the FDA. The FDA may in addition perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products before releasing the lots for distribution. Finally, the FDA will conduct laboratory research related to the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of pharmaceutical products.

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

Pharmaceutical products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. Although healthcare providers may prescribe products for off-label uses in their professional judgment, drug manufacturers are prohibited from soliciting, encouraging or promoting unapproved uses of a product. 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.

The FDA strictly regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of prescription drug products placed on the market. This regulation includes, among other things, standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, communications regarding unapproved uses, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. Promotional claims about a drug’s safety or effectiveness are prohibited before the drug is approved. After approval, a drug product generally may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA, as reflected in the product’s prescribing information.

If a company is found to have promoted off-label uses, it may become subject to adverse public relations and administrative and judicial enforcement by the FDA, the Department of Justice, or DOJ, or the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state authorities. This could subject a company to a range of penalties that could have a significant commercial impact, including civil and criminal fines and agreements that materially restrict the manner in which a company promotes or distributes drug products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

Orphan drug designation in the United States is designed to encourage sponsors to develop products intended for rare diseases or conditions. In the United States, a rare disease or condition is statutorily defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the biologic for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States.

Orphan drug designation qualifies a company for tax credits and market exclusivity for seven years following the date of the product’s marketing approval if granted by the FDA. An application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. A product becomes an orphan when it receives orphan drug designation from the Office of Orphan Products Development at the FDA based on acceptable confidential requests made under the regulatory provisions. The product must then go through the review and approval process like any other product.

A sponsor may request orphan drug designation of a previously unapproved product or new orphan indication for an already marketed product. In addition, a sponsor of a product that is otherwise the same product as an already approved orphan drug may seek and obtain orphan drug designation for the subsequent product for the same rare disease or condition if it can present a plausible hypothesis that its product may be clinically superior to the first drug. More than one sponsor may receive orphan drug designation for the same product for the same rare disease or condition, but each sponsor seeking orphan drug designation must file a complete request for designation.

If a product with orphan designation receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will receive orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve another sponsor’s marketing application for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. If a product designated as an orphan drug ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan drug application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

The period of exclusivity begins on the date that the marketing application is approved by the FDA and applies only to the indication for which the product has been designated. The FDA may approve a second application for the same product for a different use or a second application for a clinically superior version of the product for the same use. The FDA cannot, however, approve the same product made by another manufacturer for the same indication during the market exclusivity period unless it has the consent of the sponsor or the sponsor is unable to provide sufficient quantities.

Orphan drug exclusivity will not bar approval of another product under certain circumstances, including if a subsequent product with the same drug for the same condition is shown to be clinically superior to the approved product on the basis of greater efficacy or safety, or providing a major contribution to patient care, or if the company with orphan drug exclusivity is not able to meet market demand. This is the case despite an earlier court opinion holding that the Orphan Drug Act unambiguously required the FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity regardless of a showing of clinical superiority. Under Omnibus legislation signed by President Trump on December 27, 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drugs and biologics that received orphan drug designation before enactment of FDARA in 2017, but have not yet been approved or licensed by FDA.

The FDA and EMA have granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency. The FDA has also granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent and orphan exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity that cover the product are extended by six months.

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law in March 2010, included a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA. The BPCIA established a regulatory scheme authorizing the FDA to approve biosimilars and interchangeable biosimilars. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to an existing FDA-licensed “reference product.” As of January 1, 2021, the FDA has approved 29 biosimilar products for use in the United States. No interchangeable biosimilars, however, have been approved. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars. Additional guidances are expected to be finalized by the FDA in the near term.

Under the BPCIA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” In order for the FDA to approve a biosimilar product, it must find that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the reference product and proposed biosimilar product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. For the FDA to approve a biosimilar product as interchangeable with a reference product, the agency must find that the biosimilar product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product, and (for products administered multiple times) that the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date of approval of the reference product. The FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full BLA for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity, and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law. Since the passage of the BPCIA, many states have passed laws or amendments to laws, including laws governing pharmacy practices, which are state-regulated, to regulate the use of biosimilars.

Under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued regulations to protect the privacy and security of protected health information used or disclosed by covered entities including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses. HIPAA also regulates standardization of data content, codes, and formats used in healthcare transactions and standardization of identifiers for health plans and providers. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and their regulations, including the omnibus final rule published on January 25, 2013, also imposes certain obligations on the business associates of covered entities that obtain protected health information in providing services to or on behalf of covered entities. In addition to federal privacy regulations, there are a number of state laws governing confidentiality and security of health information that are applicable to our business. In addition to possible federal civil and criminal penalties for HIPAA violations, state attorneys general are authorized to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. Accordingly, state attorneys general (along with private plaintiffs) have brought civil actions seeking injunctions and damages resulting from alleged violations of HIPAA’s privacy and security rules. New laws and regulations governing privacy and security may be adopted in the future as well.

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

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our current or future business activities, including certain clinical research, sales, and marketing practices and the provision of certain items and services to our customers, could be subject to challenge under one or more of such privacy and data security laws. The heightening compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust and secure systems to comply with different privacy compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions could increase the possibility that a healthcare company may fail to comply fully with one or more of these requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the privacy or data security laws or regulations described above that are applicable to us, or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements, and/or oversight if we become subject to a consent decree or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our product candidates, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

In the United States, a patent claiming a new biologic product, its method of use or its method of manufacture may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, which permits a patent extension of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review. Assuming grant of the patent for which the extension is sought, the restoration period for a patent covering a product is typically one-half the time between the effective date of the investigational new drug application, or IND, involving human beings and the submission date of the BLA, plus the time between the submission date of the BLA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date in the United States. Only one patent applicable to an approved product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent for which extension is sought. A patent that covers multiple products for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The USPTO reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension in consultation with the FDA.

In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, for novel drugs, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding therapeutic should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product’s labeling. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance intended to assist sponsors of the drug therapeutic and in vitro companion diagnostic device on issues related to co-development of the products.

The 2014 guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a biologic product candidate generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a product are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE.

Under the FDCA, in vitro diagnostics, including companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post market surveillance. Unless an exemption applies, diagnostic tests require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercial distribution.

The FDA previously has required in vitro companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to the product candidate to obtain pre-market approval, or PMA, simultaneously with approval of the therapeutic product candidate. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. For federal fiscal year 2021, the standard fee is $365,657 and the small business fee is $91,414.

Regulation and Procedures Governing Approval of Medicinal Products in the European Union

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety, and efficacy, and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, an applicant will need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. Specifically, the process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union generally follows the same lines as in the United States. It entails satisfactory completion of preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product for each proposed indication. It also requires the submission to the relevant competent authorities of a marketing authorization application, or MAA, and granting of a marketing authorization by these authorities before the product can be marketed and sold in the European Union.

Pursuant to the currently applicable Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, an applicant must obtain approval from the competent national authority of a European Union member state in which the clinical trial is to be conducted, or in multiple member states if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of member states. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by an investigational medicinal product dossier with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and corresponding national laws of the member states and further detailed in applicable guidance documents.

In April 2014, the European Union adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the European Union. Specifically, the new legislation, which will be directly applicable in all member states, aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the European Union. For instance, the new Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications. As of January 1, 2020, the website of the European Commission reported that the implementation of the new Clinical Trials Regulation was dependent on the development of a fully functional clinical trials portal and database, which would be confirmed by an independent audit which was conducted in December 2020, and that the new legislation would come into effect six months after the European Commission publishes a notice of this confirmation. The Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable six months after the European Commission publishes notice of this confirmation and has published an expected system “go live” in December 2021. When the Clinical Trials Regulation becomes applicable, the existing Clinical Trials Directive and national legislation put in place to implement the Clinical Trials Directive will be repealed. Following implementation of the Clinical Trials Regulation, a transitional period will be in effect for one year where new clinical trial applications can be submitted either under the existing Clinical Trials Directive or under the new Clinical Trials Regulation.

Parties conducting certain clinical trials must, as in the United States, post clinical trial information in the European Union at the EudraCT website: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu.

In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative to facilitate development of product candidates in indications, often rare, for which few or no therapies currently exist. The PRIority MEdicines, or PRIME, scheme is intended to encourage drug development in areas of unmet medical need and provides accelerated assessment of products representing substantial innovation reviewed under the centralized procedure. Products from small- and medium-sized enterprises may qualify for earlier entry into the PRIME scheme than larger companies. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated marketing authorization application assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated EMA contact and rapporteur from the Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, or Committee for Advanced Therapies are appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at the EMA’s Committee level.

To obtain a marketing authorization for a product under the European Union regulatory system, an applicant must submit an MAA, either under a centralized procedure administered by the EMA or one of the procedures administered by competent authorities in European Union Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure, or mutual recognition procedure). A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA-approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product-specific waiver, class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization by the European Commission that is valid for all EU member states. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for medicines produced by certain biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy products and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of certain diseases, including products for the treatment of cancer. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, the centralized procedure may be optional. Manufacturers must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to the EMA, which provides an opinion regarding the MAA. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by the EMA.

Specifically, the grant of marketing authorization in the European Union for products containing viable human tissues or cells such as gene therapy medicinal products is governed by Regulation 1394/2007/EC on advanced therapy medicinal products, read in combination with Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, commonly known as the Community code on medicinal products. Regulation 1394/2007/EC lays down specific rules concerning the authorization, supervision, and pharmacovigilance of gene therapy medicinal products, somatic cell therapy medicinal products, and tissue engineered products. Manufacturers of advanced therapy medicinal products must demonstrate the quality, safety, and efficacy of their products to EMA which provides an opinion regarding the application for marketing authorization. The European Commission grants or refuses marketing authorization in light of the opinion delivered by EMA.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP established at the EMA is responsible for conducting an initial assessment of a product. Under the centralized procedure in the European Union, the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP. Accelerated evaluation may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days, but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

In the European Union, new chemical entities approved on the basis of a complete independent data package qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application for a period of eight years. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to authorization, is held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity so that the innovator gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests and clinical trials.

The European Union also provides for patent term extension through Supplementary Protection Certificates, or SPCs. The rules and requirements for obtaining a SPC are similar to those in the United States. An SPC may extend the term of a patent for up to five years after its originally scheduled expiration date and can provide up to a maximum of fifteen years of marketing exclusivity for a drug. In certain circumstances, these periods may be extended for six additional months if pediatric exclusivity is obtained, which is described in detail below. Although SPCs are available throughout the European Union, sponsors must apply on a country-by-country basis. Similar patent term extension rights exist in certain other foreign jurisdictions outside the European Union.

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

Following approval, the holder of the marketing authorization is required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of the medicinal product. These include compliance with the European Union’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post-authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. In addition, the manufacturing of authorized products, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must also be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s good manufacturing practice requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the European Union, which mandate the methods, facilities, and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. Finally, the marketing and promotion of authorized products, including industry-sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83EC, as amended.

Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 and Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provide that a product can be designated as an orphan drug by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish: that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

An orphan drug designation provides a number of benefits, including fee reductions, regulatory assistance, and the possibility to apply for a centralized European Union marketing authorization. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, neither the EMA nor the European Commission or the member states can accept an application or grant a marketing authorization for a “similar medicinal product.” A “similar medicinal product” is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication. The market exclusivity period for the authorized therapeutic indication may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation because, for example, the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity.

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. On December 24, 2020, the United Kingdom and the European Union entered into a Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which sets out certain procedures for approval and recognition of medical products in each jurisdiction.

Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime that applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom, as the legislation of the United Kingdom now has the potential to diverge from the legislation of the European Union. It remains to be seen how Brexit will impact the regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the United Kingdom in the long-term. The MHRA has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021, which will be updated as the United Kingdom’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.

Furthermore, while the Data Protection Act of 2018 in the United Kingdom that “implements” and complements the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, is now effective in the United Kingdom, it is still unclear whether transfer of data from the EEA to the United Kingdom will remain lawful under GDPR. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides for a transitional period during which the United Kingdom will be treated like an EU Member State in relation to processing and transfers of personal data for four months from January 1, 2021. This may be extended by two further months. After such period, the United Kingdom will be a “third country” under the GDPR unless the European Commission adopts an adequacy decision in respect of transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has already determined that it considers all of the European Union and EEA member states to be adequate for the purposes of data protection, ensuring that data flows from the United Kingdom to the European Union and EEA remain unaffected. We may, however, incur liabilities, expenses, costs, and other operational losses under GDPR and applicable EU Member States and the United Kingdom privacy laws in connection with any measures we take to comply with them.

The collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, including the U.S., and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase the cost of doing business or require companies to change their business practices to ensure full compliance.

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may seek regulatory approval by the FDA or other government authorities. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Patients are unlikely to use any product candidates we may develop unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of such product candidates. Even if any product candidates we may develop are approved, sales of such product candidates will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers, and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, such product candidates. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover any product candidates we may develop could reduce physician utilization of such product candidates once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. Third-party reimbursement and coverage may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. In addition, any companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical or biological products, will apply to any companion diagnostics.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of pharmaceuticals have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement, and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit a company’s revenue generated from the sale of any approved products. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which a company or its collaborators receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for any product candidates we may develop will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of any product candidates we may develop to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessments) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Recently, many countries in the European Union have increased the amount of discounts required on pharmaceuticals and these efforts could continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures, especially in light of the severe fiscal and debt crises experienced by many countries in the European Union. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. 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 parallel trade (arbitrage between low-priced and high-priced member states), can further reduce prices. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products, if approved in those countries.

Healthcare providers and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third-party payors, and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse, anti-kickback, false claims laws, reporting of payments to physicians and teaching physicians and patient privacy laws and regulations and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government in addition to requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to report information related to payments to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. In addition, certain state and local laws require drug manufacturers to register pharmaceutical sales representatives in the jurisdiction. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, limiting coverage and reimbursement for drugs and other medical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

In March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government healthcare programs.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, in August 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 2012 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 up to 2% per fiscal year, which will remain in effect through 2030 pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was enacted in January 2013, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several 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. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Since enactment of the ACA, there have been, and continue to be, numerous legal challenges and Congressional actions to repeal and replace provisions of the law. For example, with enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the TCJA, which was signed by President Trump on December 22, 2017, Congress repealed the “individual mandate.” The repeal of this provision, which requires most Americans to carry a minimal level of health insurance, became effective in 2019. On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments as to whether the individual mandate portion of the ACA is an essential and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore because the mandate was repealed as part of the TCJA, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On February 10, 2021, the Biden Administration withdrew DOJ’s support for this lawsuit. A ruling by the Supreme Court is expected sometime this year. Litigation and legislation over the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results.

The Trump Administration also took executive actions to undermine or delay implementation of the ACA including directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. On January 28, 2021, however, President Biden rescinded those executive orders and issued a new Executive Order which directs federal agencies to reconsider rules and other policies that limit Americans’ access to health care, and consider actions that will protect and strengthen that access. Under this Executive Order, federal agencies are directed to re-examine: policies that undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions, including complications related to COVID-19; demonstrations and waivers under Medicaid and the ACA that may reduce coverage or undermine the programs, including work requirements; policies that undermine the Health Insurance Marketplace or other markets for health insurance; policies that make it more difficult to enroll in Medicaid and the ACA; and policies that reduce affordability of coverage or financial assistance, including for dependents.

The costs of prescription pharmaceuticals have also been the subject of considerable discussion in the United States. To date, there have been several recent U.S. congressional inquiries, as well as proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. To those ends, President Trump issued five Executive Orders intended to lower the costs of prescription drug products but it is unclear whether, and to what extent, these orders will remain in force under the Biden administration. Further, on September 24, 2020, the Trump Administration finalized a rulemaking allowing, states or certain other non-federal government entities to submit importation program proposals to FDA for review and approval. Applicants are required to demonstrate that their importation plans pose no additional risk to public health and safety and will result in significant cost savings for consumers. The FDA issued draft guidance that would allow manufacturers to import their own FDA-approved drugs that are authorized for sale in other countries (multi-market approved products).

At the state level, individual states are increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. These measures could reduce the ultimate demand for our products, once approved, or put pressure on our product pricing. 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 our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

As of December 31, 2020, we had 38 employees, including a total of 11 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these full-time employees, 29 are engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our future success is dependent on attracting, motivating and retaining a diverse group of talented employees. We aim to create an inclusive and empowering work environment. Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and future employees. The principal purposes of our incentive plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants, advisors and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards and cash-based performance bonus awards, as applicable. We provide a comprehensive benefits package to help employees manage their health, well-being, finances, and life outside of work, including health insurance, dental and vision insurance, life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment issuance, short-term and long-term disability insurance, paid sick leave, a 401(k) plan, a flexible spending account program, and paid vacation time.

We value the health, safety and wellbeing of our employees and their families. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have implemented safety measures that we determined were in the best interest of our employees, including allowing our employees to work remotely, along with measures designed to protect the health of all those entering our office.

Our principal executive offices are located at 321 Summer Street, Suite 400, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, and our telephone number is (857) 330-4340. Our website address is http://www.inozyme.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference.

We own or have rights to, or have applied for, trademarks, service marks and trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business, including our corporate name, logos and website names. Other trademarks, service marks and trade names appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, some of the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are listed without the ^® and ^™ symbols.

Through our website, we make available free of charge our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act. We make these reports available through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. We also make available, free of charge on our website, the reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by our executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders pursuant to Section 16 under the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after copies of those filings are provided to us by those persons. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We have included our website address in this Annual Report on Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference.

Our future operating results could differ materially from the results described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K due to the risks and uncertainties described below. You should consider carefully the following information about risks below in evaluating our business. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial conditions, results of operations and future growth prospects would likely decline. In addition, we cannot assure investors that our assumptions and expectations will prove to be correct. Important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by forward-looking statements. See page i of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of some of the forward-looking statements that are qualified by these risk factors. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those factors discussed below.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $56.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 and $19.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $91.1 million. To date, we have not yet commercialized any products or generated any revenue from product sales and have financed our operations primarily with proceeds from sales of convertible preferred stock and common stock in our initial public offering, or IPO, which closed on July 28, 2020. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to pursuing research and development of our product candidates. We are still in the early stages of development of our lead product candidate, INZ-701. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency in the first half of 2021. Subject to regulatory clearance of CTAs to be filed in Europe in the first half of 2021, we expect to initiate our planned Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 in Europe for the treatment of ABCC6 deficiency by mid-2021.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. Our expenses could increase beyond our expectations if, among other things:

Even if we obtain marketing approval for and are successful in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we expect to incur substantial additional research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates or to expand the approved indications of any marketed product. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. 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.

We have never generated revenue from product sales and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

We have not yet initiated a clinical trial for any product candidate. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency in the first half of 2021, and we expect that it will be a number of years, if ever, before we have a product candidate ready for commercialization. To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in completing development of, obtaining marketing approval for and eventually commercializing, one or more products that generates significant revenue. The ability to achieve this success will require us to be effective in a range of challenging activities, including completing clinical development of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency, completing preclinical testing and clinical development of INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency, completing research, preclinical testing and clinical development of INZ-701 for additional indications or of other product candidates, scaling up our manufacturing processes and capabilities to support clinical trials of INZ-701 or of other product candidates we develop, obtaining marketing approval for INZ-701 or any other product candidates and manufacturing, marketing and selling any products for which we may obtain marketing approval. We may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, may never generate revenues that are significant enough to achieve profitability.

Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our pipeline of product candidates or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

We are heavily dependent on the success of our lead product candidate, INZ-701, which will require significant clinical testing before we can seek marketing approval and potentially launch commercial sales. If INZ-701 does not receive marketing approval or is not successfully commercialized, or if there is significant delay in doing so, our business will be harmed.

We currently have not yet advanced any product candidates into clinical trials, have no products that are approved for commercial sale and may never be able to develop marketable products. We expect that a substantial portion of our efforts and expenditures for the foreseeable future will be devoted to INZ-701. Our business currently depends heavily on the successful development, marketing approval and commercialization of INZ-701. We cannot be certain that INZ-701 will achieve success in future clinical trials, receive marketing approval or be successfully commercialized.

If we were required to discontinue development of INZ-701, or if INZ-701 does not receive marketing approval for one or more of the indications we pursue, fails to achieve significant market acceptance, or fails to receive adequate reimbursement, we would be delayed by many years in our ability to achieve profitability, if ever, and may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

We will need substantial additional funding. If we are unable to raise capital when needed, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our product development programs or commercialization efforts.

We expect to devote substantial financial resources to our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we prepare for, initiate and conduct our planned Phase 1/2 clinical trials of INZ-701 for ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies, and continue research and development and initiate additional clinical trials of, and seek marketing approval for, INZ-701 and any other product candidates we develop. We expect our expenses to increase substantially in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we advance our preclinical activities and clinical trials. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for INZ-701 or any other product candidate we develop, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution. Furthermore, we will incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital or obtain adequate funds when needed or on acceptable terms, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. In addition, attempting to secure additional financing may divert the time and attention of our management from day-to-day activities and distract from our research and development efforts.

As of December 31, 2020, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term and long-term investments of approximately $159.9 million. We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and short-term and long-term investments as of December 31, 2020, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second half of 2022. However, we have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us. In addition, changing circumstances could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. As a result, we could deplete our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. In addition, because the successful development of INZ-701 and any other product candidates that we pursue is highly uncertain, at this time we cannot reasonably estimate or know the nature, timing and costs of the efforts that will be necessary to complete the development of any product candidate.

Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. We will not generate commercial revenues unless and until we can achieve sales of products, which we do not anticipate for a number of years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, and may be impacted by the economic climate and market conditions. For example, market volatility resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic or any other future infectious diseases, epidemics or pandemics could also adversely impact our ability to access capital as and when needed. Alternatively, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate substantial revenues from product sales, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances and marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our stockholders’ rights as common stockholders. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our operations and ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making acquisitions, engaging in acquisition, merger or collaboration transactions, selling or licensing our assets, making capital expenditures, redeeming our stock, making certain investments or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances or marketing, distribution or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us.

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

We commenced activities in 2017 and are an early-stage company. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, securing intellectual property rights, conducting research and development activities, establishing arrangements for the manufacture of INZ-701 and longer term planning for potential commercialization. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency in the first half of 2021. Our prospects must be considered in light of the uncertainties, risks, expenses and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in their early stages of operations. We have not yet demonstrated our ability to successfully initiate or complete any clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales, marketing and distribution activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Consequently, any predictions stockholders make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing, obtaining marketing approval for and commercializing products.

In addition, as our business grows, we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known and unknown obstacles. We will need to transition at some point from a company with a research and development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

As we continue to build our business, we expect our financial condition and operating results to fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, stockholders should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance.

The COVID-19 pandemic may affect our ability to initiate and complete preclinical studies, delay the initiation of our planned clinical trials or future clinical trials, disrupt regulatory activities, disrupt our manufacturing and supply chain or have other adverse effects on our business and operations. In addition, this pandemic has caused substantial disruption in the financial markets and may adversely impact economies worldwide, both of which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many governments to implement measures to slow the spread of the outbreak through quarantines, travel restrictions, heightened border scrutiny and other measures. The outbreak and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact, both directly and indirectly, 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 as travel, has fallen. The future progression of the outbreak and its effects on our business and operations are uncertain.

We and the third-party manufacturers and clinical research organizations that we engage may face disruptions that could affect our ability to initiate and complete preclinical studies or clinical trials, including disruptions in procuring items that are essential for our research and development activities, such as, for example, raw materials used in the manufacturing of our product candidates, laboratory supplies for our preclinical studies and planned clinical trials, or animals that are used for preclinical testing, in each case, for which there may be shortages because of ongoing efforts to address the outbreak.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may experience further disruptions that could severely impact our business, including:

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic may redirect resources with respect to regulatory and intellectual property matters in a way that would adversely impact our ability to pursue marketing approvals and protect our intellectual property. In addition, we may face impediments to regulatory meetings and potential approvals due to measures intended to limit in-person interactions.

Furthermore, third parties, including manufacturers, medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract research organizations and consultants with whom we conduct business, are similarly adjusting their operations and assessing their capacity in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If these third parties continue to experience shutdowns or business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve and has already caused significant disruptions in the financial markets, and may continue to cause such disruptions, which could impact our ability to raise additional funds through public offerings and may also impact the volatility of our stock price and trading in our stock. Moreover, it is possible the pandemic will further significantly impact economies worldwide, which could result in adverse effects on our business and operations. We cannot be certain what the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will be on our business, and it has the potential to materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. To the extent the COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business, financial condition and results of operations, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section.

Changes in tax laws or in their implementation may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Changes in tax law may adversely affect our business or financial condition. On December 22, 2017, the U.S. government enacted legislation commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the TCJA, which significantly reformed the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code. The TCJA, among other things, contained significant changes to corporate taxation, including a reduction of the corporate tax rate from a top marginal rate of 35% to a flat rate of 21%, the limitation of the tax deduction for net interest expense to 30% of adjusted earnings (except for certain small businesses), the limitation of the deduction for net operating losses, or NOLs, arising in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 to 80% of current year taxable income and elimination of NOL carrybacks for losses arising in taxable years ending after December 31, 2017 (though any such NOLs may be carried forward indefinitely), the imposition of a one-time taxation of offshore earnings at reduced rates regardless of whether they are repatriated, the elimination of U.S. tax on foreign earnings (subject to certain important exceptions), the allowance of immediate deductions for certain new investments instead of deductions for depreciation expense over time, and the modification or repeal of many business deductions and credits.

As part of Congress’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, or FFCR Act, was enacted on March 18, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was enacted on March 27, 2020 and COVID relief provisions were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, or CAA, which was enacted on December 27, 2020. All contain numerous tax provisions. In particular, the CARES Act retroactively and temporarily (for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2021) suspends application of the 80%-of-income limitation on the use of NOLs, which was enacted as part of the TCJA. It also provides that NOLs arising in any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2021 are generally eligible to be carried back up to five years. The CARES Act also temporarily (for taxable years beginning in 2019 or 2020) relaxes the limitation of the tax deductibility for net interest expense by increasing the limitation from 30% to 50% of adjusted taxable income.

Regulatory guidance under the TCJA, the FFCR Act, the CARES Act and the CAA is and continues to be forthcoming, and such guidance could ultimately increase or lessen impact of these laws on our business and financial condition. It is also possible that Congress will enact additional legislation in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, some of which could have an impact on our company. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the TCJA, the FFCR Act, the CARES Act or the CAA.

Our ability to use our NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

We have a history of cumulative losses and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses in the foreseeable future. As a result, we do not know whether or when we will generate taxable income necessary to utilize our NOLs or research and development tax credit carryforwards. As of December 31, 2020, we had federal and state NOL carryforwards of $69.6 million and $50.4 million, respectively, and federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards totaling $1.0 million.

In general, under Section 382 of the Code and corresponding provisions of state law, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three year period, is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset future taxable income. We have not conducted a study to assess whether any such ownership changes have occurred. We may have experienced such ownership changes in the past and may experience such ownership changes in the future (which may be outside our control). As a result, if and to the extent we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards to offset such taxable income may be subject to limitations.

We are early in our development efforts. If we are unable to commercialize INZ-701 or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

We are early in our development efforts, and have not yet advanced INZ-701 or any other product candidates into clinical trials. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency in the first half of 2021, and subject to regulatory clearance of CTAs to be filed in Europe in the first half of 2021, we expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency by mid-2021.

Our ability to generate revenues from product sales, which we do not expect will occur for a number of years, if ever, will depend heavily on the successful development, marketing approval and eventual commercialization of INZ-701 or other product candidates we develop, which may never occur. The success of INZ-701 and any other product candidate we develop will depend on several factors, including the following:

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully develop and commercialize INZ-701 or any other product candidate we develop, which would materially harm our business. As a company, we do not have any experience in clinical development and have not advanced INZ-701 or any other product candidates into clinical trials. Any predictions about the future success or viability of INZ-701 or any product candidates we develop may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a history of conducting clinical trials.

Drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of future results. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of INZ-701 or any other product candidate. If our clinical trials do not meet safety or efficacy endpoints, or if we experience significant delays in trials, our ability to commercialize INZ-701 or any other product candidates we develop and our financial position will be impaired.

We have not yet begun a clinical trial for INZ-701 or any other product candidate. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency in the first half of 2021, and subject to regulatory clearance of CTAs to be filed in Europe in the first half of 2021, we then expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency by mid-2021. The risk of failure for INZ-701 is high. It is impossible to predict when or if INZ-701 or any other product candidate that we develop will prove effective or safe in humans or will receive marketing approval. Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of INZ-701 or any other product candidate we develop, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical trials may fail to demonstrate that INZ-701 or any other product candidates we develop is safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. Even if the clinical trials are successful, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application.

In order to obtain regulatory approval to market a new biological product, we must demonstrate proof of safety, purity and potency or efficacy in humans. To satisfy these requirements, we will have to conduct adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. Before we can commence clinical trials for a product candidate, we must complete extensive preclinical testing and studies that support our applications to regulatory authorities in the United States and Europe to allow us to initiate clinical development. We cannot be certain of the timely completion or outcome of our preclinical testing and studies and cannot predict if the outcome of our preclinical testing and studies will ultimately support the further development of our current or future product candidates or whether regulatory authorities will accept our proposed clinical programs. As a result, we may not be able to submit applications to initiate clinical development of INZ-701 or any other product candidate we develop on the timelines we expect, if at all, and the submission of these applications may not result in regulatory authorities allowing clinical trials to begin. For example, in August 2020, our IND for INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency was placed on clinical hold, until we submitted our final study report for our three-month toxicology studies in mice and non-human primates. Furthermore, product candidates are subject to continued preclinical safety studies, which may be conducted concurrently with our clinical testing. The outcomes of these safety studies may delay the launch of or enrollment in future clinical trials and could impact our ability to continue to conduct our clinical trials.

Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to the outcome. We cannot guarantee that any of our clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, or at all. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, which may result from a multitude of factors, including, among other things, flaws in study design, dose selection issues, placebo effects, patient enrollment criteria and failure to demonstrate favorable safety or efficacy traits. The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and preliminary or interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. For example, our product candidates may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in clinical development despite positive results in preclinical studies or having successfully advanced through initial clinical trials. As a result, we cannot assure stockholders that any clinical trials that we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to support marketing approval.

Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials even after achieving promising results in preclinical testing and earlier-stage clinical trials, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Furthermore, the failure of any of our product candidates to demonstrate safety and efficacy in any clinical trial could negatively impact the perception of our other product candidates or cause regulatory authorities to require additional testing before approving any of our product candidates.

We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize any product candidates that we develop, including:

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

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in preclinical studies or clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. We may also determine to change the design or protocol of one or more of our clinical trials, including to add additional patients or arms, which could result in increased costs and expenses or delays. Significant preclinical study or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

Because we are developing INZ-701 for the treatment of diseases in which there is little clinical experience and, in some cases, using new endpoints or methodologies, the FDA or other regulatory authorities may not consider the endpoints of our clinical trials to predict or provide clinically meaningful results.

There are currently no therapies approved to treat ENPP1 or ABCC6 deficiencies, and there may be no therapies approved to treat the underlying causes of diseases that we attempt to address or may address in the future. As a result, the design and conduct of clinical trials of product candidates for the treatment of these diseases may take longer, be more costly or be less effective as a result of the novelty of development in these diseases. In some cases, we may use new or novel endpoints or methodologies, such as change in plasma PPi, which we plan to evaluate in our Phase 1/2 clinical trials of INZ-701, and regulatory authorities may not consider the endpoints of our clinical trials to provide clinically meaningful results. Any such regulatory authority may require evaluation of additional or different clinical endpoints in our clinical trials or ultimately determine that these clinical endpoints do not support marketing approval. In addition, if we are required to use additional or different clinical endpoints by regulatory authorities, INZ-701 may not achieve or meet such clinical endpoints in our clinical trials.

Even if a regulatory authority finds our clinical trial success criteria to be sufficiently validated and clinically meaningful, we may not achieve the pre-specified endpoint to a degree of statistical significance in any pivotal or other clinical trials we may conduct for our product candidates. Further, even if we do achieve the pre-specified criteria, our trials may produce results that are unpredictable or inconsistent with the results of other efficacy endpoints in the trial. Regulatory authorities also could give overriding weight to other efficacy endpoints over a primary endpoint even if we achieve statistically significant results on that primary endpoint, if we do not do so on our secondary efficacy endpoints. Regulatory authorities also weigh the benefits of a product against its risks and may view the efficacy results in the context of safety as not being supportive of approval.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in our clinical trials for INZ-701 or any other product candidate we develop, our receipt of necessary marketing approvals could be delayed or prevented.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials for INZ-701 and any other product candidate we develop is critical to our success. We expect to initiate our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for ENPP1 deficiency in the first half of 2021. Successful and timely completion of clinical trials will require that we enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. Because of our primary focus on rare diseases, we may have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of eligible patients. ENPP1 deficiency is estimated to occur in approximately one in 200,000 births, and we believe there are between 11,000 and 12,000 patients worldwide with ENPP1 deficiency. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 3,500 patients with ENPP1 deficiency. ABCC6 deficiency is estimated to afflict approximately one per 50,000 individuals, and we believe there are more than 67,000 patients worldwide with ABCC6 deficiency. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 20,000 patients with ABCC6 deficiency. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. We cannot predict how successful we will be at enrolling subjects in future clinical trials. Patient enrollment is affected by a variety of other factors, including:

Our inability to locate and enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

If serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics are identified during the development of INZ-701 or any other product candidate we may develop, we may need to abandon or limit our further clinical development of those product candidates.

We have not yet evaluated INZ-701 or any other product candidate in clinical trials. If INZ-701 or any other product candidate we develop is associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected in clinical trials or preclinical testing, we may need to abandon development of such product candidate or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or unexpected characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In pharmaceutical development, many compounds that initially show promise in early-stage or clinical testing are later found to cause side effects that delay or prevent further development of the compound.

Additionally, if results of our clinical trials reveal undesirable side effects, we, regulatory authorities or the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted could suspend or terminate our clinical trials, regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications or we could be forced to materially modify the design of our clinical trials. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete any of our clinical trials or result in potential liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff.

If we elect or are forced to suspend or terminate any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidate will be harmed, and our ability to generate revenues from sales of such product candidate will be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences could materially harm our business.

Interim top-line and preliminary results from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more participant data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures, which could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publish interim top-line or preliminary results from our clinical trials. Interim results from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as participant enrollment continues and more participant data become available. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations, and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully evaluate all data. Preliminary or top-line results also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, interim and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between preliminary or interim data and final data could be material and could significantly harm our reputation and business prospects and may cause the trading price of our common stock to fluctuate significantly.

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval and we, or others, later discover that the drug is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, our ability to market the drug could be compromised.

We have not yet evaluated any product candidates in clinical trials. Clinical trials will be conducted in carefully defined subsets of patients who have agreed to enter into clinical trials. Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects. If one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we, or others, later discover that they are less effective than previously believed, or cause undesirable side effects, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of a particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate. Failure to allocate resources or capitalize on strategies in a successful manner will have an adverse impact on our business.

We currently plan to conduct some clinical trials for our product candidates at sites outside the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations.

We plan to conduct clinical trials of INZ-701 outside the United States, including our Phase 1/2 clinical trial of INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency. Although the FDA may accept data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States, acceptance of these data is subject to conditions imposed by the FDA. For example, the clinical trial must be well designed and conducted and be performed by qualified investigators in accordance with ethical principles. The trial population must also adequately represent the U.S. population, and the data must be applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice in ways that the FDA deems clinically meaningful. In addition, while these clinical trials are subject to the applicable local laws, FDA acceptance of the data will depend on its determination that the trials also complied with all applicable U.S. laws and regulations. If the FDA does not accept the data from any trial that we conduct outside the United States, it would likely result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and could delay or permanently halt our development of the applicable product candidates.

In addition, there are risks inherent in conducting clinical trials in multiple jurisdictions, inside and outside of the United States, such as:

Because gene therapy is novel and the regulatory landscape that governs any product candidates we may develop is uncertain and may change, we cannot predict the time and cost of obtaining regulatory approval, if we receive it at all, for any product candidates we may develop.

The regulatory requirements that will govern any novel gene therapy product candidates we develop are not entirely clear and may change. Within the broader genetic medicine field, we are aware of a limited number of gene therapy products that have received marketing authorization from the FDA and the European Medicines Authority, or EMA. Even with respect to more established products that fit into the categories of gene therapies or cell therapies, the regulatory landscape is still developing. Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products and cell therapy products have changed frequently and will likely continue to change in the future. Moreover, there is substantial, and sometimes uncoordinated, overlap in those responsible for regulation of existing gene therapy products and cell therapy products. For example, in the United States, the FDA has established the Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies within its Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER, to consolidate the review of gene therapy and related products, and the Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee to advise CBER on its review. Gene therapy clinical trials are also subject to review and oversight by an institutional biosafety committee, or IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees basic and clinical research conducted at the institution participating in the clinical trial. Gene therapy clinical trials conducted at institutions that receive funding for recombinant DNA research from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, are also subject to review by the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed, the review process and determinations of other reviewing bodies can impede or delay the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial and approved its initiation. The same applies in the European Union. The EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies, or CAT, is responsible for assessing the quality, safety, and efficacy of advanced-therapy medicinal products. The role of the CAT is to prepare a draft opinion on an application for marketing authorization for a gene therapy medicinal candidate that is submitted to the EMA. In the European Union, the development and evaluation of a gene therapy medicinal product must be considered in the context of the relevant European Union guidelines. The EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. As a result, the procedures and standards applied to gene therapy products and cell therapy products may be applied to any gene therapy product candidates we may develop, but that remains uncertain at this point.

Adverse public perception of genetic medicine, and gene therapy in particular, may negatively impact regulatory approval of, or demand for, our potential products.

The clinical and commercial success of our potential products will depend in part on public acceptance of the use of gene therapy for the prevention or treatment of human diseases. Public attitudes may be influenced by claims that gene therapy is unsafe, unethical, or immoral, and, consequently, our products may not gain the acceptance of the public or the medical community. Adverse public attitudes may adversely impact our ability to enroll clinical trials. Moreover, our success will depend upon physicians prescribing, and their patients being willing to receive, treatments that involve the use of product candidates we may develop in lieu of, or in addition to, existing treatments with which they are already familiar and for which greater clinical data may be available.

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

If any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may not be successful. If our product candidates do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant revenues from product sales and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Our assessment of the potential market opportunity for our product candidates is based on industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications, research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties and our analysis of these data, research, surveys and studies. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. While we believe these industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies are reliable, we have not independently verified such data. Our estimates of the potential market opportunities for our product candidates include a number of key assumptions based on our industry knowledge, industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies, which may be based on a small sample size and fail to accurately reflect market opportunities. While we believe that our internal assumptions are reasonable, no independent source has verified such assumptions. If any of our assumptions or estimates, or these publications, research, surveys or studies prove to be inaccurate, then the actual market for any of our product candidates may be smaller than we expect, and as a result our revenues from product sales may be limited and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability.

If we are unable to establish sales, marketing and distribution capabilities or enter into sales, marketing and distribution agreements with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience as a company in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any product for which we have obtained marketing approval, we will need to establish a sales, marketing and distribution organization, either ourselves or through collaborations or other arrangements with third parties.

We believe that we will be able to commercialize INZ-701, if approved, for ENPP1 or ABCC6 deficiency with a small, targeted, internal sales and commercial organization in the United States and other major markets. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities. 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, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. These efforts may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel. In general, the cost of establishing and maintaining a sales and marketing organization may exceed the cost-effectiveness of doing so.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our products on our own include:

If we are unable to establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities and we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services, our revenues from product sales and our profitability, if any, are likely to be lower than if we were to market, sell and distribute any products that we develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are acceptable 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 products 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.

We face substantial competition, which may result in others discovering, developing or commercializing products before or more successfully than we do, thus rendering our products non-competitive, obsolete or reducing the size of our market.

The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face and will continue to face competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, government agencies and public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

We are aware of a number of companies generally pursuing the development of different enzyme replacement therapies or treatments for vascular calcification disorders and many other companies are focused on rare disease markets. For example, SNF472, a calcification inhibitor, is currently in Phase 3 clinical development for calciphylaxis by Sanifit, DS-1211, a tissue-nonspecific alkaline phosphatase inhibitor, is currently in preparation for Phase 2 clinical development for pseudoxanthoma elasticum by Daiichi Sankyo Company, and Inositec has product candidates in preclinical development for calcification inhibitors.

Many of the companies against which we are competing or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our development programs. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products. Because of our primary focus on rare disease, if our product candidates achieve marketing approval, we expect to seek premium pricing.

Technology in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries has undergone rapid and significant change, and we expect that it will continue to do so. Any compounds, products or processes that we develop may become obsolete or uneconomical before we recover any expenses incurred in connection with their development.

Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We may pursue the in-license or acquisition of rights to complementary technologies and product candidates on an opportunistic basis. However, we may be unable to in-license or acquire any additional technologies or product candidates from third parties. The acquisition and licensing of technologies and product candidates is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies also have similar strategies to in-license or acquire technologies and product candidates that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to in-license or acquire the relevant technology or product candidate on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we currently believe, our revenue may be adversely affected, and our business may suffer. Because the target patient populations of our product candidates are small, we must be able to successfully identify patients and capture a significant market share to achieve profitability and growth.

We focus our research and product development on treatments for rare diseases. Given the small number of patients who have the diseases that we are targeting, it is critical to our ability to grow and become profitable that we continue to successfully identify patients with these rare diseases. Our projections of the number of people who have these diseases are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific and medical literature, industry publications, third-party research, surveys and studies, patient foundations or market research that we conducted, and may prove to be incorrect or contain errors. New studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. The effort to identify patients with diseases we seek to treat is in early stages, and we cannot accurately predict the number of patients for whom treatment might be possible. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for each of our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates, and new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business.

Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are very small, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining such significant market share. For example, the estimated incidence of ENPP1 deficiency is approximately one in 200,000 births worldwide. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 3,500 patients with ENPP1 deficiency. ABCC6 deficiency is estimated to afflict approximately one per 50,000 individuals, and we believe there are more than 67,000 patients worldwide with ABCC6 deficiency. In the United States, Europe and other major markets, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and Russia, we believe there are approximately 20,000 patients with ABCC6 deficiency. In addition, while we are pursuing marketing approval for ENPP1 deficiency and ABCC6 deficiency indications, the FDA may only grant approval for more narrow, specific disease indications that would result in a smaller market than we initially sought.

Because there are currently no products approved for the treatment of our target indications, such as ENPP1 and ABCC6 deficiencies, the pricing and reimbursement of our product candidates, if approved, is uncertain, but must be adequate to support commercial infrastructure. In addition, while we are pursuing additional non-genetic indications for INZ-701 such as for calciphylaxis and neointimal proliferation, we may not receive approval for such indications or such indications may not expand the target population for INZ-701 in an amount sufficient to achieve profitability. Furthermore, if we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be adversely affected.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, the products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage or reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could harm our business.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues, if any, we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

Our ability to commercialize any product candidates successfully also will depend in part on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers and other organizations. The availability of coverage and adequacy of reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford medical services and pharmaceutical products, including our product candidates. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for any product that we commercialize and, even if these are available, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory. Reimbursement may affect the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We may be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs 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 from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize products and our overall financial condition.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

There can be no assurance that our product candidates, even if they are approved for sale in the United States, in the European Union or in other countries, will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective by third-party payors, or that coverage and an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably.

Our future growth depends, in part, on our ability to penetrate foreign markets, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties that, if they materialize, could harm our business.

Our future profitability will depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates in markets outside of the United States and the European Union. We are not permitted to market or promote INZ-701 or any other product candidates we develop before we receive approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that foreign market, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. To obtain separate marketing approvals in other countries we may be required to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates. If we commercialize our product candidates in these foreign markets, we will be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

If risks related to any of these uncertainties materializes, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Clinical trial and product liability lawsuits against us could divert our resources and could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we may develop.

We face an inherent risk of clinical trial and product liability exposure related to the testing of our product candidates in human clinical trials, and we will face an even greater risk if we commercially sell any products that we may develop. While we currently have no products that have been approved for commercial sale, the planned and future use of product candidates by us in clinical trials, and the sale of any approved products in the future, may expose us to liability claims. These claims might be made by patients that use the product, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling such products. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on products that had unanticipated adverse effects. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold $10 million in product liability insurance coverage in the aggregate, with a per incident limit of $10 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We may need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials or if we commence commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If a successful clinical trial or product liability claim or series of claims is brought against us for uninsured liabilities or in excess of insured liabilities, our assets may not be sufficient to cover such claims and our business operations could be impaired.

We plan to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, which may prevent or delay our ability to seek or obtain marketing approval for or commercialize our product candidates or otherwise harm our business. If we are not able to maintain these third party relationships or if these arrangements are terminated, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans and our business could be adversely affected.

We plan to rely on third-party clinical research organizations, in addition to other third parties such as research collaboratives, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct our planned Phase 1/2 clinical trials of INZ-701 and any other clinical trials we conduct. We do not plan to independently conduct clinical trials of INZ-701 or any other product candidate that we may develop. These contract research organizations and other third parties play a significant role in the conduct and timing of these trials and subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third-party arrangements might terminate for a variety of reasons, including a failure to perform by the third parties. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, our product development activities might be delayed.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we will remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities in Europe and other jurisdictions have similar requirements. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of our contract research organizations or trial sites fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates. Furthermore, these third parties may also have relationships with other entities, some of which may be our competitors. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned, and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection of any marketing application we submit to the FDA. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates.

If any of our relationships with these third-parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third parties or do so on commercially reasonable terms. Switching or adding additional contract research organizations, investigators and other third parties involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new contract research organization commences work. As a result, delays can occur, which could materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. The COVID-19 pandemic and government measures taken in response have also had a significant impact on many contract research organizations. Although we plan to carefully manage our relationships with our contract research organizations, investigators and other third parties, we may nonetheless encounter challenges or delays in the future, which could have a material and adverse impact on our business, financial condition and prospects.

Manufacturing biologic products is complex and subject to product loss for a variety of reasons. We contract with third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of both drug substance and finished drug product for INZ-701 and any future product candidates for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for commercial manufacture if any of our product candidates receive marketing approval. We also rely on these third parties for packaging, labeling, sterilization, storage, distribution and other production logistics. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts. We may be unable to establish any agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

We have only limited supply agreements in place with respect to our product candidates, and these arrangements do not extend to commercial supply. We obtain supplies of drug substance and finished drug product for INZ-701 on a purchase order basis. We do not have long term committed arrangements with respect to any of our product candidates or other materials. We are continuing the process of scaling up our manufacturing processes and capabilities with our third-party manufacturers to support future clinical trials. In addition, if we receive marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we will need to establish an agreement for commercial manufacture with a third party.

We or our third-party manufacturers may encounter shortages in the raw materials or active pharmaceutical ingredients necessary to produce our product candidates in the quantities needed for our clinical trials or, if our product candidates are approved, in sufficient quantities for commercialization or to meet an increase in demand, as a result of capacity constraints or delays or disruptions in the market for the raw materials or active pharmaceutical ingredients, including shortages caused by the purchase of such raw materials or active pharmaceutical ingredients by our competitors or others. The failure of us or our third-party manufacturers to obtain the raw materials or active pharmaceutical ingredients necessary to manufacture sufficient quantities of our product candidates, may have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our third-party manufacturers are subject to inspection and approval by regulatory authorities before we can commence the manufacture and sale of any of our product candidates, and thereafter subject to ongoing inspection from time to time. Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside of the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in regulatory actions, such as the issuance of FDA Form 483 notices of observations, warning letters or sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products.

Manufacturing biologic products, such as INZ-701, is complex, especially in large quantities. Biologic products must be made consistently and in compliance with a clearly defined manufacturing process. Accordingly, it is essential to be able to validate and control the manufacturing process to assure that it is reproducible. The manufacture of biologics is extremely susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the product process. We have not yet scaled up the manufacturing process for any of our product candidates for potential commercialization. Even minor deviations from normal

manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination, which could harm our results of operations and cause potential reputational damage. Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. As a result, we may not obtain access to these facilities on a priority basis or at all. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for bulk drug substance. If any of our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our product candidates, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement or be unable to reach agreement with an alternative manufacturer. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact our ability to procure sufficient supplies for the development of our product candidates. The extent of this impact will depend on the severity and duration of the spread of the virus, and the actions undertaken to contain COVID-19 or treat its effects.

Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacture of our product candidates or products may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any products that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

We may enter into collaborations with third parties for the development or commercialization of our product candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates and our business could be adversely affected.

While we retain worldwide, exclusive development and commercialization rights to our pipeline and programs, including INZ-701, we could in the future enter into development, distribution, marketing or funding arrangements with third parties with respect to our existing or future product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any sales, marketing, co-promotion, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. We are not currently party to any such arrangement. However, if we do enter into any such arrangements with any third parties in the future, we will likely have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or commercialization of our product candidates. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Collaborations that we enter into may not be successful, and any success will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of such collaborators. Collaborations pose a number of risks, including the following:

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. If any collaborations that we enter into do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described herein also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if a collaborator of ours is involved in a business combination, the collaborator might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new collaborators and our perception in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected.

If we are not able to establish or maintain collaborations, we may have to alter our development and commercialization plans and our business could be adversely affected.

We may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies for the development and potential commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, and a number of more established companies may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. Whether we reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend,

among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator’s evaluation of a number of factors. Those factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge, and industry and market conditions generally. The collaborator may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate. We may also be restricted under future license agreements from entering into agreements on certain terms with potential collaborators. Collaborations are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators.

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market.

We have agreements with Yale to supplement our internal research and development program. If Yale decides to discontinue or devote less resources to such research, our research efforts could be diminished.

Our set of arrangements with Yale provide us with access to certain of Yale’s intellectual property and to Professor Demetrios Braddock’s laboratory in a manner that we believe closely aligns our scientific interests with those of Yale. We are a party to both a license agreement and a sponsored research agreement with Yale. While Yale has contractual obligations to us, it is an independent entity and is not under our control or the control of our officers or directors. The license agreement is structured to provide Yale with license maintenance fees, development and regulatory milestone payments, royalties on net sales of products, and a portion of sublicense income that we receive. Upon the scheduled expiration of the Yale sponsored research agreement in December 2021, we may not be able to renew the research agreement or any renewal could be on terms less favorable to us than those contained in the existing agreement. Furthermore, either we or Yale may terminate the sponsored research agreement for convenience following a specified notice period. If Yale decides to not renew or to terminate the Yale research agreement or decides to devote fewer resources to such activities, our research efforts would be diminished, while our royalty obligations to Yale would continue unmodified.

Our license agreement with Yale also provides that so long as Professor Braddock remains meaningfully involved in our company by serving as a member of our scientific advisory board or has a similar advisory arrangement or has an active consulting arrangement with us, and so long as he is an employee or faculty member (including emeritus faculty member) at Yale, any future invention by Professor Braddock’s laboratory in the license agreement’s field is included in the licensed intellectual property. If Professor Braddock were to leave Yale or no longer be meaningfully involved with us, we would no longer have access to future inventions in the license agreement’s field from Yale.

Additionally, the license granted under the license agreement terminates after a specified period following a qualifying change of control, unless we elect or our successor or assignee elects to continue the agreement. If the license is terminated after such a change of control, royalty payments would continue to be paid on certain licensed products.

Any acquisitions or in-license transactions that we complete could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our stockholders or reduce our financial resources.

We may enter into transactions to in-license or acquire other businesses, intellectual property, technologies, product candidates or products. If we determine to pursue a particular transaction, we may not be able to complete the transaction on favorable terms, or at all. Any in-licenses or acquisitions we complete may not strengthen our competitive position, and these transactions may be viewed negatively by customers or investors. We may decide to incur debt in connection with an in-license or acquisition or issue our common stock or other equity securities to the stockholders of the target company, which would reduce the percentage ownership of our existing stockholders. We could incur losses resulting from undiscovered liabilities that are not covered by the indemnification we may obtain from the seller. In addition, we may not be able to successfully integrate the acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business in an effective, timely and nondisruptive manner. In-license and acquisition transactions may also divert management attention from day-to-day responsibilities, increase our expenses and reduce our cash available for operations and other uses. For example, we completed an acquisition of specified patent rights and other specified assets related to ENPP1 from Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in July 2020. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of additional future in-licenses or acquisitions or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.

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

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce protection of the intellectual property we may own solely and jointly with others or may license from others, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to any proprietary technology and product candidates we develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our technologies and product candidates that are important to our business and by in-licensing intellectual property related to such technologies and product candidates. If we are unable to obtain, maintain or enforce patent protection with respect to any proprietary technology or product candidate, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, defend or license all necessary or desirable 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. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain, enforce and defend the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. Therefore, these in-licensed patents and applications may not be prepared, filed, prosecuted, maintained, defended and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the scope of patent protection outside of the United States is uncertain and laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States or vice versa. For example, European patent law restricts the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body more than United States law does. With respect to both owned and in-licensed patent rights, we cannot predict whether the patent applications we and our licensors are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates. In addition, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not published at all. Therefore, neither we nor our licensors can know with certainty whether either we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in the patents and patent applications we own or in-license now or in the future, or that either we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Moreover, our owned or in-licensed pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology and product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents and our ability to obtain, protect, maintain, defend and enforce our patent rights, narrow the scope of our patent protection and, more generally, could affect the value or narrow the scope of our patent rights.

Moreover, we or our licensors may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or product candidates and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize drugs without infringing third-party patent rights. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Our owned or licensed patent estate includes patent applications, many of which are at an early stage of prosecution. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if our owned or in-licensed patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned and in-licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and product candidates. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our management and employees, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. 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. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned or in-licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing technology and products similar or identical to any of our technology and product candidates.

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

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, 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 patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we are unable to obtain licenses from third parties on commercially reasonable terms or fail to comply with our obligations under such agreements, our business could be harmed.

It may be necessary for us to use the patented or proprietary technology of third parties to commercialize our products, in which case we would be required to obtain a license from these third parties. If we are unable to license such technology, or if we are forced to license such technology on unfavorable terms, our business could be materially harmed. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected product candidates, which could materially harm our business and the third parties owning such intellectual property rights could seek either an injunction prohibiting our sales or an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us.

If we are unable to obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our technology, product candidates, or the methods for manufacturing them or to develop or license replacement technology, all of which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may be unable to develop or commercialize the affected technology and product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if we fail to comply with our obligations under any license agreements, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market, or may be forced to cease developing, manufacturing or marketing, any product that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under such agreements. Such an occurrence could materially adversely affect the value of the product candidate being developed under any such agreement. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements, or restrictions on our ability to freely assign or sublicense our rights under such agreements when it is in the interest of our business to do so, may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology or impede, or delay or prohibit the further development or commercialization of one or more product candidates that rely on such agreements.

Our product candidates may face competition from biosimilars approved through an abbreviated regulatory pathway.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-approved reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first approved by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar

product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first approved. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full biologics license application, or BLA, for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of the other company’s product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation, and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

We believe that any product candidate of ours that may be approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

If we do not obtain patent term extension for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

In the United States, the term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may, in certain cases, be eligible for a patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or the Hatch-Waxman Act, as compensation for the loss of a patent term during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years, but patent extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and certain other non-United States jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. While, in the future, if and when our product candidates receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those product candidates, there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. We may not be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the term of extension, as well as the scope of patent protection during any such extension, afforded by the governmental authority could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain any patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following the expiration of our patent rights, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Changes to patent laws in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of patent laws in the United States, including patent reform legislation such as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These changes include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art, provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents, and enable third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent at USPTO-administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first-to-file system in which, assuming that the other statutory 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. As such, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our patent rights and our ability to protect, defend and enforce our patent rights in the future.

The federal government retains certain rights in inventions produced with its financial assistance under the Bayh-Dole Act. The federal government retains a “nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license” for its own benefit. The Bayh-Dole Act also provides federal agencies with “march-in rights”. March-in rights allow the government, in specified circumstances, to require the contractor or successors in title to the patent to grant a “nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license” to a “responsible applicant or applicants.” If the patent owner refuses to do so, the government may grant the license itself. We collaborate with a number of universities with respect to certain of our research and development. While it is our policy to avoid engaging our university collaborators in projects in which there is a risk that federal funds may be commingled, we cannot be sure that any co-developed intellectual property will be free from government rights pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act. If, in the future, we co-own or in-license technology which is critical to our business that is developed in whole or in part with federal funds subject to the Bayh-Dole Act, our ability to enforce or otherwise exploit patents covering such technology may be adversely affected.

Although we or our licensors are not currently involved in any litigation, we may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our or our licensor’s issued patents or other intellectual property. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components that are used in their products. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s product. To counter infringement or misappropriation, we or our licensors may need to file infringement, misappropriation or other intellectual property related claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming and can distract our management and scientific personnel. There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial or other resources to file and pursue such infringement claims, which typically last for years before they are concluded. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke such parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property.

In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, such parties could counterclaim that the patents we or our licensors have asserted are 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, including lack of novelty, obviousness, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may institute such claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings, derivation proceedings, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. Similarly, if we or our licensors assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we or our licensors have asserted are invalid or unenforceable, or that the party against whom we or our licensors have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks, which could materially harm our business and negatively affect our position in the marketplace.

An adverse result in any such proceeding could put one or more of our owned or in-licensed patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put any of our owned or in-licensed patent applications at risk of not yielding an issued patent, and could limit our or our licensor’s ability to assert those patents against those parties or other competitors and curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from developing and commercializing similar or competitive products. A court may also refuse to stop the third party from using the technology at issue in a proceeding on the grounds that our owned or in-licensed patents do not cover such technology. Even if we establish infringement, a court may not order the third party to stop using the technology at issue and instead award only monetary damages to us, which may not be an adequate remedy. 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 or trade secrets 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. Any of the foregoing could allow such third parties to develop and commercialize competing technologies and products and have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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. Our defense of litigation or interference or derivation proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

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

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable patent and other intellectual property litigation in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. We may become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our technology and product candidates, including interference proceedings, post grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings before the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, such as opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our technologies or product candidates that we may identify may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

The legal threshold for initiating litigation or contested proceedings is low, so even lawsuits or proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated and require significant resources to defend. Litigation and contested proceedings can also be expensive and time-consuming, and our adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we can. The risks of being involved in such litigation and proceedings may increase if and as our product candidates near commercialization and as we gain the greater visibility associated with being a public company. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future, regardless of merit. Even if we diligently search third-party patents for potential infringement by our products or product candidates, we may not successfully find patents our products or product candidates may infringe. We may not be aware of all such intellectual property rights potentially relating to our technology and product candidates and their uses, or we may incorrectly conclude that third party intellectual property is invalid or that our activities and product candidates do not infringe such intellectual property. Thus, we do not know with certainty that our technology and product candidates, or our development and commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any third party’s intellectual property.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations or methods, such as methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, related to the discovery, use or manufacture of the product candidates that we may identify or related to our technologies. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that the product candidates that we may identify may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. Moreover, as noted above, there may be existing patents that we are not aware of or that we have incorrectly concluded are invalid or not infringed by our activities. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover, for example, the manufacturing process of the product candidates that we may identify, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize the product candidates that we may identify. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

We may choose to take a license or, if we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could also be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing, manufacturing and marketing our technology and product candidates. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us and could require us to make substantial licensing and royalty payments. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing, manufacturing and commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for significant monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or other intellectual property right and could be forced to indemnify our customers or collaborators. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. In addition, we may be forced to redesign our product candidates, seek new regulatory approvals and indemnify third parties pursuant to contractual agreements. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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.

While we seek to protect the trademarks and trade names we use in the United States and in other countries, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining registrations or otherwise protecting these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition in our markets of interest and among potential partners or customers. We rely on both registration and common law protection for our trademarks. Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, diluted or declared generic, or determined to be infringing on other marks. At times, competitors may adopt trademarks and trade names similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks. If we are unable to protect our rights to trademarks and trade names, we may be prevented from using such marks and names unless we enter into appropriate royalty, license or coexistence agreements, which may not be available or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms.

During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we would be given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many foreign jurisdictions, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. Effective trademark protection may not be available or may not be sought in every country in which our products are made available. Any name we propose to use for our products in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a usable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

Intellectual property litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property could cause us to spend substantial resources and distract our personnel from their normal responsibilities.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. 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. 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 conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. 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 may also have an advantage in such proceedings due to their more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of intellectual property litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Obtaining and maintaining 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, renewal and annuity fees and various other government fees on any issued patent and pending patent application must be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages or annually over the lifetime of our patents and patent applications. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In certain circumstances, we rely on our licensing partners to pay these fees to, or comply with the procedural and documentary rules of, the relevant patent agency. With respect to our patents, we rely on an annuity service, outside firms and outside counsel to remind us of the due dates and to make payment after we instruct them to do so. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance 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. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology. If we or our licensors fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our product candidates, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our current and future intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose intellectual property rights that are important to our business.

We are party to a license agreement with Yale that provides us with the foundational intellectual property rights for our lead product candidate, INZ-701. This license agreement imposes diligence, development and commercialization timelines, and milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with such obligations, including achieving specified milestone events, Yale may have the right to terminate the license agreement or require us to grant them certain rights, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product that is covered by the intellectual property we in-license from them and may face other penalties. Any such occurrence could materially adversely affect the value of any product candidate being developed under any such agreement.

For a variety of purposes, we will likely enter into additional licensing and funding arrangement with third parties that may impose similar obligations on us. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. While we still face all of the risks described herein with respect to those agreements, we cannot prevent third parties from also accessing those technologies. In addition, our licenses may place restrictions on our future business opportunities.

In addition to the above risks, intellectual property rights that we license in the future may include sublicenses under intellectual property owned by third parties, in some cases through multiple tiers. The actions of our licensors may therefore affect our rights to use our sublicensed intellectual property, even if we are in compliance with all of the obligations under our license agreements. Should our licensors or any of the upstream licensors fail to comply with their obligations under the agreements pursuant to which they obtain the rights that are sublicensed to us, or should such agreements be terminated or amended, our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates may be materially harmed.

Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including:

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

Further, licensors could retain the right to prosecute and defend the intellectual property rights licensed to us, in which case we would depend on our licensors to control the prosecution, maintenance and enforcement of all of our licensed and sublicensed intellectual property, and even when we do have such rights, we may require the cooperation of our licensors and upstream licensors, which may not be forthcoming. For example, under the license agreement with Yale, any patent applications and issued patents under the agreement remain the property of Yale, and Yale has the right to choose patent counsel. Licensors may determine not to pursue litigation against other companies or may pursue such litigation less aggressively than we would. Our business could be adversely affected if we or our licensors are unable to prosecute, maintain and enforce our licensed and sublicensed intellectual property effectively.

Our current or future licensors may have relied on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties such that our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents and patent applications we in-license. If other third parties have ownership rights to patents or patent applications we in-license, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

In spite of our best efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates and technology covered by these license agreements. If these in-licenses are terminated, or if the underlying intellectual property fails to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products and technologies identical to ours. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States, and even where such protection is nominally available, judicial and governmental enforcement of such intellectual property rights may be lacking. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection or licenses but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. In addition, certain jurisdictions do not protect to the same extent or at all inventions that constitute new methods of treatment.

Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing, and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

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 licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We or our licensors may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we or our licensors 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 or our licensors’ ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. If we or our licensors 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, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees, consultants or contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties, or we have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees, consultants and contractors were previously employed at universities or other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these individuals or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our intellectual property assignment agreements with them may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive business position and prospects. Such intellectual property rights could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products, which license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, or such license may be non-exclusive. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and employees.

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

In addition to seeking patents for some of our technology and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract research organizations, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, but we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or has had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology. Despite these efforts, 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. Detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of a trade secret and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside of the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed.

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process of the FDA, the EMA and comparable foreign authorities is expensive, time-consuming, and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of any product candidates we develop. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize, or will be delayed in commercializing, product candidates we develop, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

Any product candidates we develop and the activities associated with their development and commercialization, including their design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States, the EMA and other regulatory authorities in the European Union and by comparable authorities in other countries. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate in a given jurisdiction. We have not received approval to market any product candidates from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction. We have only limited experience in filing and supporting the applications necessary to gain marketing approvals and expect to rely on third-party contract research organizations to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information, including manufacturing information, to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the biologic product candidate’s safety, purity, and potency. Any product candidates we develop may not be effective, may be only moderately effective, or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities, or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive, may take many years if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity, and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA, the EMA and comparable authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical, or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit, or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

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. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. 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 prolong the time necessary for new products 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, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, 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. The Trump Administration also took several executive actions that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’ s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities.

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

Failure to obtain marketing approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent any product candidates we develop from being marketed in such jurisdictions, which, in turn, would materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

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

Additionally, on June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. On December 24, 2020, the United Kingdom and European Union entered into a Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which sets out certain procedures for approval and recognition of medical products in each jurisdiction.

Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales, and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime that applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom or European Union for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and/or priority review designation by the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and does not assure FDA approval of our product candidates.

If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life threatening condition and the product candidate demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical need for this condition, the sponsor may apply to the FDA for fast track designation. For fast track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a fast track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a fast track product may be effective.

In addition, an applicant may seek designation of its product as a breakthrough therapy, which is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs and biologics that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens.

Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation.

Further, if the FDA determines that a product candidate offers major advances in treatment or provides a treatment where no adequate therapy exists, the FDA may designate the product candidate for priority review. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment-limiting product reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that may lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months.

In September 2020, we received fast track designation from the FDA for INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency. We may seek other designations for that and other product candidates. The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation and/or priority review designation to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, a fast track designation, breakthrough therapy designation or priority review designation does not necessarily mean a faster regulatory review process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or thereafter. In addition, the FDA may withdraw these designations if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

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

A product may be eligible for accelerated approval if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate an effect on a biomarker efficacy endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. The FDA or other applicable regulatory agency makes the determination regarding whether a biomarker efficacy endpoint is reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit.

We may seek approval of our product candidates using the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway. Prior to seeking such accelerated approval, we will seek feedback from the FDA and otherwise evaluate our ability to seek and receive such accelerated approval. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence and we may be required to evaluate different or additional endpoints in these post-marketing confirmatory trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

There can be no assurance that the FDA will agree with any biomarker efficacy endpoints that we propose, or that we will decide to pursue or submit an NDA for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval. Similarly, there can be no assurance that, after feedback from FDA, we will continue to pursue or apply for accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval, even if we initially decide to do so. Furthermore, if we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval or under another expedited regulatory designation, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Moreover, as noted above, for drugs granted accelerated approval, the FDA typically requires post-marketing confirmatory trials to evaluate the anticipated effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. We may be required to evaluate additional or different clinical endpoints in these post-marketing confirmatory trials. These confirmatory trials may require enrollment of more patients than we currently anticipate and will result in additional costs, which may be greater than the estimated costs we currently anticipate. The FDA may withdraw approval of a product candidate approved under the accelerated approval pathway if, for example, the trial required to verify the predicted clinical benefit of our product candidate fails to verify such benefit or does not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit to justify the risks associated with the drug. The FDA may also withdraw approval if other evidence demonstrates that our product candidate is not shown to be safe or effective under the conditions of use, we fail to conduct any required post approval trial of our product candidate with due diligence or we disseminate false or misleading promotional materials relating to our product candidate. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidates, or withdrawal of a product candidate, would result in a longer time period for commercialization of such product candidate, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

Even if we do receive accelerated approval, we may not experience a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and receiving accelerated approval does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval.

We may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug exclusivity for INZ-701 or any other product candidates we develop for one or more indications, and even if we do, that exclusivity may not prevent the FDA or the EMA from approving other competing products.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product as an orphan drug if it is a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition. A similar regulatory scheme governs approval of orphan products by the EMA in the European Union. Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or the EMA from approving another marketing application for the same product for the same therapeutic indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the European Union. The exclusivity period in the European Union can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, in particular if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified.

The FDA and the EMA have granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency. The FDA has also granted orphan drug designation to INZ-701 for ABCC6 deficiency.

In order for the FDA to grant orphan drug exclusivity to one of our products, the agency must find that the product is indicated for the treatment of a condition or disease with a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States or that affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available the biologic for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States. In order for the EMA to grant orphan drug designation, we must establish that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of (1) a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (2) a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Union and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the European Union would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, we must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the European Union or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

The FDA or the EMA may conclude that the condition or disease for which we seek orphan drug exclusivity does not meet the applicable standard. Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different products can be approved for the same condition. In addition, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same product for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later product is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. Under omnibus legislation signed by President Trump on December 27, 2020, the requirement for a product to show clinical superiority applies to drugs and biologics that received orphan drug designation before enactment of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, but have not yet been approved or licensed by the FDA. Orphan drug exclusivity may also be lost if the FDA or the EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of the patients with the rare disease or condition.

The FDA may reevaluate the Orphan Drug Act and its regulations and policies. We do not know if, when, or how the FDA may change the orphan drug regulations and policies in the future, and it is uncertain how any changes might affect our business.

We may seek a Rare Pediatric Disease Designation for one or more of our product candidates. However, a BLA for one or more of our product candidates may not meet the eligibility criteria for a priority review voucher upon approval.

With enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act in 2012, Congress authorized the FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of certain rare pediatric disease product applications that meet the criteria specified in the law. This provision is designed to encourage development of new drug and biological products for prevention and treatment of certain rare pediatric diseases. Specifically, under this program, a sponsor who receives an approval for a drug or biologic for a “rare pediatric disease” may qualify for a voucher that can be redeemed to receive a priority review of a subsequent marketing application for a different product. The sponsor of a rare pediatric disease drug product receiving a priority review voucher may transfer (including by sale) the voucher to another sponsor. The voucher may be further transferred any number of times before the voucher is used, as long as the sponsor making the transfer has not yet submitted the application.

For the purposes of this program, a “rare pediatric disease” is a (a) serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious or life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years, including age groups often called neonates, infants, children, and adolescents; and (b) rare disease or conditions within the meaning of the Orphan Drug Act.

In September 2020, we received rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA for INZ-701 for the treatment of ENPP1 deficiency. However, the FDA may determine that a BLA for INZ-701 or one or more of our other product candidates does not meet the eligibility criteria for a priority review voucher upon approval. While the opportunity to receive a priority review voucher was meant to expire for those companies that had not received a designation by September 30, 2020, Congress authorized a short term extension on that date. On December 27, 2020, the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority Review Voucher Program was further extended. Under the current statutory sunset provisions, after September 30, 2024, the FDA may only award a voucher for an approved rare pediatric disease product application if the sponsor has rare disease designation for the drug and that designation was granted by September 30, 2024. After September 30, 2024, the FDA may not award any priority review vouchers. If we do not obtain approval of our BLA for INZ-701 by these dates, and if the program is further extended by congressional action, we may not receive a priority review voucher.

Even if we, or any collaborators we may have, obtain marketing approvals for any product candidates we develop, the terms of approvals and ongoing regulation of our products could require the substantial expenditure of resources and may limit how we, or they, manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, along with the manufacturing processes, post-approval clinical data, labeling, advertising, and promotional activities for such product, will be subject to continual requirements of and review by the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, cGMP requirements relating to quality control, quality assurance and corresponding maintenance of records and documents, and requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians and recordkeeping. Even if marketing approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product.

Accordingly, assuming we, or any collaborators we may have, receive marketing approval for one or more product candidates we develop, we, and such collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance, and quality control. If we and such collaborators are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we and such collaborators could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or such collaborators’, ability to market any future products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our business, operating results, financial condition, and prospects.

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

The FDA and other regulatory agencies closely regulate the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure that they are marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA and other regulatory agencies impose stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding off-label use, and if we do not market our products for their approved indications, we may be subject to enforcement action for off-label marketing by the FDA and other federal and state enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice. Violation of the Federal Food, Product, and Cosmetic Act and other statutes, including the False Claims Act, relating to the promotion and advertising of prescription products may also lead to investigations or allegations of violations of federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and state consumer protection laws.

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

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any product candidates we develop and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates that we develop for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with 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. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other government regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices, including our relationships with physicians and other healthcare providers, may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Liabilities they incur pursuant to these laws could result in significant costs or an interruption in operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any collaborators to obtain marketing approval and commercialize our product candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, impact pricing and reimbursement and affect our ability, or the ability of any collaborators, to profitably sell or commercialize any product candidate for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

Among the provisions of the ACA of potential importance to our business, including, without limitation, our ability to commercialize our products and the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates that are approved for sale, are the following:

Delaware	38-4024528
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
321 Summer Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts	02210
(Address of principal executive offices)	(Zip Code)

Title of each class		Trading Symbol(s)		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common stock, par value $0.0001 per share		INZY		Nasdaq Global Select Market