bbio-10k_20191231.htm

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non‑voting common equity held by non‑affiliates of the registrant based upon the closing price of the registrant’s Common Stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 28, 2019 was $0 since the registrant had not issued any shares as of that date.

On February 24, 2020, there were 123,765,465 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock outstanding.

Specified portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement to be issued in conjunction with the registrant’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which is expected to be filed not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report. Except as expressly incorporated by reference, the registrant’s Proxy Statement shall not be deemed to be a part of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

This Annual Report on Form 10‑K contains forward‑looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Such forward‑looking statements involve substantial risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K, other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenue, projected costs, prospects, plans, intentions, expectations, goals and objectives may be forward‑looking statements. The words “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “designed,” “estimates,” “expects,” “goal,” “intends,” “may,” “objective,” “plans,” “projects,” “pursuing,” “will,” “would” and similar expressions (including the negatives thereof) are intended to identify forward‑looking statements, although not all forward‑looking statements contain these identifying words. The forward-looking statements in this report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions, expectations or objectives disclosed in our forward‑looking statements and the assumptions underlying our forward‑looking statements may prove incorrect. Furthermore, if our forward‑looking statements prove to be inaccurate, the inaccuracy may be material. Therefore, you should not place undue reliance on our forward‑looking statements, and you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all. Actual results or events could differ materially from the plans, intentions, expectations and objectives disclosed in the forward‑looking statements that we make. Important factors that we believe could cause actual results or events to differ materially from our forward‑looking statements include, but are not limited to, those listed under “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of Part I, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Item 7 of Part II and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K. Our forward‑looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K are based on current expectations as of the date hereof and we do not assume any obligation to update any forward‑looking statements on account of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

We are a team of experienced drug discoverers, developers and innovators working to create life-altering medicines that target well-characterized genetic diseases at their source. We founded BridgeBio in 2015 to identify and advance transformative medicines to treat patients who suffer from Mendelian diseases, which are diseases that arise from defects in a single gene, and cancers with clear genetic drivers. Our pipeline of over 20 development programs includes product candidates ranging from early discovery to late-stage development. Several of our programs target indications that we believe present the potential for our product candidates, if approved, to target portions of market opportunities of at least $1.0 billion in annual sales. We have initiated a rolling NDA submission for one of our product candidates, and have three product candidates in clinical trials that, if positive, we believe could support the filing of an application for marketing authorization.

We focus on genetic diseases because they exist at the intersection of high unmet patient need and tractable biology. Our approach is to translate research pioneered at academic laboratories and leading medical institutions into products that we hope will ultimately reach patients. We are able to realize this opportunity through a confluence of scientific advances, including: (i) identification of the genetic underpinnings of disease as more cost-efficient genome and exome sequencing becomes available; (ii) progress in molecular biology; and (iii) the development and maturation of longitudinal data and retrospective studies that enable the linkage of genes to diseases. We believe that this early-stage innovation represents one of the greatest practical sources for new drug creation.

We believe we have developed a sustainable and scalable product platform that supports the continued growth of our company and the advancement of our pipeline. Leveraging our product platform, we have a goal of adding two to three programs to our pipeline each year going forward.

Our product platform supports the advancement of our current pipeline, which includes over 20 development programs that can be divided into four key categories:

Of our development programs, we believe the following, which we refer to as our key value drivers, have the greatest potential to drive significant value for our company due to a combination of factors, including their stage of development, potential availability of expedited development pathways, degree of unmet medical need and potential market size in the applicable target indication:

The following table summarizes our significant development programs, their estimated patient populations, their therapeutic modalities and their development status:

We are developing BBP-265, also known as AG10, an oral small molecule TTR, stabilizer, for the treatment of TTR amyloidosis, or ATTR, including both cardiomyopathy and polyneuropathy manifestations, or ATTR-CM and ATTR-PN, respectively. A Phase 3 clinical trial in ATTR-CM, known as the ATTRibute study, is currently ongoing, and we anticipate initiating a Phase 3 clinical trial in ATTR-PN in the first-half of 2020. We anticipate reporting of 12-month 6MWD data from the Phase 3 ATTRibute study in patients in ATTR-CM in 2021.

ATTR is a disease caused by destabilization of TTR tetramers resulting in amyloid deposition. TTR is a protein that occurs naturally in the form of a tetramer, which is a molecular structure consisting of four identical subunits, or monomers, and performs multiple physiologic roles, including the transport of essential hormones and vitamins. In ATTR, TTR tetramers become destabilized due to a mutation in the TTR gene or as part of the natural aging process. Destabilized TTR dissociates into monomers, self-aggregates and assembles into fibrils which are deposited, predominantly in the heart and nervous system, driving disease pathophysiology.

ATTR is commonly categorized by its genotypic cause and primary clinical manifestation: wild-type ATTR cardiomyopathy, or ATTRwt-CM, which results from an age-related process; mutant ATTR cardiomyopathy, or ATTRm-CM; and ATTR polyneuropathy, or ATTR-PN, which is only associated with TTR mutants. All three forms of the disease are progressive and fatal. ATTRwt-CM and ATTRm-CM patients generally present with symptoms later in life (older than 50) and have median life expectancies of three to five years from diagnosis. ATTR-PN presents either in a patient’s early 30s or later (older than 50), and results in a median life expectancy of five to ten years from diagnosis. Progression of all forms of the disease causes significant disability, impacts productivity and quality of life, and creates a significant economic burden due to the costs associated with patient need for supportive care. As the disease progresses, ATTRwt-CM and ATTRm-CM patients may require frequent hospitalizations and repeated interventions. ATTR-PN patients experience gradual loss of the ability to walk without assistance, and autonomic nervous system function affecting digestion and blood pressure.

The worldwide estimated prevalence of ATTRwt-CM, ATTRm-CM, and ATTR-PN is approximately 400,000, 40,000, and 10,000, respectively. However, we believe that the cardiomyopathic forms of the disease are significantly underdiagnosed. For example, recent literature has suggested that between 12% to 19% of patients diagnosed with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction may, in fact, have undiagnosed ATTR-CM. This single segment represents approximately half of the 6.0 million to 7.0 million estimated people with heart failure in the United States alone. With the increasing availability of disease modifying therapeutics, disease awareness is heightened.

We believe the population of diagnosed ATTR-CM patients is also growing rapidly due to the shift to an accurate and reliable non-invasive diagnostic imaging technique. Historically, a heart biopsy was required to make a diagnosis of ATTR-CM. Recently, however, it has been shown that scintigraphy with technetium-labelled radiotracers is a highly accurate, non-invasive and cost effective method for ATTR-CM diagnosis. We believe that both increased disease awareness and availability of this non-invasive diagnostic imaging technique are allowing for earlier diagnosis of ATTR-CM patients and the identification of previously misdiagnosed patients.

BBP-265 is a clinical-stage orally-administered, small molecule TTR stabilizer being developed to treat ATTR at its source by reducing the level of amyloid formation through TTR stabilization. This has been shown in preclinical studies and clinical trials to prevent the dissociation of tetrameric TTR into monomers, and in preclinical studies, to reduce the rate of amyloid fibril formation. In addition, BBP-265 has been shown to lead to increased circulating levels of tetrameric TTR. BBP-265 has been designed to bind TTR in a way that causes TTR’s conformational structure to mimic that of the well-characterized T119M variant, a naturally occurring rescue mutation which super stabilizes the TTR tetramer. T119M has been observed to prevent the dissociation of TTR tetramers into monomers; T119M tetramers dissociate 40-fold more slowly than wild-type tetramers in biochemical assays. Known as a trans-allelic trans-suppressor, individuals who coinherit the T119M rescue mutation along with a TTR-destabilizing mutation, are protected against the development of ATTR.

In third party clinical trials of tafamidis and diflunisal, interventional approaches that increased TTR stabilization led to improved outcomes in this disease and were correlated with increases in serum TTR. Further, based on genetic data, there is a correlation between the level of TTR stabilization, serum TTR levels, and disease severity. As a result, we believe that serum TTR is a predictive biomarker for disease prognosis and that there may be a relationship between more effective TTR stabilization, serum TTR levels, and improved clinical outcomes. Based on head-to-head preclinical data, we believe that BBP-265 has the potential to stabilize TTR to a greater extent than other TTR stabilizers.

The above chart shows the correlation between TTR stability, as assessed using recombinant protein in vitro, and disease severity in ATTR patients. Patients with TTR variants that result in highly destabilized TTR are nearly 100% likely to develop the disease, like those with the L55P gene variant. Patients who have super-stabilized TTR, as in the case of individuals with the T119M gene variant, are protected against ATTR and cerebrovascular diseases.

We believe that TTR is an important plasma protein as evidenced by the fact that it is highly evolutionarily conserved, existing in high concentrations in all vertebrates. We believe that therapies that increase serum TTR are likely to result in better clinical outcomes than therapies that decrease TTR serum levels, assuming similar levels of monomer reduction. This hypothesis is further supported by two prospective studies of 68,602 participants in Denmark over an average 32 years of clinical follow-up, which showed that individuals who inherited the T119M mutation in the absence of a TTR pathogenic gene had higher circulating TTR concentrations, had a lower range of cerebrovascular events, especially fatal or debilitating stroke, and had a five-to-ten year increase in life expectancy relative to the general population. Additionally, data from a retrospective study at Boston University, suggests a correlation between serum TTR changes and mortality in ATTRwt-CM patients.

In April 2018, we initiated our Phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging clinical trial of BBP-265 in 49 patients with symptomatic ATTR-CM, of which 14 had ATTRm-CM. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to placebo or 400 mg or 800 mg of BBP-265 twice daily. The primary objective of the trial was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of BBP-265 administered to adult subjects with symptomatic ATTR-CM. The secondary objectives were to characterize the pharmacokinetics, or PK, of BBP-265 in symptomatic ATTR-CM subjects and to describe the pharmacodynamics, or PD, properties of BBP-265, as well as the PK-PD relationship of BBP-265. The PD assessments of TTR stabilization were measured by fluorescent probe exclusion, Western blot and serum prealbumin (TTR). The trial design is depicted below:

Enrolled symptomatic ATTR-CM subjects ranged in age from 60 to 86 years of age, with a mean age of 74.1, and 92% of subjects were male. In this trial, we enrolled subjects exclusively with advanced disease, with 29% of subjects presenting with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III heart failure symptoms and a high baseline NT-proBNP with a mean of 3,368 pg/mL. Additionally, on average, subjects had relatively low TTR at baseline with a mean of 22.0 mg/dL. The laboratory reference range for serum TTR is 20mg/dL to 40 mg/dL in healthy individuals. Both high NT-proBNP and low TTR are biomarkers of disease severity. The subject disposition and baseline characteristics are shown below.

	Placebo	BBP-265 400 mg	BBP-265 800 mg	Total
Characteristic	(n = 17)	(n = 16)	(n = 16)	(n = 49)
Age, mean (range)	73.2 (60-5)	73.8 (60-83)	75.4 (67-86)	74.1 (60-86)
Male, n (%)	17 (100%)	14 (88%)	14 (88%)	45 (92%)
ATTRm-CM, n (%)	3 (18%)	6 (38%)	5 (31%)	14 (29%)
NYHA Class III, n (%)	5 (29%)	6 (38%)	3 (19%)	14 (29%)
Race, n (%)
White	13 (76%)	10 (62%)	12 (75%)	35 (72%)
Black	3 (18%)	4 (25%)	3 (19%)	10 (20%)
Other	1 (6%)	2 (13%)	1 (6%)	4 (8%)
NT-proBNP (pg/mL)¹	3151 ± 2705	3589 ± 3020	3377 ± 2806	3368 ± 2789
Troponin I (ng/mL)²	0.17 ± 0.30	0.22 ± 0.24	0.10 ± 0.06	0.16 ± 0.22
TTR (mg/dL)³	23.4 ± 5.5	23.2 ± 5.7	19.5 ± 4.2	22.0 ± 5.4

Overall, BBP-265 was well-tolerated in symptomatic ATTR-CM subjects with no lab safety signals of potential clinical concern attributed to study drug. In this trial, 88% of subjects administered placebo experienced AEs and 63% and 69% of subjects administered 400 mg and 800 mg BBP-265 experienced AEs, respectively. In both the placebo and active treatment groups, most of the AEs were mild to moderate in severity. The most commonly observed AEs, occurring in four or more subjects across the treatment and placebo groups, were atrial fibrillation, constipation, diarrhea and muscle spasms. Three subjects reported SAEs during this study. One placebo-treated subject experienced two SAEs of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and another placebo-treated subject experienced cellulitis in their lower extremity. One BBP-265 treated subject experienced an SAE of shortness of breath on study, which was considered unlikely to be related to study drug.

As shown in the chart below, subjects in the placebo group experienced a mean 7% reduction in the circulating tetrameric TTR concentrations compared to baseline. Conversely, subjects administered either 400 mg or 800 mg BBP-265 showed a dose-dependent statistically significant mean increase in circulating TTR of 36% and 50%, respectively, compared to baseline. Compared to placebo, both the 400 mg and 800 mg BBP-265 arms demonstrated statistically significant increases in mean circulating TTR (p<0.0001 for both arms). p-value is a statistical calculation that relates to the probability that the difference between groups happened by chance, with a p-value of less than 0.05 (i.e., less than 5% probability that the difference happened by chance) generally being used as the threshold to indicate statistical significance. There was a greater observed treatment effect in subjects with mutant ATTR-CM as compared to subjects with wild-type ATTR-CM, which we believe can be explained, in part, by the lower absolute serum TTR of mutant ATTR-CM subjects at baseline.

The following chart shows that treatment with BBP-265 restored serum TTR concentrations to within the normal range in all subjects at Day 28.

Ex vivo stabilization assays demonstrated near-complete TTR stabilization by BBP-265, with greater than 90% average tetramer stabilization across subjects treated with 400 mg and 800 mg BBP-265 as shown in the chart below. The stabilization response was consistent across mutant and wild-type TTR carriers and replicates previously reported clinical and preclinical TTR stabilization data.

Interim analysis of the ongoing Phase 2 open label extension, or OLE, study was completed on August 31, 2019 in conjunction with annual regulatory reporting and review, at which time 41 participants remained in the study. Three (6.4%) participants in the OLE had died, two due to disease progression and one due to cervical cancer. Three (6.4%) additional patients enrolled in the study had discontinued treatment, including one participant who underwent cardiac transplantation for their disease.

Adverse events reported in the OLE study were generally consistent with the underlying ATTR-CM disease state and no safety signals of potential clinical concern were associated with the administration of AG10 in the study. Forty-six (97.9%) patients experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event reported during the study, with falls, congestive cardiac failure, dyspnea, and acute kidney injury the most commonly reported adverse events. Nineteen (40.4%) participants experienced a treatment-emergent serious adverse event reported during the study, with congestive cardiac failure (10.6%) and acute kidney injury (8.5%) the most commonly reported serious adverse events.

The rate of all-cause mortality (including either death or cardiac transplantation, 8.5%) and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations (25.5%) observed in an exploratory analysis of participants in this study following a median of 15 months since Phase 2 initiation were lower than those observed at 15 months in placebo-treated patients in the ATTR-ACT study (all-cause mortality including death or cardiac transplantation, 15.3%; cardiovascular-related hospitalizations, 41.8%).

Stabilization of TTR, as measured using established ex vivo assays, was maintained >90% on average at all study visits in actively treated patients.

Mean serum TTR levels, a prognostic indicator of survival in a published cohort of wild-type ATTR-CM patients, were elevated upon AG10 treatment and were maintained in the normal range throughout the study duration. Mean serum TTR levels were increased from baseline by 39% and 56% in wild-type and variant-carrying ATTR-CM patients, respectively, at OLE Visit Day 180.

Cardiac biomarkers and echocardiographic parameters were stable during the OLE study. NT-proBNP and TnI were unchanged throughout the course of the study. Echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular mass and left ventricular stroke volume index, were unchanged during the study.

In November and December of 2018, we met with the FDA to discuss a potential regulatory path for BBP-265 in ATTR-CM. Following these discussions, we initiated a randomized, global Phase 3 study of BBP-265 in ATTR-CM patients (ATTRibute-CM). ATTRibute-CM will enroll approximately 510 subjects with symptomatic ATTR-CM, including both wild-type and mutant TTR carriers with New York Heart Association Class I-III symptoms. Subjects will be randomized 2:1 between treatment (AG10 800 mg twice daily) and placebo. In Part A, change in six-minute walk distance (6MWD) at 12 months will be compared between treatment and placebo groups as a potential registrational endpoint. We anticipate reporting 12-month 6MWD data from Phase 3 ATTRibute study in patients with ATTR-CM in 2021. If the change in 6MWD is highly statistically significant, we anticipate submitting an NDA for ATTR-CM. In Part B, the study will continue for a total duration of 30 months, at which point all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations will be compared between treatment and control groups. A schematic of the trial is shown below:

Secondary endpoints include: Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, serum TTR, TTR stabilization

As local standard of care evolves, concomitant use of approved, indicated therapies may be allowed

99mTc = Technetium labeled pyrophosphate (PYP) or bisphosphonate (e.g., DPD); dx = diagnosis;

We believe the safety and tolerability data of BBP-265 in healthy volunteers and in ATTR-CM patients will also be relevant for the ATTR-PN patient population. We anticipate initiating a Phase 3 clinical trial of BBP-265 in ATTR-PN in 1H 2020. Our Phase 3 study in ATTR-PN (ATTRibute-PN) is expected to enroll approximately 145 subjects with symptomatic ATTR-PN. Eligible subjects will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to AG10 800 mg or matching placebo administered twice daily. The primary endpoint of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of AG10 based on the difference between the AG10 and placebo groups in Modified Neuropathy Impairment Score + 7 at 18 months of treatment relative to baseline.

We believe that the total market for ATTR therapeutic interventions will continue to grow for the foreseeable future as the population of diagnosed patients increases as a result of heightened disease awareness and the adoption of non-invasive diagnostic techniques. As such, if BBP-265 is approved, we believe that there could be a significant population of newly diagnosed patients who can be treated with BBP-265 who have not previously been treated with a disease-modifying therapy.

If approved, we believe that BBP-265 could have meaningful commercial potential. Further, we believe that BBP-265, if approved, has the potential to demonstrate benefit as a best-in-class stabilizer for the treatment of ATTR.

In the area of ATTR, we expect to face competition from competitors targeting three distinct mechanisms of action: TTR stabilization, TTR knockdown, and TTR clearance, each of which is expected to compete with BBP-265, if approved.

Among TTR stabilizers, we will face competition from Pfizer Inc.’s tafamidis, an oral TTR stabilizer that is approved for ATTRwt-CM and ATTRm-CM in the United States, Europe, and Japan and is marketed as VYNDAQEL and VYNDAMAX. Tafamidis is also approved in select geographies outside of the United States for Stage 1 (early stage) ATTR-PN. Corino Therapeutics Inc./SOM Innovation Biotech, S.L. is developing SOM0226 (tolcapone, CRX-1008), an oral, small molecule TTR stabilizer for ATTR and has completed a Phase 2a trial in ATTR-PN. Tolcapone is a generic drug that is FDA-approved for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Diflunisal, a generic, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) indicated for mild to moderate pain and arthritis, may also be considered a competitor, having been shown to significantly slow development of ATTR-PN in a randomized Phase 2/3 trial. Diflunisal’s label contains a boxed warning for cardiovascular, renal and gastrointestinal risks.

Potentially competitive TTR knockdown approaches are being pursued by multiple companies. In 2018, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc., or Alnylam, received marketing authorization from both the FDA and EMA for Onpattro (patisiran), an intravenously administered RNAi therapeutic for the treatment of hereditary ATTR with polyneuropathy. Alnylam is also developing ALN-TTRsc02 (vutrisiran), a subcutaneously administered RNAi therapeutic for ATTR. Alnylam has reportedly completed a Phase 1 clinical trial of ALN-TTRsc02 in healthy volunteers and initiated a Phase 3 trial in patients with hereditary ATTR with polyneuropathy. Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc./Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. received marketing approval from both the FDA and EMA in 2018 for Tegsedi (inotersen), an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) drug, for hereditary ATTR with polyneuropathy. Both Alnylam and Ionis/Akcea have initiated Phase 3 trials in ATTR-CM. Intellia’s program is currently in preclinical development.

Therapeutics targeting TTR clearance may also be competitive to BBP-265. Prothena Therapeutics plc is developing PRX004, a monoclonal antibody, for ATTR that is currently in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Neurimmune Holding AG is developing NI006, a monoclonal human antibody for ATTR that is in Phase 1 clinical trial. Proclara Biosciences, Inc. is developing NPT189, an immunoglobulin fusion, for ATTR and amyloid light chain amyloidosis and has completed a Phase 1a clinical trial.

We are developing infigratinib, an oral FGFR1-3 selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor, or TKI, for the treatment of FGFR-driven cancers. Specifically we are developing infigratinib in three oncologic indications: (i) cholangiocarcinoma, or CCA, with FGFR2 fusions or translocations, (ii) urothelial carcinoma, or UC, with FGFR genomic alterations, and (iii) other cancers with FGFR fusions or translocations.

We are currently preparing an NDA submission in advanced CCA, as a second-line or later therapy and have initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial in advanced CCA as a first-line therapy as well as an Investigator-initiated trial in certain cancers involving FGFR fusions or translocations. We received Fast Track Designation in adults with first-line advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma and Orphan Drug Designation for infigratinib for treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.

We anticipate submitting an NDA for the treatment of advanced CCA as a second-line or later therapy in 2020. We also anticipate enrolling our first patient in a Phase 3 clinical trial in adjuvant UC in 2020.

FGFRs are a family of genes that regulate multiple biological processes including cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and tissue repair. Amplifications, mutations, and fusions/translocations in FGFR genes are present in multiple cancers, and it is believed that they are key drivers in certain cancer types. FGFR genomic alterations have been shown to be present in approximately 7% of cancers. FGFR fusions or translocations, more specifically, have been shown to be present in approximately 0.6% of solid tumors.

Below is a table showing the frequency of certain FGFR genomic alterations in different tumor types:

			Estimated
			Occurrence of
	Incidence		FGFR genomic			Most common
Tumor type	(U.S. and EU)		alterations*			alteration(s)
Cholangiocarcinoma		20,000	15-20%			FGFR2 fusions or translocations
Urothelial carcinoma		200,000
Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer		130,000	35-60%			FGFR3 mutations
Muscle invasive bladder cancer		41,000	15-20%			FGFR3 mutations
Non-invasive upper tract urothelial carcinoma		13,000	80-90%			FGFR3 mutations
Invasive upper tract urothelial carcinoma		19,500	50-60%			FGFR3 mutations
Gastric adenocarcinoma		40,000		10	%	FGFR2 amplifications, FGFR2 fusions or translocations
Glioma		10,000		5	%	FGFR3 fusions or translocations, FGFR1 amplifications
Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma		90,000		15	%	FGFR1 genomic alterations
Carcinoma of unknown primary		20,000		5-10	%	FGFR2/3 fusions or translocations
Endometrial adenocarcinoma		125,000	10-15%			FGFR2 fusions or translocations

CCA is a rare and aggressive epithelial malignancy of the bile ducts of the liver. Approximately 20,000 new cases are diagnosed each year in the United States and European Union. The majority of newly diagnosed cases are non-resectable, meaning the malignancy cannot be removed completely through surgery. CCA, including resectable and non-resectable cases, has a median overall survival, or OS, between 20 and 28 months from diagnosis, and a five-year survival rate of approximately 25%.

Currently, no product has been specifically approved for the treatment of non-resectable CCA. Standard of care in locally advanced (i.e., non-resectable) and/or metastatic disease for first-line treatment is platinum-based chemotherapy, which has median with a progression-free survival, or PFS, of approximately eight months and an OS of approximately 12 months. Approximately 85% of these patients will move on to receive a second-line of treatment.

Second-line treatment for advanced and/or metastatic CCA is alternative single or combination agent chemotherapy; however, second-line chemotherapy has shown only single-digit response rates on average. In a comprehensive review of 25 studies, median PFS was 3.2 months and overall response rate, or ORR, was 7.7% for patients receiving second-line treatment. As a result, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or NCCN, guidelines for the treatment of CCA currently do not recommend any specific regimen for second-line treatments. Further, there are currently no targeted therapies approved for the treatment of CCA.

UC is a cancer of the lining of the urinary tract with approximately 200,000 new cases diagnosed each year in the United States and European Union.

UC can be categorized as bladder cancer, or BC, and upper tract urothelial carcinoma, or UTUC. In BC, patients are typically segmented into muscle-invasive, or MIBC, and non-muscle invasive, or NMIBC disease. UTUC, in turn, can be classified as invasive or non-invasive disease. We are initially focused on developing infigratinib for the 45,000 MIBC and 15,000 invasive UTUC cases that occur annually in the United States and European Union.

Patients that present with MIBC or invasive UTUC are typically candidates for surgical resection, specifically radical cystectomy or radical nephroureterectomy, respectively, as an initial treatment. However, upon resection, approximately 50% of cases will recur within two years of surgery. Following surgical resection there is no standard of care for adjuvant treatment, especially for cisplatin ineligible patients. There are limited clinical data suggesting that cisplatin-based adjuvant regimens may increase disease-free survival. And, as renal function is impaired in many patients due to age and surgical removal of the bladder, ureter and/or kidney, many patients are not candidates for cisplatin-based therapy. Data suggests that approximately 40% to 50% of MIBC patients and 70% to 80% of invasive UTUC patients are cisplatin ineligible after radical cystectomy and radical nephroureterectomy, respectively.

Signaling via FGFR genes is thought to be a key driver of certain cancers, including CCA and UC. As an FGFR1-3 specific inhibitor, infigratinib abrogates signaling via the FGFR1-3 pathways, interfering with oncogenic signaling and cancer growth.

Infigratinib has shown clinical activity in advanced and/or metastatic CCA with FGFR2 fusions or translocations, with an ORR of 26.9%, in a Phase 2 clinical trial as described below. In advanced and/or metastatic CCA, limited treatment options make FGFR-directed therapies particularly attractive potential treatment options.

Infigratinib has also shown clinical activity in advanced and/or metastatic UC with FGFR3 genomic alterations in a Phase 1 expansion cohort, with an ORR of 25.4%, as described below. The majority of patients with invasive UC undergo surgical resection; however, there is no standard of care for adjuvant treatment post-surgery, especially for cisplatin-ineligible patients. While there is limited evidence for the use of cisplatin-based chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment, many patients are cisplatin ineligible due to poor renal function. We believe that infigratinib could play a meaningful role as an adjuvant treatment for patients with UC driven by FGFR3 genomic alterations.

Infigratinib has been studied in fifteen clinical trials that include eight Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy volunteers, one mass balance and exertion study, three Phase 1 clinical trials in cancer patients, and three Phase 2 clinical trials in certain cancer patients, and has demonstrated clinical proof of concept in CCA and UC. To date, infigratinib has been tested in over 700 subjects, including healthy volunteers and cancer patients, and has demonstrated acceptable tolerability.

In the studies described below, the following revised RECIST guideline version 1.1, or RECIST 1.1, criteria, which are the accepted criteria by the scientific community for the tumor type discussed, were used to define responses:

Infigratinib is being studied in an open-label, single-arm, Phase 2 clinical trial in patients with advanced and/or metastatic CCA. The study initially enrolled patients with any FGFR genomic alterations and was later amended to enroll only patients with FGFR2 fusions or translocations, who represented patients showing the strongest response. To date, we have reported interim data in 71 CCA patients with FGFR2 fusions or translocations, who had previously received a cisplatin-and gemcitabine-containing regimen, or a gemcitabine-containing regimen (for those who are considered intolerant to cisplatin) and are continuing to enroll patients in the trial. Patients received infigratinib 125 mg once daily for 21 days followed by seven days off in 28-day cycles until disease progression. The primary endpoint of the study is ORR. Secondary endpoints include PFS, best overall response, or BOR, DCR, OS, safety and PK. The median age of enrolled subjects is 53 years, 62.0% are female, 100.0% are FGFR2 fusion or translocation positive, and 7.0% have co-existing FGFR2 mutations. A significant majority of patients enrolled in the trial were pretreated, with 65.1% having received at least two prior lines of antineoplastic therapy.

At an interim analysis based on a data cut-off date of August 8, 2018, we observed the following results for FGFR2 fusion or translocation positive patients. The data presented in the table below are based on patients with potential for confirmation (n=67; patients who had completed or discontinued prior to six cycles). All responses were investigator-assessed.

The ORR as of the interim analysis was observed to be higher in the subsegment of patients who had received only one prior line of therapy (39.3% versus 26.9% for all patients).

In a Phase 1 open-label, single arm expansion cohort of the ‘2101 study, patients with UC harboring FGFR3 genomic alterations (n=67) received infigratinib 125 mg once daily for 21 days followed by seven days off in 28-day cycles until progression. Patients enrolled in the trial had a median age of 67 years, and 68.7% were male. 92.5% of patients had FGFR3 mutations and 7.5% had FGFR3 fusions or translocations. The primary objective of the ‘2101 study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose, or MTD, and thus the recommended Phase 2 clinical trial dose and schedule of single agent oral BGJ398 in patients with advanced solid tumors. The key secondary objective of the expansion cohort in this study was to assess preliminary anti-tumor activity in patients treated with infigratinib. Other secondary objectives included safety, tolerability and PK analyses. Patients enrolled in the trial were heavily pre-treated, 70% of enrolled patients having received two or more prior lines of therapy. The endpoint assessment of patients from this trial follows:

Of the 67 patients treated in this expansion cohort, eight were diagnosed as having UTUC. In these eight patients, ORR was 50% and DCR was 100%.

Infigratinib has been studied in over 700 subjects to date, including 222 healthy volunteers, 433 oncology patients treated with infigratinib monotherapy, and 62 oncology patients treated with infigratinib in combination with BYL719, a phosphoinositide 3-kinase, or PI3K inhibitor. To date, at the dose of 125mg daily (three weeks on, one week off), the dose being used in our ongoing and planned Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials, infigratinib has shown acceptable tolerability with expected on-target class effects. The table below show safety data for all oncology patients (n=433) exposed to infigratinib monotherapy across all studies, dosing levels, and dosing schedules, and provides a summary of the most frequently observed AEs in ≥ 25.0% of oncology patients:

Hyperphos-

phatemia

Fatigue

Constipation

Stomatitis

Decreased

appetite

Nausea

Diarrhea

Alopecia

All Grades

61.2

40.4%

36.7%

34.9%

29.8%

28.9%

27.0%

26.8%

Grade 3+

6.7%

5.5%

<1.0%

4.8%

2.8%

2.1%

0.0%

The most commonly reported treatment emergent adverse event of any grade was hyperphosphatemia, occurring in 61.2% of patients. Hyperphosphatemia is an on-target AE based on FGFR1 inhibition. Other frequently reported AEs included fatigue (40.4%), constipation (36.7%), stomatitis (34.9%), decreased appetite (29.8%), nausea (28.9%), diarrhea (27.0%), and alopecia (26.8%). Other Grade 3+ AEs occurring in >5% of patients included hypophosphatemia (7.6%), hyponatremia (6.9%), and increased lipase (6.2%).

In total, 37.9% (n=164/433) of oncology patients across all trials with monotherapy treatment experienced SAEs. SAEs occurring in greater than 1.0% of patients included pyrexia (2.8%), dyspnea (2.3%), general physical health deterioration (2.1%), pyrexia (2.1%), sepsis (2.1%), vomiting (2.1%), abdominal pain (1.8%), anemia (1.8%), hypercalcemia (1.8%), pneumonia (1.8%), , acute kidney injury (1.4%), constipation (1.4%), dehydration (1.4%), nausea (1.4%), and urinary tract infection (1.4%).

We intend to file an NDA with the FDA for second line and later advanced CCA with FGFR2 fusions or translocations in 2020 with the data that have been generated to date from clinical trials of infigratinib, after meetings with the FDA in 2019, including a pre-submission meeting with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health to discuss analytical validation and clinical bridging to support the marketing authorization pathway for the companion diagnostic we are developing with FMI. We believe that approval of this companion diagnostic via the premarket approval, or PMA, pathway will be required for approval of an NDA for infigratinib; however, based on our interactions with the FDA to date, we do not expect to have to perform any additional clinical work specifically related to the companion diagnostic we are developing with FMI. We have fully enrolled the cohort that will be used for the primary efficacy analysis to support our planned NDA submission.

A Phase 3 randomized, open-label clinical trial of infigratinib as a first-line therapy for CCA compared to gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced and/or metastatic CCA with FGFR2 fusions or translocations is currently enrolling. The trial has a target enrollment of approximately 384 patients globally.

We anticipate enrolling the first patient in a Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial in cisplatin-ineligible adjuvant UC with FGFR3 genomic alterations in 2020.

We are exploring potential clinical development paths for infigratinib in additional FGFR fusion or translocation-driven cancers, as we believe that fusions or translocations are the most likely FGFR genomic alterations to be sensitive to infigratinib monotherapy, based on available data. To date, infigratinib has shown responses in FGFR fusion or translocation-driven CCA and UC, as well as gallbladder cancer, carcinoma of unknown primary, and glioblastoma. An investigator initiated trial has been initiated at the Ohio State University to study infigratinib in patients with multiple tumor types exhibiting FGFR fusions or translocations to further explore the activity of infigratinib in FGFR fusion or translocation-driven solid tumors.

There are six other FGFR targeted assets currently known to be in clinical development. These product candidates have not been compared with infigratinib in head-to-head studies. However, efficacy and tolerability data of competitive compounds appears to be in-line with the data from clinical studies of infigratinib.

Key competitors include pemigatinib, an FGFR TKI under Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical development by Incyte Corporation, futibatinib (TAS-120), an FGFR TKI under Phase 2 clinical development by Taiho Oncology, Inc., derazantinib, an FGFR TKI under Phase 2 and Phase 1/2 clinical development by ArQule, Inc. in collaboration with Basilea Pharmaceutica International Limited, erdafitinib (BALVERSA), an FGFR TKI under development by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which has been approved by FDA for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma that has susceptible FGFR3 or FGFR2 genetic alterations and who have progressed during the following at least one line of prior platinum-containing therapy, vofatamab, an FGFR3 monoclonal antibody under Phase 1/2 clinical development by Rainier Therapeutics, Inc. and rogaratinib, an FGFR TKI under Phase 2/3 clinical development by Bayer AG.

We are developing infigratinib, an oral FGFR1-3 selective TKI for the treatment of achondroplasia at a significantly lower dose than those doses studied in our oncology programs for infigratinib. We are currently enrolling patients in PROPEL, a prospective observational study in children with achondroplasia. We anticipate both initiating our Phase 2 PROPEL 2 trial in Australia and submitting our IND to the FDA in 2020 to expand the study to the United States.

Achondroplasia is the most frequent cause of disproportionate short stature, and FGFR3 mutations have been shown to be the molecular source of the condition. Achondroplasia has a prevalence of greater than 55,000 in the United States and European Union, and an estimated worldwide incidence of one in 10,000 to 30,000 live births. The condition leads to a disproportionate short stature with anomalies in bone development and potential for foramen magnum stenosis, spinal stenosis, cardiovascular complications and obesity. The average height is approximately 4’4” for a male and 4’1” for a female with achondroplasia. Lifespan and intelligence are most often normal.

Achondroplasia is an autosomal dominant condition caused by a gain-of-function point mutation in the FGFR3 gene. Approximately 97% of cases are due to G380R substitution and 80% of cases are the result of de novo mutations. FGFR3 is expressed in osteoblasts and chondrocytes where it plays a critical role in regulating bone growth through the MAPK pathway, which drives hypertrophic differentiation, and through the STAT1 pathway, which drives chondrocyte proliferation. Apart from growth hormones, which are approved in Japan, we are not aware of any other medicines approved for marketing by the FDA or the EMA for the treatment of achondroplasia.

FGFR3 gain-of-function mutations are the driver behind the pathophysiology of achondroplasia. As an FGFR1-3 inhibitor, we believe that infigratinib has the potential to decrease pathologic signaling downstream of FGFR3 and treat achondroplasia at its source. Unlike potentially competitive CNP mimetic approaches, which only inhibit MAPK signaling, our approach also inhibits STAT1 signaling.

Preclinical proof of concept has been demonstrated in an achondroplasia mouse model at dose levels as low as 2% of those used in our oncology trials. In our Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trials of infigratinib, we saw acceptable tolerability, including no instances of hyperphosphatemia, at three to six times the expected dose level in our achondroplasia trials. Based on these results, we do not expect significant tolerability issues at the proposed dose level in the clinic.

Infigratinib has been studied preclinically in a mouse model of achondroplasia that recapitulates anomalies of the growth plates, vertebrae, and intervertebral discs. Investigators observed that infigratinib rescued ex vivo bone growth of mutant mouse embryo femurs after six days of treatment. Further, 15 days of treatment showed in vivo bone growth, which mimics human achondroplasia in many respects. Effects on both appendicular and axial skeletal parameters were observed in this study.

Below are figures demonstrating the extent of femur growth and intervertebral disc width rescue in wild-type, untreated model, and infigratinib treated (2 mg/kg) model mice:

In vivo bone growth was further demonstrated at lower doses (0.2 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg) by the same laboratory. Together, preclinical studies at all doses have demonstrated meaningful increases in skeletal growth parameters between treated and untreated mutant mice, as follows:

Notably, treatment with infigratinib did not modify the expression of FGFR1 in the hypertrophic zone of the growth plate. The effects seen were mainly due to FGFR3 inhibition, with no other gross side effects being observed in these preclinical studies. Furthermore, survival was improved after 15 days in infigratinib treated mice, regardless of dose, as compared to untreated mice.

We are currently enrolling patients in PROPEL, a prospective observational study in children with achondroplasia. The study will establish annualized growth velocity (AGV) for each child of a minimum period of six months. PROPEL is designed to provide baseline measurements for children that we anticipate enrolling in PROPEL 2, a planned Phase 2 study of low-dose infigratinib, that we anticipate initiating in 2020. We anticipate that we will report initial data from PROPEL 2 in 2021.

PROPEL 2 is designed as an open-label, dose-escalation and expansion trial in children with achondroplasia prior to growth plate closure. The primary objective of this study will be to assess safety and tolerability in children with achondroplasia. Secondary objectives will include PK analyses, change in growth velocity, and assessment of quality of life.

Infigratinib is the only oral direct FGFR1-3 inhibitor that has been publicly disclosed in development for the treatment of achondroplasia. There are three other identified companies developing compounds for the treatment of achondroplasia using alternative mechanistic approaches: BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (vosoritide), Ascendis Pharma A/S (TransCon CNP), and Pfizer Inc. (recifercept).

We are developing BBP-631, a preclinical AAV, gene transfer product candidate, for the treatment of CAH, caused by 21OHD. BBP-631 was granted orphan drug designation from both FDA for the treatment of congenital adrenal hyperplasia 21-hydroxylase deficiency and EMA for the treatment of congenital adrenal hyperplasia in 2018. We are currently conducting GLP toxicity studies and anticipate submitting an IND to the FDA in 2020.

CAH is a debilitating and life-threatening disease with no available cure, despite newborn screening for the disease being conducted in every U.S. state. The disease is defined by an inability to produce cortisol and aldosterone, and an excess production of testosterone. Lack of cortisol disrupts glucose metabolism and the body’s normal response to stress, leading to potentially fatal adrenal crises, while lack of aldosterone disrupts sodium retention, resulting in low blood pressure, arrhythmia and dehydration. Additionally, excess testosterone causes virilization in females, often leading to ambiguous genitalia and masculinizing features at birth. Hormonal changes during puberty compound the CAH deficiencies. Females often suffer from limited fertility and require intensive treatment before, during, and after pregnancy, and up to 40% of adult males will have adrenal rest tumors which can lead to gonadal dysfunction and infertility, occasionally requiring surgery.

Over 90% of CAH cases are caused by 21OHD, a genetic defect in the CYP21A2 gene coding for the enzyme 21OH. Mutations resulting in loss of enzymatic activity of 21OH prevent conversion of progesterone into 11-deoxycorticosterone and 17-hydroxyprogesterone (17OHP) into 11-deoxycortisol, which are the precursors to aldosterone and cortisol, respectively.

CAH patients with 21OHD can be divided into two categories depending on the type of genetic mutation: classic and non-classic. We are primarily focused on treating classic patients, who have the more severe phenotype and that can be categorized into simple virilizing (approximately 25% of patients) and salt-wasting (approximately 75%) by the severity of aldosterone deficiency and level of residual 21OH enzyme activity. Patients with the salt-wasting form of disease have residual enzyme activity of 0-1% of normal and patients with the simple virilizing phenotype have 1-10% enzyme activity. All patients with the classic form require treatment at birth, as cortisol deficiency can lead to adrenal crisis as early as one to four weeks of life and can quickly lead to death. The salt-wasting form has an incidence of one in 20,000 births, while the simple virilizing form has an incidence of one in 60,000 births. Together, these translate to an estimated 600 classic patients born in the United States and Europe per year. We estimate there are more than 75,000 patients in the United States and Europe in the total addressable patient population.

Current standard of care treatments do not cure patients, but replace missing glucocorticoids, such as cortisol and mineralocorticoids, such as aldosterone, as well as reduce excessive androgen secretion. Although glucocorticoids are the mainstay of CAH therapy, individuals respond in varying ways, and chronic use of glucocorticoids in children and adults requires careful management because of the well-known side effects of these drugs, such as Cushingoid features, metabolic disease, obesity, hypertension, growth retardation, glucose intolerance, electrolyte disturbance, bone demineralization/increased risk of fracture and delayed puberty. Clinical management of classic CAH is often a very difficult balance between hyperandrogenism and hypercortisolism.

BBP-631 is a preclinical intravenously administered AAV5 gene transfer product candidate designed for the treatment of CAH due to 21OHD by replacing the 21OH enzyme in the adrenal cortex. Replacement of enzyme function has the potential to normalize flux through the pathway, simultaneously addressing the lack of cortisol and aldosterone, as well as the excess of testosterone and other androgens. Genotype-phenotype correlation studies in CAH suggest that non-classic patients, who are often asymptomatic and do not require treatment, have enzyme activity that is a little as 10% to 20% of normal individuals. We believe that an AAV gene therapy may be able to restore this level of enzymatic activity in CAH patients with both simple virilizing and salt-wasting forms of disease, providing substantial clinical impact and potentially eliminating the need for treatment with exogenous steroids. BBP-631 was granted both FDA and EMA orphan drug designation in 2018 for the treatment of CAH caused by 21OHD.

Initial preclinical activity was explored in a Cyp21 knockout mouse model using AAVrh10. An IV injection of vector genomes was observed to improve multiple disease-related factors over a 15-week duration window, including an increase in body weight, a decrease in urinary progesterone (the main substrate of 21OH), and an increase in renin expression (signaling an increased capacity for salt retention).

A study in nonhuman primates (NHP) comparing evaluated AAV serotypes 1, 5, and 6 identified AAV5 as the optimum serotype. We observed significant transfection in the adrenals where 21OH is synthesized. Additionally, AAV5 has relatively low seroprevalence in the human population limiting potential immunogenicity issues.

We have completed two sets of NHP studies, designed to evaluate durability of expression, dosing/transgene expression relationships, and preliminary safety. In the first set of experiments, which evaluated a lower dose of 3x10 12 vector genomes per kilogram, we observed sustained increases in Cyp21 mRNA levels up to six months out. We did not observe rapid decreases in vector genome counts and mRNA levels due to adrenal cell turnover between 1.5 and six months, providing preliminary support for sustained transgene expression.

In a second set of experiments, a total of 20 non-human primates (NHPs) were treated with BBP-631 at one of three intravenous (IV) doses. Vector copy number and transgene mRNA expression in the adrenal glands were analyzed at 4 and 12 weeks post-dosing in the low- and medium-dose arms and at 12 and 24 weeks post-dosing in the high-dose arm. No dose-related adverse events were observed at any of the doses tested at any time point.

Overall, treatment with BBP-631 resulted in high vector copy number (VCN) and mRNA expression in the adrenal gland, suggesting strong tropism and uptake of BBP-631 for the adrenal gland. In the high-dose arm, VCNs were maintained between 12 and 24 weeks. Furthermore, mRNA levels increased between 4 and 12 weeks for the medium dose arm and were consistent between 12 and 24 weeks for the high dose arm. Researchers also saw dose-dependent increases in both VCNs and mRNA levels across the three doses tested.

Subject to the successful outcome of ongoing toxicology studies, we anticipate filing an IND for BBP-631 in 2020.

There are two alternative therapeutic mechanisms being investigated for treatment of CAH. The first are corticotropin-releasing factor type 1 (CRF1) receptor antagonists. CRF1 receptor antagonists regulate the release of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) from the pituitary gland, which stimulates androgen and cortisol synthesis in the adrenal gland. In healthy individuals, endogenous cortisol provides negative feedback to the release of ACTH, which keeps androgen synthesis well regulated. Because this negative feedback is severely impaired in CAH patients, supraphysiologic doses of exogenous steroids are required to normalize androgen synthesis in these patients. While CRF1 receptor antagonists may regulate androgen synthesis, they do not address the lack of cortisol or aldosterone production in these patients. Therefore, steroid supplementation is still required with CRF1 receptor antagonists. Two CRF receptor antagonists, NBI-74788 (under development by Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.) and SPR001 (under development by Spruce Biosciences, Inc.), are currently in Phase 2 clinical trials.

The second alternative therapeutic mechanism is acetyl-coenzyme A acetyltransferase 1 (ACAT-1) inhibition. Inhibition of this metabolic enzyme induces targeted cell death in the adrenal gland, reducing steroid production and secretion. However, like CRF1 receptor antagonists, ACAT-1 inhibitors do not address the lack of cortisol or aldosterone production in these patients. ATR-101, an ACAT1 inhibitor, is currently in Phase 2 clinical development by Millendo Therapeutics, Inc.

While these alternative therapeutic mechanisms attempt to address meaningful aspects of the disease by potentially reducing the need for exogenous steroids, neither is able to address the disease at its source by targeting the complete set of features that define the disease. In particular, these mechanisms cannot obviate the need to administer steroids because they do not address the body’s inability to synthesize cortisol and aldosterone. In contrast, we believe enzymatic replacement by gene therapy has the potential to simultaneously address all facets of the disease by restoring proper flux through the hormonal pathways, reducing androgen production by providing alternative pathways for the precursor molecules to be converted into cortisol or aldosterone.

We are advancing BBP-454, a preclinical development program focused on novel approaches to inhibit KRAS, for the treatment of KRAS-driven cancers. BBP-454 is currently in the lead optimization stage of preclinical development.

KRAS is a member of the RAS family of oncogenes, which also includes HRAS and NRAS, and together comprises some of the most well-known monogenic drivers of cancer. Mutations in NRAS are frequently found in leukemia and melanoma, while HRAS is frequently mutated in bladder, thyroid, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. KRAS mutations are a frequent driver of a number of the largest cancer indications with high unmet medical need, including 30% of non-small cell lung cancers, 98% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas, and 45% of colorectal adenocarcinomas. The most common KRAS mutations involve a change from glycine at position 12 in the protein to aspartic acid (G12D, 36% of all KRAS mutations), valine (G12V, 24%), and cysteine (G12C, 15%) but also include mutations at glycine 13 and glutamine 61. In aggregate, over 500,000 patients in the United States and Europe are diagnosed with KRAS-driven cancers, annually.

KRAS is a G protein, meaning that it cycles between ON and OFF states when bound to GTP or GDP, respectively. When active, KRAS interacts with multiple proteins that initiate a series of reactions that collectively cause cells to grow and divide. Because of its critical position atop multiple pathways, aberrant KRAS activation is a potent driver of unwanted cell growth, resulting in tumors. Normal KRAS is kept almost entirely in its inactive state by GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), which cause KRAS to quickly convert GTP into GDP. All forms of mutant KRAS are insensitive to GAPs and remain bound to GTP long enough to drive oncogenic signaling. In order to initiate signaling, KRAS is required to be both localized to the cell membrane and bound to GTP. Historically, KRAS has been viewed as an undruggable target, due to the lack of a clear binding pocket to drug.

KRAS localization to the cell membrane is facilitated by modification to KRAS on the HVR. This modification consists of addition of a farnesyl or geranylgeranyl group to the cysteine residue at position 185 (C185) by farnesyl transferase or geranylgeranyl transferase. KRAS can only be modified when the hypervariable region is “open” and accessible to the transferring enzymes. When the hypervariable region is “closed,” KRAS cannot be modified, preventing its association with the cell membrane and subsequent downstream signaling.

An earlier therapeutic strategy inhibiting farnesyl transferase, which transfers farnesyl group onto HRAS to allow membrane association, has generated effective clinical responses in tumors driven by mutant HRAS. Though these molecules proved ineffective in KRAS, which has an adaptive capability to utilize an alternative modification (geranylgeranylation), these results for mutant HRAS provide a proof of concept for using a single agent disrupting localization of an oncogenic RAS mutant to treat RAS-driven tumors.

KRAS-mutant cancers are driven by active, GTP-bound KRAS located at the cell membrane. We are developing two different strategies that target KRAS through novel, mutation-agnostic mechanisms. The first involves preventing modification of C185 in the HVR, disrupting the membrane localization process that is required for KRAS signaling. The second directly reduces concentration of active GTP-bound KRAS by targeting a novel residue to induce degradation.

Frank McCormick, one of our co-founders and leader of the NCI RAS initiative, characterized a novel druggable binding pocket involved in positioning of the HVR on KRAS. Molecules that bind this eponymous “McCormick” pocket were confirmed to stabilize the KRAS HVR in a “closed” state, where C185 is not accessible for modification to localize KRAS to the membrane, thereby preventing oncogenic signaling. This mechanism is independent of the specific mutation causing KRAS tumors and is expected to apply to all oncogenic KRAS mutants. We have identified compounds that bind at this new pocket and covalently modify C185, thus preventing farnesylation and geranylgeranylation and thereby blocking membrane association.

The second approach is another pan-mutant KRAS drug which targets the histidine residue at position 95 (H95), an amino acid unique to KRAS located in the G-domain. Initial preclinical data have demonstrated that our initial series of compounds are able to downregulate KRAS signaling by degrading GTP-KRAS and thereby reducing the concentration of GTP-bound KRAS. We believe that degrading fully processed, active KRAS at the plasma membrane is the most direct strategy for eliminating oncogenic signaling across all mutant KRAS cancers. We believe our approach compares favorably with several other identified competitive approaches, which bind GDP-bound KRAS, which exists only transiently in mutant KRAS cancers. This mechanism is mutation agnostic, in contrast to competitive molecules, which only target a single mutation.

We are advancing our KRAS research program through collaborations with the NCI RAS initiative and with Lawrence Livermore National Labs, where we are utilizing one of the most powerful supercomputers in the world to conduct molecular dynamics simulations. We blend the knowledge and experimental capabilities of our collaborators with BridgeBio’s drug development expertise to prosecute these targets.

Due to its high prevalence in cancer, we expect to face competition from other small molecule KRAS inhibitors as well as other modalities, including mRNA vaccines, that target KRAS mutations. The majority of these product candidates focus on a single version of mutant KRAS, G12C. This form is particularly accessible for drug development due to the reactivity of the mutant cysteine residue. However, both compounds we are developing will target a broader set of cancers by pursuing mutation-agnostic mechanisms. In particular, our competitors may include:

We are developing BBP-870, also known as fosdenopterin, an IV formulation of synthetic cyclic pyranopterin monophosphate, or cPMP, for the treatment of molybdenum cofactor deficiency, or MoCD, Type A. Fosdenopterin received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA in 2013 for MoCD, orphan drug designation from the FDA in 2009 and EMA in 2010 for the treatment of MoCD Type A, and rare pediatric disease designation for the treatment of MoCD Type A in June 2017. We have initiated a rolling NDA submission of fosdenopterin with the FDA in late 2019.

MoCD Type A is an ultra-rare autosomal recessive inborn error of metabolism caused by disruption in molybdenum cofactor (MoCo) biosynthesis which results in deficiencies in multiple enzyme activities, including sulfite oxidase (SOX) and leads to uncontrolled sulfite toxicity in the brain. The disease typically presents very early in life (median presentation at first day of life). The disease is characterized by severe and rapidly progressive acute sulfite-related neurological damage and associated heterogeneous neurological sequelae including seizures, feeding difficulties and in most cases death with the median survival estimated to be approximately three years. Incidence is estimated to be one in 100,000 to 200,000 live births worldwide, with MoCD Type A accounting for approximately two-thirds of all cases. There are no available treatments approved for any form of MoCD. Supportive care and anti-convulsant therapy may be used to manage symptoms.

BBP-671 is an oral, small molecule, allosteric activator of pantothenate kinases, that we are developing for the treatment of Pantothenate Kinase Associated Neurodegeneration, or PKAN, and Organic Acidemias, or OAs. BBP-671 is currently in preclinical development.

PKAN is a rare genetic disorder with progressive neurodegeneration. Early onset patients typically demonstrate motor deficits with possible visual problems from retinal degeneration within six years of age. Later onset disease is heterogeneous, with psychiatric symptoms and progressive parkinsonism developing in late childhood to adulthood. The prevalence of PKAN is approximately one in 1,000,000, with between 800 to 850 patients in the United States and European Union. There are currently no approved treatments for PKAN.

Organic acidemias are caused by mutations in enzymes that disrupt amino acid metabolism leading to acute decompensations requiring hospitalization, as well as long term complications involving multiple organ systems, such as the heart, pancreas, kidney, liver, and brain. The incidence of OAs are approximately 5 in 100,000 births. The standard of care includes dietary restriction and supplementation, but unmet need remains high due to metabolic decompensations and long-term complications.

BBP-711 is an oral, small molecule inhibitor of glycolate oxidase, or GO, that we are developing for the treatment of primary hyperoxaluria and patients who experience frequent kidney stone formation. BBP-711 is currently in preclinical development.

Primary hyperoxaluria, or PH1, is a rare, autosomal-recessive inborn error of metabolism driven by a defect in the AGXT gene, which codes for the enzyme alanine-glyoxylate aminotransferase, or AGXT. Deficiencies in the AGXT enzyme translate into the incapacity of PH1 patients to detoxify glyoxylate into glycine. As a result, glyoxylate is oxidized into oxalate which cannot be metabolized by humans. Elevated oxalate levels form calcium oxalate crystals, and subsequently kidney stones, which damage the kidneys, culminating in renal dysfunction. Prevalence for PH1 is estimated to be 5,000 patients in the United States and EU. Due to heterogeneous symptom presentation and similarity with other diseases, we believe that the disease is underdiagnosed. Prevalence for FSF is estimated to be 1.5 million in the United States and European Union. Standard of care involves symptomatic management through supplementation with vitamin B6, increased fluid intake, and citrate, to intensive dialysis and lithotripsy. Ultimately, the only curative treatment is a combined liver and kidney transplant.

BBP-761 is a preclinical program focused on developing succinate pro-drugs for the treatment of Leber’s Hereditary Optic Neuropathy, or LHON.

LHON is a rare mitochondrial disease of the eye, which manifests as rapidly progressive and severe loss of central vision predominantly in young adults. Onset occurs most frequently in a single eye and is followed by the second eye, while bilateral presentation occurs in approximately 25% of cases. Most patients reach legal blindness several months after disease onset. LHON is caused by mutations in subunits of Complex I of the electron transport chain, a key protein complex for energy metabolism found in mitochondria, which results in mitochondrial dysfunction. Prevalence is approximately 20,000 patients in the United States and European Union and annual incidence is estimated at approximately 500 new patients.

There are currently no treatments for the disease approved in the United States. Idebenone (Santhera) was approved in the European Union for LHON in 2015 under exceptional circumstances, as its pivotal trial did not meet its primary endpoint

BBP-418 is an orally administered ribitol replacement therapy we are developing for the treatment of Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy type 2i (LGDM2i). BBP-418 is currently in preclinical development.

LGMD2i is an inherited rare progressive genetic disorder characterized by lower-limb weakness and loss of ambulation, in addition to potential pulmonary and cardiac dysfunction. LGMD2i has an estimated prevalence of ~4.5 per 1M. There is no disease modifying treatment available. Standard of care for FKRP dystroglycanopathies is supportive care to alleviate end organ dysfunction.

BBP-305 / encaleret: Autosomal Dominant Hypocalcemia Type 1 and Hypoparathyroidism

Encaleret is an oral small molecule antagonist of the calcium sensing receptor that we are developing for the treatment of Autosomal Dominant Hypocalcemia Type 1, or ADH1 and hypoparathyroidism, or HP. Our IND application for the treatment of ADH1 became effective in late 2019.

HP is a disease in which the parathyroid gland secretes no or abnormally low levels of parathyroid hormone, or PTH, which results in hypocalcemia, causing symptoms including muscle cramps, tingling and seizures. ADH1 is a rare form of HP caused by gain-of-function mutations of the Calcium Sensing Receptor (CaSR), and which is characterized by increased sensitivity of the CaSR to calcium level. Symptoms due to hypocalcemia can be more severe than in other forms of HP, and include severe muscle cramping, seizures and kidney damage resulting from hypercalcuria. ADH1 has a prevalence of approximately 2,000 in the US and EU. Hypoparathyroidism has a larger patient group of approximately 200,000 in the US and EU. No FDA or EMA approved therapies for ADH1 currently exist, although hypocalcemia is typically managed with calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Natpara (parathyroid hormone) was FDA approved in 2015 as an adjunct to calcium and vitamin D to control hypocalcemia in patients with hypoparathyroidism, and has a boxed warning for potential risk of osteosarcoma.

BBP-551 / - Zuretinol acetate – Inherited Retinal Disease (Retinitis Pigmentosa and Leber’s Congenital Amaurosis) due to autosomal recessive RPE65 or LRAT mutations

We are developing zuretinol acetate, an oral, small molecule synthetic retinoid as a treatment for inherited retinal disease, or IRD, associated with autosomal recessive mutations in Retinal Pigment Epithelium Protein, or RPE65, or Lecithin: Retinol Acyltransferase, or LRAT. We anticipate initiating a Phase 2/3 clinical trial for BBP-551 in 2020. BBP-551 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation in the United States for the treatment of Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) due to inherited mutations in RPE65 or LRAT genes and for the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa and in the European Union for the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa and for the treatment of Leber’s congenital amaurosis. BBP 551 has also received Fast Track Designation in the United States for the treatment of LCA due to inherited mutations in LRAT and RPE65 genes, and for the treatment of autosomal recessive RP due to inherited mutations in LRAT and RPE genes.

IRDs, including RP and LCA, are a group of genetically driven retinal degenerations that are characterized by progressive photoreceptor and retinal pigment epithelial cell (RPE) death and dramatic vision loss. It is estimated that there are approximately 2,000-4,500 people in the US and EU with IRDs due to RPE65 and LRAT mutations. No FDA or EMA approved therapies for LRAT-associated IRDs currently exist. Luxturna, a subretinally administered gene therapy, has received FDA approval for the treatment of patients with confirmed biallelic RPE65 mutation-associated retinal dystrophy.

BBP-472 – PI3KB Inhibitor for Autism-Spectrum Disorder characterized by loss of PTEN protein

BBP-472 is a series of small molecule PI3KB inhibitors being designed to balance kinase signaling in the brain for the treatment of children with autism-spectrum disorders (ASD) characterized by loss of the PTEN protein. BBP-472 is currently in preclinical development.

BBP-009/Patidegib (PellePharm): Gorlin Syndrome and High Frequency Basal Cell Carcinoma

BBP-009 is a topical gel formulation of patidegib, a hedgehog inhibitor, that we are developing for the treatment of Gorlin Syndrome and High-Frequency Basal Cell Carcinoma, or HF-BCC. We are currently conducting a Phase 3 clinical trial of BBP-009 in Gorlin Syndrome and a Phase 2b clinical trial of BBP-009 in HF-BCC. We have received breakthrough therapy designation from the FDA, as well as orphan drug designation from both the FDA and EMA for BBP-009 for the treatment of Gorlin Syndrome.

Basal Cell Carcinomas, or BCCs, a form of skin tumor, are universally driven by overactivation of the hedgehog pathway. Gorlin Syndrome is caused by a genetic mutation in Patched1, or PTCH1, the primary inhibitor of the hedgehog signaling pathway. Uninhibited hedgehog signaling can cause tumorigenesis, leading to the formation of BCCs, particularly on the face and sun-exposed regions. HF-BCC is the presentation of more than nine BCCs over a period of three years, without having the genetic mutation present in Gorlin Syndrome. Gorlin Syndrome has a prevalence of approximately 1/31,000 individuals worldwide, approximately 10,000 patients in the United States and 17,000 in the European Union. HF-BCC has a larger patient group of approximately 1/9,000 individuals, approximately 35,000 patients in the United States and 57,000 in the European Union. No FDA or EMA approved therapies for Gorlin Syndrome currently exist. Current treatments involve surgical resection of BCCs, or topical 5-FU or imiquimod, which are effective only in treating superficial BCCs.

In November 2018, through our investment in PellePharm, Inc., or PellePharm, we entered into a partnership with LEO Pharma, pursuant to which LEO has acquired a minority stake in PellePharm and has agreed to provide additional non-dilutive capital to fund the development of topical patidegib, including our planned Phase 3 clinical trial. LEO also acquired an option to purchase all shares in PellePharm at a later date. See “—Our Material Agreements—BBP-009 (Patidegib): Option Agreement with LEO Pharma A/S.”

We are developing BBP-589, an IV-administered recombinant collagen type VII, or rC7, protein replacement therapy, for the treatment of recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, or RDEB. BBP-589 received orphan drug designation from the FDA and EMA in 2014 for the treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, or DEB, and we received fast track designation from the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB).

We are currently conducting a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of BBP-589 in RDEB patients, and anticipate that data readout from this study will occur in 2020.

DEB is a genetic condition caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene encoding the protein collagen type VII, a type of collagen protein that plays an important structural function. Collagen type VII resides in the basement membrane beneath stratified squamous epithelia and forms anchoring fibrils that hold layers of the epithelium together, most notably the epidermal and dermal layers of the skin. In DEB patients, mutations of the COL7A1 gene lead to deficient anchoring fibrils, resulting in normal physical touch or friction upon the epithelium causing severe blistering, wounds, and scarring of the skin as well as the mucous membranes and gastrointestinal tract, which are lined with epithelial cells. These patients can also suffer from joint contractures and pseudosyndactyly as a result of this condition as well as many other comorbidities, and they experience a shortened life expectancy often due to squamous cell carcinomas.

RDEB is a subtype of DEB that tends to have more severe symptoms and clinical outcomes. At present, there is no approved therapy for RDEB. All of the current standard of care treatment approaches rely on protective or palliative interventions. These include bandaging and disinfecting of wounds, nutritional supplementation and pain management none of which address the underlying cause of the disease. We believe there is a significant unmet need for a therapeutic option that can potentially address the cause of disease systemically and offer respite from the effects of the disease.

DEB is caused by dysfunctional collagen type VII protein. BBP-589 is a recombinant version of collagen type VII that is intended to take the place of the patient’s defective protein and reverse the DEB phenotype by forming the anchoring fibrils needed to hold the dermis and epidermis together. We have successfully generated a Chinese Hamster Ovary, or CHO, cell line to produce rC7 protein for use in further development. BBP-589, also referred to as PTR-01, has received orphan drug designation for the treatment of DEB in both the United States and European Union, respectively. As a systemic protein replacement therapy candidate, rC7 is intended for intravenous delivery, a modality that has proven effective at delivering rC7 to the skin’s basement membrane in preclinical animal models.

Preclinical studies have shown that rC7 distributes to the basement membrane of the skin. In COL7A1 knockout mouse models, treatment with intravenously delivered rC7 was observed to restore anchoring fibrils, promote healing and improve survival.

Immunogold electron microscopy of skin obtained from COL7A1 knockout mice injected with rC7 showed formation of anchoring fibrils in the correct location. A single IV administration of rC7 to neonatal COL7A1 knockout mice was associated with a statistically significant improvement in survival compared to vehicle-treated controls.

In single bolus dose toxicity studies conducted in rats and non-human primates, or NHP, rC7 was shown to be well-tolerated. In PD studies, the rC7 administered product was detectable at up to four weeks in the tissue of COL7A1 knockout mouse while the serum half-life ranged from one to five hours in mouse, rat, and NHP. A 28-day repeat dose rat toxicology study and two 28-day NHP repeat-dosing IV toxicology studies included histopathology observations consistent with immune complexes and/or compound deposition. The NOAEL was determined at 4 mg/kg for NHP only, which was used to inform the starting dose of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial.

We are studying BBP-589 in a Phase 1/2 randomized, saline-controlled, single-blind, multiple ascending dose, dose-escalation trial that was initiated in the first quarter of 2019. This first-in human study in adult RDEB patients is evaluating ascending doses of BBP-589 over four cohorts administering a total of three doses of BBP-589 and three doses of saline control IV to all patients in a cross-over design over a 10-week period. The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate the safety, tolerability and PK of BBP-589 in RDEB patients. Additionally, the trial will assess the proof of biologic activity through skin biopsy evaluation of C7, and formation of anchoring fibrils. Wound healing and clinically meaningful patient reported outcomes will also be evaluated at multiple timepoints. We expect to complete the trial in 2020. BBP-589 received fast track designation from the FDA in 2019 for the treatment of DEB.

A number of companies are developing potentially competitive products for RDEB. Krystal Biotech, Inc. is developing KB103, a topical HSV-1 gene therapy currently in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. Abeona Therapeutics, Inc. is developing EB-101, a topical therapy consisting of ex vivo autologous gene-corrected keratinocytes which has completed a Phase 1/2 clinical trial. ProQR Therapeutics N.V. is developing QR-313, an RNA oligonucleotide therapy for DEB exon 73. Fibrocell Science, Inc., acquired by Castle Creek, is developing FCX-007, a COL7A1 gene therapy which has completed a Phase 1/2 clinical trial.

BBP-681 is a transdermal PI3K inhibitor that we are developing for the treatment of cutaneous venous and lymphatic malformations. BBP-681 is currently in preclinical development.

Venous malformations, or VMs, are large, disorganized veins that can cause significant morbidity due to functional impairment, pain, bleeding, and disfigurement. Lymphatic malformations, or LMs, involve the lymphatic vessels and cause functional impairment and pain similar to VM, lymphatic leakage and disfigurement. The prevalence of VMs and LMs is greater than 75,000 and 42,000, respectively, in the United States and EU in the skin. Standard of care is generally non-disease-modifying and invasive and ranges from compression bandages and aspirin, to laser ablation, surgical resection, and sclerotherapy.

BBP-561 is a topical KLK5/7 inhibitor that we are developing for the treatment of Netherton Syndrome. BBP-561 is currently in preclinical development.

Netherton Syndrome is a devastating genetic disease characterized by skin breakdown complicated by risk of sepsis, severe malnutrition, and dehydration in affected neonates. It can additionally lead to chronic problems including allergy, infection, and inflammation. The prevalence is approximately 4,000 – 17,000 patients in the United States and European Union. No disease-modifying therapy exists. Palliative and preventative treatments are used to manage symptoms.

BBP-398 is a small molecule inhibitor of SHP2 that we are developing as a potential treatment of cancers driven by hyperactive receptor tyrosine kinase, or RTK, or MAPK signaling. BBP-398 is currently in preclinical development.

SHP2 is a phosphatase that acts downstream of receptor tyrosine kinases in the MAPK signaling pathway. SHP2 is critical in signaling in these pathways. Increased MAPK signaling is a hallmark of a number of cancer types, including: cancers driven by RTK genetic alterations, cancers with RTK fusion mutations, and cancers with constitutively active MAPK signaling. Additionally, SHP2 is implicated as a downstream mediator of PD-1 signaling, a key target of immuno-oncology treatment.

BBP-954 is a preclinical discovery program for irreversible inhibitors of glutathione peroxidase 4, or GPX4, for the treatment of solid and hematological cancers.

Ferroptosis is a form of oxidative programmed cell death that cancer cells must avoid in order to survive and form tumors. GPX4 is an enzyme that protects cancer cells from ferroptosis by neutralizing toxic lipid free radicals. By inhibiting GPX4, we aim to trigger ferroptosis in cancer cells. Preclinical data generated by us and third parties suggest many of the most common cancers are sensitive to GPX4 inhibition, both in monotherapy and combination with standard anti-cancer agents such as kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy. We believe that GPX4 may be potentially applicable to a number of common solid and hematologic cancers, including: non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, melanoma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, renal cell carcinoma and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, among others.

BBP-812 is an AAV gene therapy product candidate that we are developing for the treatment of Canavan Disease that is designed to deliver the ASPA gene, which is defective in patients with Canavan disease. BBP-812 is currently in preclinical development.

Canavan Disease is a fatal, progressive neurodegenerative disorder that begins in infancy. The disease is a leukodystrophy, caused by degradation of white matter in the brain. Patients typically miss developmental milestones, have a rapidly increasing head circumference, progressive lack of motor control, and often do not live past their mid-teens. The incidence of Canavan Disease is approximately one in 100,000 births worldwide. No treatments are approved for Canavan Disease; care is focused on symptom management.

BBP-815 is an AAV gene therapy product candidate that we are developing for the treatment for nonsyndromic hearing loss caused by recessive mutations in the TMC1 gene. Mutations in the TMC1 gene prevent sound from eliciting the appropriate electrical response in the hair cells, resulting in moderate to severe hearing loss, often present early in life. BBP-815 is currently in preclinical development.

We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”), for all of our requirements of raw materials, drug substance and drug product for our preclinical research and our ongoing clinical trials of our product candidates. Aside from a manufacturing agreement that we entered into in December 2019 through our subsidiary, BridgeBio Gene Therapy, LLC, we have not entered into long-term agreements with our current CMOs. We intend to continue to rely on CMOs for later-stage development and commercialization of our product candidates, including any additional product candidates that we may identify. Although we rely on CMOs, we have personnel and third-party consultants with extensive manufacturing experience to oversee the relationships with our contract manufacturers. Several of our development candidates have or are in the near term expected to have redundant and overlapping drug substance and drug product supply chains.

We intend to begin building a commercial infrastructure in the United States and selected other territories to support the commercialization of each of our product candidates when we believe a regulatory approval in a particular territory is likely. Because most of our target indications are rare diseases with a concentrated prescribing audience and a small number of key opinion leaders who influence the treatments prescribed for the relevant patient population, we currently believe that we can effectively address each market using our own targeted, specialty sales and marketing organization supported by internal sales personnel, an internal marketing group and distribution support.

We intend to evaluate our commercialization strategy as we advance each product candidate through clinical development. In any core markets outside of the United States that we may identify, where appropriate, we may utilize strategic partners, distributors or contract sales forces to expand the commercial availability of our product candidates. We currently do not expect that we will require large pharmaceutical partners for the commercialization of any of our product candidates, although we may consider partnering in certain territories or indications or for other strategic purposes.

We strive to protect the proprietary technology that we believe is important to our business through a variety of methods, including seeking and maintaining patents and patent applications intended to cover our product candidates and compositions, their methods of use and processes for their manufacture, our platform technologies and any other aspects of inventions that are commercially important to the development of our business. We seek to obtain domestic and international patent protection and, in addition to filing and prosecuting patent applications in the United States, we may file counterpart patent applications in additional countries where we believe such foreign filing is likely to be beneficial, including Australia, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, and Mexico. We have entered

into various license agreements to obtain the rights to use certain patents for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. See “—Our Material Agreements.” We also rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection.

Our success will depend on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary rights protecting our commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business, defend and enforce our current and future issued patents, if any, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets and operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategy in order to best fortify our position, and file additional patent applications when our intellectual property strategy warrants such filings. We also rely on know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our intellectual property portfolio. We seek to obtain domestic and international patent protection, and endeavor to promptly file patent applications for new commercially valuable inventions.

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies like us are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. In addition, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and patent scope can be reinterpreted by the courts after issuance. Moreover, many jurisdictions permit third parties to challenge issued patents in administrative proceedings, which may result in further narrowing or even cancellation of patent claims. 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 patents, if issued, will provide sufficient protection from competitors.

Because patent applications in the United States and certain other jurisdictions are maintained in secrecy for 18 months or potentially even longer, and since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings or derivation proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, to determine priority of invention.

As of February 28, 2020, our intellectual property portfolio is composed of over 33 issued patents and over 56 patent applications that we license from academic and research institutions and other third parties, and over 37 issued patents or pending patent applications that we own, including through our subsidiaries. These patents and patent applications generally provide us with the rights to develop our product candidates in the United States and worldwide. Our intellectual property portfolios for each of the programs that we consider to be our key value drivers are further described below.

For our subsidiary, QED Therapeutics, Inc., we license rights from Novartis to two issued U.S. patents, and related pending and issued foreign patents and patent applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and Mexico, as well as in other countries in Asia and in South America, that are directed to compositions of matter of BBP-831. The issued U.S. patents are expected to expire between 2026 and 2029, which takes into account patent term adjustments granted by the USPTO. The foreign patents and patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2025 and 2030.

We also license rights from Novartis to one issued U.S. patent, one pending U.S. patent application, and related pending and issued foreign patents and patent applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and Mexico, as well as in other countries in Asia and in South America, that are directed to pharmaceutical formulations containing BBP-831. The issued patents and patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2034.

We also license rights from Inserm Transfert ESA and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris to one issued U.S. patent and one pending U.S. patent application, and one granted patent in Europe, that are directed to methods of treating achondroplasia using BBP-831. The issued U.S. patent, granted patent in Europe, and the pending patent application, if issued, are expected to expire in 2032.

For our subsidiary Eidos Therapeutics, Inc., we license rights from the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, to six issued U.S. patentswith claims directed to composition of matter and methods of use relating to BBP-265. These patents are expected to expire in 2031 or 2033. We also license rights from Stanford to two pending U.S. patent applications, one issued European patent, one pending European patent application, and one issued Japanese patentwith claims directed to composition of matter and methods of use relating to BBP-265. These patents and patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2031 or 2033.

In addition, we own one issued U.S. patent, two pending U.S. patent applications, a pending PCT patent application, and over 12 related foreign patent applications pending in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, Europe, China, Japan, and Mexicowith claims directed to salt and solid forms, methods of manufacturing, dosing methods, and formulations relating to BBP-265. The issued U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2038. The pending U.S. patent applications, any patent applications claiming the benefit of and priority to the PCT patent application, and the foreign patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2038 or 2039.

For our subsidiary Adrenas Therapeutics, Inc., we own one pending PCT patent application with claims directed to recombinant AAV vectors relating to BBP-631. Any patent applications claiming the benefit of this PCT patent application, if issued, are expected to expire in 2039.

For our subsidiary Phoenix Tissue Repair, Inc., we license rights from the University of Southern California, or USC, to one issued U.S. patent with claims directed to polypeptides comprising functional fragments of collagen 7, and five pending U.S. patent applications with claims directed to methods of use, including treating epidermolysis bullosa with collagen 7. The issued U.S. patent is expected to expire in 2035 and the pending U.S. patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2027 and 2035. We also license rights from USC to over four related foreign patents issued in various jurisdictions including Australia, Europe and Japan, and over seven related foreign patent applications pending in various jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, Europe, and Japan. The foreign patents and patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire between 2027 and 2035.

We also own an issued U.S. patent with claims directed to collagen 7 modification for enhancing the degradability of collagen, and related issued patents in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. These issued patents are expected to expire in 2022.

We also own one pending U.S. patent application with claims directed to methods of treating epidermolysis and chronic skin wounds with collagen 7, with one related issued patent in Australia, and over three related foreign patent applications pending in various jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, and Europe. The issued patent and related patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2033.

We also own a pending U.S. patent application with claims directed to formulations comprising collagen 7 and over seven related foreign patent applications pending in various jurisdictions, including Canada, China, Europe, Japan, and Mexico. These patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2036.

For our subsidiary TheRas, Inc., we license rights from The Regents of the University of California, or the University of California, and Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc., or Leidos, to two pending U.S. patent applications with claims directed to modulators of K-RAS, which include claims to the modulators as composition of matter and their use in therapy, including the treatment of cancer, and over twenty related foreign patent applications pending in various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan, and Mexico. The U.S. patent application and foreign patent applications, if issued, are expected to expire in 2036 and 2038. We also co-own with, and license rights from, the University of California and Leidos, three pending PCT applications. If issued, any patent applications claiming the benefit of these PCT applications are expected to expire in 2039.

In September 2019, through our subsidiary Eidos Therapeutics, Inc., or Eidos, we entered into a license agreement (the “Alexion License Agreement”) with Alexion Pharma International Operations Unlimited Company, a subsidiary of Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (together, “Alexion”) to develop and commercialize BBP-265 in Japan. Additionally, in September 2019, Eidos entered into a stock purchase agreement with Alexion, pursuant to which Eidos sold to Alexion 556,173 shares of its common stock for aggregate cash proceeds of $25.0 million. Under the terms of the Alexion License Agreement, Eidos granted Alexion an exclusive license to certain of our intellectual property rights to develop, manufacture and commercialize BBP-265 in Japan. In consideration for the license grant, Eidos received an upfront payment of $25.0 million, with the potential for an additional one-time payment of $30.0 million subject to the achievement of a regulatory milestone. In addition, Eidos is entitled to receive royalties in the low double-digits on net sales by Alexion of BBP-265 in Japan. The royalty rate is subject to reduction if Alexion is required to obtain intellectual property rights from third parties to develop, manufacture or commercialize BBP-265 in Japan, or upon the introduction of generic competition into the market.

License Agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University

In April 2016, through Eidos, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Stanford for rights relating to novel transthyretin aggregation inhibitors. Under our agreement, Stanford has granted us an exclusive worldwide license to make, use and sell products that are covered by the licensed patent rights. This license grant expires when the last licensed patent expires. The patent rights exclusively licensed to us under the license are described in more detail above under the heading “—Intellectual property— Eidos Therapeutics, Inc.”

Stanford retains the right, on behalf of itself and all other non-profit academic research institutions, to practice under the patent rights for any non-profit purpose, including sponsored research and collaborations. We may grant sublicenses to third parties so long as we are actively pursuing the development or commercialization of products covered by the patent rights. We may also be required to sublicense our rights under the agreement at Stanford’s request under certain conditions, including if we are unwilling or unable to serve a potential market or territory and there is a third party willing to be a sublicensee in such market or territory.

We are obligated to pay to Stanford a yearly license maintenance fee during the term of the agreement, but we may offset the maintenance fee against earned royalty payments due on net sales occurring in that year. Stanford is entitled to receive a royalty as a percentage of net sales of licensed products, in the low single digits. We have agreed to pay Stanford a percentage of non-royalty revenue we receive from our sublicensees, with the amount owed decreasing annually for three years based on when we enter into the applicable sublicense agreement. In addition, we are obligated to pay Stanford up to approximately $1.0 million upon the achievement of specific intellectual property, clinical and regulatory milestone events. In the event of a change of control transaction with respect to Eidos, we are obligated to pay Stanford a change of control fee of $250,000 in connection with the assignment of the license agreement to the acquirer of Eidos.

Under the license agreement with Stanford, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, and commercialize at least one licensed product; to develop markets for such licensed products; and to meet certain development milestones as agreed upon between us and Stanford.

Subject to the expiration of the license grant described above, the agreement does not have a specified term. We may terminate the agreement by providing prior written notice to Stanford, and Stanford has the right to terminate the agreement if we fail to achieve certain milestones or make payments under the agreement, or are not actively pursuing development of a licensed product, or if we otherwise materially breach the agreement and fail to cure such breach within a specified grace period.

In January 2018, through our subsidiary QED Therapeutics, Inc., or QED, we entered into a license agreement with Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd., or Novartis, for certain intellectual property rights, including patents and know-how, related to BBP-831 for the treatment of patients with FGFR-driven diseases, including CCA, UC and achondroplasia. We refer to this agreement as the Novartis License.

Pursuant to the Novartis License, we obtained a license to research, develop, make, have made, use, import, offer for sale, sell, have sold and otherwise commercialize BBP-831, as well as therapeutic products incorporating BBP-831 that would, but for the license grant, infringe Novartis’ license patent rights, or that were developed using or that incorporate or embody Novartis’ licensed know-how, in all fields of use worldwide. The license grant to us includes the right to sublicense through multiple tiers. We also have certain rights to intellectual property licensed to Novartis’ affiliate under a materials transfer agreement with a third party.

The Novartis License is subject to Novartis’ existing obligations to supply a third party with BBP-831 to support the third party’s clinical trials, and we have an ongoing obligation to inform Novartis of our or our sublicensees’ intent to seek regulatory approval for and commercialize BBP-831 for various indications, with potential reversionary rights to Novartis in the event of a subsequent decision not to seek regulatory approval and commercialization, or a determination by Novartis that we have failed to sufficiently pursue regulatory approval and commercialization, for Novartis to grant such third party limited rights to develop and commercialize BBP-831.

Under the terms of the Novartis License, we made a one-time payment of $15.0 million to Novartis and agreed to issue shares of Series A preferred stock of QED valued at approximately $1.7 million in the aggregate to Novartis. In addition, we are obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling $60.0 million upon achievement of certain regulatory milestones. We are also obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling $35.0 million upon achievement of certain sales milestones for therapeutic products incorporating BBP-831. QED also agreed to pay Novartis tiered low double-digit royalties on net sales of therapeutic products incorporating BBP-831.

Under the Novartis License, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop BBP-831, and to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize BBP-831 in the United States and the European Union.

We may terminate the Novartis License in its entirety or on a product-by-product or country-by-country basis at any time with 60 days’ prior written notice to Novartis. Novartis may terminate if QED ceases to function as a going concern, is the subject of certain bankruptcy or similar proceedings, or otherwise winds down or discontinues its business. Either party may terminate for material breach that is not cured by the other party within a specified time period of receiving notice of such material breach. Otherwise, the Novartis License terminates on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis on the latest of the expiration of licensed patent rights, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity, or the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale in such country.

In June 2018, through our subsidiary Origin Biosciences, Inc., we entered into an asset purchase agreement with Alexion Pharma Holding Unlimited Company, or Alexion, pursuant to which we acquired Alexion’s right, title and interest in certain assets relating to fosdenopterin, including patents and other intellectual property rights.

In the event that a Priority Review Voucher, or PRV, is granted to us by the FDA, we have agreed to pay Alexion a percentage in the mid-teens of any proceeds received by us from our sale of the PRV to a third party. If we do not sell the PRV to a third party within 180 days after our receipt of the PRV, we are obligated to pay Alexion $18.8 million, which amount is creditable against any amounts otherwise due to Alexion in accordance with the preceding sentence upon any future sale by us of the PRV. We are obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling $3.0 million upon achievement of certain development milestones and $17.0 million upon achievement of certain sales milestones for products containing the fosdenopterin molecule. We also agreed to pay Alexion tiered royalties ranging from the low-to mid-teens on net sales of products containing the fosdenopterin molecule.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain a PRV, achieve specified milestone events and commercialize at least one product containing the fosdenopterin molecule after receipt of regulatory approval.

In November 2018, through PellePharm, Inc., or PellePharm, we entered into an option agreement with LEO Pharma A/S, or LEO Pharma, and LEO Spiny Merger Sub, Inc., pursuant to which LEO Pharma was granted an exclusive, irrevocable option to acquire PellePharm. The option is exercisable by LEO Pharma on or before the occurrence of certain events relating to PellePharm’s clinical development programs, and in no event later than July 30, 2021. As consideration for the option, LEO Pharma paid to PellePharm exclusivity payments totaling approximately $27.9 million in the aggregate and purchased a minority equity interest in PellePharm for approximately $5.1 million. In addition, LEO Pharma has agreed to pay additional exclusivity payments to PellePharm in an amount not to exceed $37.0 million in the aggregate under certain circumstances.

Pursuant to the option agreement, we have agreed to conduct the business of PellePharm in the ordinary course and in accordance with applicable laws, comply with the terms of our organizational documents, and use commercially reasonable efforts to operate the business of PellePharm in accordance with a mutually agreed budget and to complete a Phase 2 clinical trial of patidegib for HF-BCC and a Phase 3 clinical trial of patidegib for Gorlin Syndrome. In addition, we and LEO Pharma have formed a joint development committee to oversee the development of, and to make decisions regarding the commercialization of, patidegib.

BBP-589: Asset Purchase Agreement with Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc. and Lotus Tissue Repair

In July 2017, through our subsidiary, Phoenix Tissue Repair, Inc. or Phoenix, we entered into an asset purchase agreement with Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., or Shire, and Lotus Tissue Repair, Inc. or Lotus, pursuant to which we acquired from Shire and Lotus the right, title and interest in certain assets relating to recombinant human collagen type VII, including patents and other intellectual property rights, as well as data and regulatory filings, relating to the treatment of DEB, and assumed certain liabilities with respect thereto. In connection with the acquisition of such assets, (1) Shire and Lotus granted to us a non-exclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable license under certain intellectual property related to the acquired assets but retained by Shire and Lotus, for the exploitation of certain recombinant human collagen type VII products in all fields, and (2) we granted to Shire and Lotus a non-exclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable license under certain of the acquired intellectual property assets to exploit products other than recombinant human collagen type VII products and other than for the treatment of DEB in humans.

As partial consideration for our acquisition of the assets, we agreed to pay a purchase price of $1.5 million and issued shares of common stock in Phoenix at a nominal value to Lotus. We are obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling $27.0 million upon achievement of certain regulatory milestones. In addition, we are obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling $60.0 million upon achievement of certain sales milestones. We also agreed to pay to Shire and Lotus tiered single-digit royalties on annual net sales for products containing the recombinant human collagen type VII.

We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain FDA approval for and commercialize at least one product for the treatment of DEB in humans.

In September 2016, through our subsidiary TheRas, Inc., or TheRas, we entered into a license agreement with the Regents of the University of California, or UCSF, which was amended in January 2017, August 2017, September 2018 and December 2019, relating to certain patent rights related to KRAS inhibitors and modulators, which we refer to collectively as the UCSF License.

Under the UCSF License, we acquired an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale and import products, services, and methods covered by the licensed patent rights, and to perform licensed processes, in each case, in prophylactic and therapeutic uses in humans. In addition, we received an option for certain inventions conceived and reduced to practice during a specified term. Under the UCSF License, UCSF retains, on behalf of itself and a third party, the right to make, use and practice certain of the licensed intellectual property rights for research and educational purposes, and the right to license to other academic and nonprofit organizations to practice the patent rights for research and educational purposes, including with respect to sponsored research performed on behalf of commercial entities. The rights and interests of any such commercial entity shall be subject to the licenses granted to us pursuant to the UCSF License. The UCSF License is also subject to pre- existing rights of the U.S. Government and the NIH.

In connection with the UCSF License and subsequent amendments, we paid issue fees totaling $300,000. In addition, under the terms of the UCSF License, we are required to pay to UCSF certain annual license maintenance fees unless we are selling or otherwise exploiting licensed products or services paying royalties to UCSF on net sales for such licensed products or services. With respect to such royalty obligations, we agreed to pay UCSF low single-digit tiered royalties on annual net sales of licensed products and services, with a minimum royalty requirement of $100,000. Our obligation to pay royalties continues on a country-by-country basis until the expiration of all licensed patent rights covering licensed products in such country. In addition, we are obligated to make contingent milestone payments totaling up to $22.4 million upon the achievement of certain clinical or regulatory milestones. In the event that we sublicense the patent rights, UCSF is also entitled to receive a percentage of the sublicensing income received by us.

We are also required to make a one-time “Index Milestone Payment” to UCSF in the event of (i) an initial public offering, or (ii) a change of control transaction, in each case with respect to TheRas. Such Index Milestone Payment is calculated by multiplying (a) a number of shares equal to a specified percentage of the then-outstanding fully-diluted shares of common stock of TheRas by (b)(1) in the case of an initial public offering by TheRas, the offering price per share of the securities sold to the underwriters in the offering, or (2) in the case of a change of control transaction with respect to TheRas, the per share consideration that would be received by TheRas’ shareholders in such transaction, in each case subject to certain adjustments. To the extent that an Index Milestone Payment becomes due prior to a bona fide financing transaction of at least $45 million, such Index Milestone Payment is equal to the greater of the amount calculated as described above, or $1.8 million.

Under the UCSF License, we also assumed certain obligations with respect to fund-raising, and must report on our progress in achieving the milestones set forth in the UCSF License on a periodic basis. The UCSF License also includes certain participation rights pursuant to which UCSF has the right to purchase specified amounts of securities offered by TheRas in financing transactions.

Under the UCSF License, we are obligated to diligently proceed with the development, manufacture and sale of at least one licensed product and/or service, and to earnestly and diligently market such licensed product and/or service after receipt of any requisite regulatory approvals and in quantities sufficient to meet market demand. We are also required to use good faith and diligent efforts to meet the milestones set forth in the UCSF License, subject to any revisions that may be permitted under certain circumstances. UCSF has the right to either terminate the UCSF License or reduce the license to a nonexclusive license if we are unable to perform our diligence obligations.

The agreement will continue until the last to expire or abandonment of the patent rights on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis. We may terminate the agreement by providing prior written notice to UCSF or we may terminate the rights under patent rights on a country-by-country basis by giving notice in writing to UCSF. UCSF has the right to terminate the agreement if we fail to make any payments, challenge any UCSF patent rights or otherwise materially breach the agreement and fail to cure such breach within a specified grace period.

BBP-398: Collaboration and License Agreement with the Board of Regents of The University of Texas System and The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

In March 2017, through our subsidiary Navire Pharma, Inc. (formerly known as PTP Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), or Navire, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, or the Board of Regents, and The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, or MD Anderson. Under the agreement, we acquired an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable, worldwide license to develop, make, use and sell SHP2 and PTPN11 inhibitors covered by the licensed technology in all fields. The Board of Regents and MD Anderson each retain the right to practice the licensed patent rights for non-commercial, research and academic purposes, and also to grant non-exclusive licenses to other academic and nonprofit organizations to practice the patent rights for non-commercial, research and educational purposes (but excluding any research sponsored by a for-profit entity). Our license is also subject to a non-exclusive license granted to the U.S. government. To further the goals of the collaboration agreement, we granted a non-exclusive license to our technology to MD Anderson for the purpose of carrying out the development plan.

In partial consideration for the exclusive license grant, we issued the Board of Regents shares of common stock of Navire valued at approximately $280,000 pursuant to a stock purchase agreement entered into simultaneously. If commercial sales of a licensed product commence, we will pay MD Anderson royalties at percentage rates ranging in the low single digits on net sales of licensed products. We may offset payments made to third parties to obtain rights needed for the commercialization of a licensed product against royalties payable to MD Anderson provided that such expenses in a given year may not be credited against more than a specified percentage of the royalties in such year and subject to a minimum floor in the low single digits. Our obligation to pay various royalties continues on a country by country basis with respect to any licensed product depends on regulatory status, patent coverage, and financing status. For licensed products that satisfy certain regulatory conditions, the related royalty extends for three years after the first sale. Additionally, if certain financing conditions are achieved, then (i) for licensed products covered by licensed patents, the royalty obligation continues until the expiration of all licensed patent rights covering such licensed product in such country, and (ii) for licensed products without coverage by licensed patents, the royalty obligation extends for 10 years after first sale.

Under the collaboration and license agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to conduct all development activities under the agreement and to commercialize the licensed products following regulatory approval.

The agreement will continue for thirty years unless earlier terminated. We may terminate the agreement for convenience, provided that MD Anderson shall not be required to forego payments made or equity issued to MD Anderson under the collaboration and license agreement or the stock purchase agreement. MD Anderson has the right to terminate the agreement if we fail to pay royalties or otherwise materially breach the agreement or the stock purchase agreement and fail to cure such breach within a specified cure period, or if BridgeBio Pharma LLC commits a material breach of its obligations under any agreement with Navire, or if Navire breaches obligations under a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement between Navire and BridgeBio Pharma LLC.

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, manufacture, testing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products, including gene therapies, as well as diagnostics, and any future product candidates. Generally, before a new drug, biologic or diagnostic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved, authorized, or cleared by the applicable regulatory authority.

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA, and its implementing regulations and biologics under the FDCA and the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations, such as those related to competition. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or following approval may subject an applicant to administrative actions or judicial sanctions. These actions and sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, license revocation, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, voluntary or mandatory product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal fines or penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on our business, the market acceptance of our products and our reputation.

Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA through either an NDA, or a BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and the regulatory scheme for drugs and biologics is evolving and subject to change at any time. We cannot be certain that any approvals for our product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Before testing any drug, biological or gene therapy candidate in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess safety and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal and state regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies.

An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive AEs and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. Additionally, the review of information in an IND submission may prompt FDA to, among other things, scrutinize existing INDs or marketed products and could generate requests for information or clinical holds on other product candidates or programs.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Information about certain clinical trials, including clinical trial results, must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website.

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules had historically been subject to review by the RAC, of the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities, or the OBA, pursuant to the NIH Guideline. On August 17, 2018, the NIH issued a notice in the Federal Register and issued a public statement proposing changes to the oversight framework for gene therapy trials, including changes to the applicable NIH Guidelines to modify the roles and responsibilities of the RAC with respect to human clinical trials of gene therapy products, and requesting public comment on its proposed modifications. During the public comment period, which closed October 16, 2018, the NIH announced that it will no longer accept new human gene transfer protocols for review as a part of the protocol registration process or convene the RAC to review individual clinical protocols. In April 2019, NIH announced the updated guidelines, which reflect these proposed changes, and clarify that these trials will remain subject to the FDA’s oversight and other clinical trial regulations, and oversight at the local level will continue as set forth in the NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA or BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements, and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap.

In August 2018, the FDA released a draft guidance entitled “Expansion Cohorts: Use in First-In-Human Clinical Trials to Expedite Development of Oncology Drugs and Biologics,” which outlines how drug developers can utilize an adaptive trial design commonly referred to as a seamless trial design in early stages of oncology drug development, i.e., the first-in-human clinical trial, to compress the traditional three phases of trials into one continuous trial called an expansion cohort trial. Information to support the design of individual expansion cohorts are included in IND applications and assessed by FDA. Expansion cohort trials can potentially bring efficiency to drug development and reduce developmental costs and time.

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

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators 15 days after the trial sponsor determines the information qualifies for reporting for serious and unexpected suspected AEs, findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must also notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but in no case later than seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3 and other types of clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. 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 committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. The NDA or BLA is a request for approval to market the drug or biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug or safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of FDA. FDA approval of an NDA or BLA must be obtained before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs and BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA or BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA or BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt, and such decision could include a refusal to file by the FDA. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA targets ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular entity NDA or original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs or BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel products or products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug or biologic with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require the applicant to obtain additional clinical data, including the potential requirement to conduct additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or to complete other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, or to conduct additional preclinical studies or manufacturing activities. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application or request an opportunity for a hearing. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biological product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product.

Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an NDA or BLA. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety or providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues. Competitors, however, may receive approval of either a different product for the same indication or the same product for a different indication but that could be used off-label in the orphan indication. Orphan drug exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our products for seven years if a competitor obtains approval before we do for the same product, as defined by the FDA, for the same indication we are seeking approval, or if our product is determined to be contained within the scope of the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If we pursue marketing approval for an indication broader than the orphan drug designation we have received, we may not be entitled to orphan drug exclusivity. Orphan drug status in the European Union has similar, but not identical, requirements and benefits.

Under the FDCA, as amended, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biologics that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biologic application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug product, referred to as a priority review voucher, or PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its NDA or BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its NDA or BLA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program until September 30, 2020, with the potential for PRVs to be granted until 2022.

A sponsor may seek to develop and obtain approval of its product candidates under programs designed to accelerate the development, FDA review and approval of new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. For example, the FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that are intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. For a fast track-designated product, the FDA may consider sections of the NDA or BLA for review on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the application, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the application and determines that the schedule is acceptable and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the application. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting.

A product 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 or review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Priority review means that, for a new molecular entity or original BLA, the FDA sets a target date for FDA action on the marketing application at six months after accepting the application for filing as opposed to ten months. A product is eligible for priority review if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug or biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. If criteria are not met for priority review, the application for a new molecular entity or original BLA is subject to the standard FDA review period of ten months after FDA accepts the application for filing. Priority review designation does not change the scientific/medical standard for approval or the quality of evidence necessary to support approval.

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval if it is designed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates an effect on either a surrogate 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, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the disease or condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical 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. FDA may withdraw approval of a drug or indication approved under accelerated approval if, for example, the confirmatory trial fails to verify the predicted clinical benefit of the product.

Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. If the FDA designates a breakthrough therapy, it may take actions appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application, which may include holding meetings with the sponsor and the review team throughout the development of the therapy; providing timely advice to, and interactive communication with, the sponsor regarding the development of the drug to ensure that the development program to gather the nonclinical and clinical data necessary for approval is as efficient as practicable; involving senior managers and experienced review staff, as appropriate, in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary review; assigning a cross-disciplinary project lead for the FDA review team to facilitate an efficient review of the development program and to serve as a scientific liaison between the review team and the sponsor; and considering alternative clinical trial designs when scientifically appropriate, which may result in smaller trials or more efficient trials that require less time to complete and may minimize the number of patients exposed to a potentially less efficacious treatment. Breakthrough therapy designation comes with all of the benefits of fast track designation, which means that the sponsor may file sections of the BLA for review on a rolling basis if certain conditions are satisfied, including an agreement with the FDA on the proposed schedule for submission of portions of the application and the payment of applicable user fees before the FDA may initiate a review.

As part of the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress amended the FDCA to facilitate an efficient development program for, and expedite review of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, or RMATs, which include cell and gene therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies or products. RMATs do not include those human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue based products regulated solely under section 361 of the PHSA and 21 CFR Part 1271. This program is intended to facilitate efficient development and expedite review of regenerative medicine therapies, which are intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and qualify for RMAT designation. A drug sponsor may request that FDA designate a drug as a RMAT concurrently with or at any time after submission of an IND. FDA has 60 calendar days to determine whether the drug meets the criteria, including whether there is preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for a serious or life-threatening disease or condition. A BLA for a regenerative medicine therapy that has received RMAT designation may be eligible for priority review or accelerated approval through use of surrogate or intermediate endpoints reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites. Benefits of RMAT designation also include early interactions with FDA to discuss any potential surrogate or intermediate endpoint to be used to support accelerated approval. A regenerative medicine therapy with RMAT designation that is granted accelerated approval and is subject to post-approval requirements may fulfill such requirements through the submission of clinical evidence from clinical studies, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to its approval.

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

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, certain NDAs and BLAs and certain supplements to an NDA or BLA must contain data to assess the safety and efficacy of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of pediatric data or full or partial waivers. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, amended the FDCA to require that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days of an end-of-Phase 2 meeting or, if there is no such meeting, as early as practicable before the initiation of the Phase 3 or Phase 2/3 study. The initial PSP must include an outline of the pediatric study or studies that the sponsor plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, age groups, relevant endpoints and statistical approach, or a justification for not including such detailed information, and any request for a deferral of pediatric assessments or a full or partial waiver of the requirement to provide data from pediatric studies along with supporting information. The FDA and the sponsor must reach an agreement on the PSP. A sponsor can submit amendments to an agreed-upon initial PSP at any time if changes to the pediatric plan need to be considered based on data collected from preclinical studies, early phase clinical trials and/or other clinical development programs.

A drug or biologic product can also obtain pediatric market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting products for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available

products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability, including investigation by federal and state authorities. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use or first publication. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA or BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA or BLA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP regulations. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our products in accordance with cGMP regulations. These manufacturers must comply with cGMP regulations that require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance, the maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs or biologics are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. The discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP regulations, could result in enforcement actions, and the discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer or holder of an approved NDA or BLA, including recall.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may issue enforcement letters or withdraw the approval of the product if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the drug or biologic reaches the market. Corrective action could delay drug or biologic distribution and require significant time and financial expenditures. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a drug or biologic, including AEs 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:

We believe that the success of certain of our product candidates may depend, in part, on the development and commercialization of a companion diagnostic. Companion diagnostics identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular

therapeutic product for the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA. 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 or FDA exercise of enforcement discretion applies, diagnostic tests generally require marketing clearance or approval from the FDA prior to commercialization. The two primary types of FDA marketing authorization applicable to a medical device are premarket notification, also called 510(k) clearance, and approval of a premarket, or PMA approval.

To obtain 510(k) clearance for a medical device, or for certain modifications to devices that have received 510(k) clearance, a manufacturer must submit a premarket notification demonstrating that the proposed device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared 510(k) device or to a preamendment device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or a predicate device, for which the FDA has not yet called for the submission of a PMA. In making a determination that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, the FDA compares the proposed device to the predicate device or predicate devices and assesses whether the subject device is comparable to the predicate device or predicate devices with respect to intended use, technology, design and other features which could affect safety and effectiveness. If the FDA determines that the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device or predicate devices, the subject device may be cleared for marketing. The 510(k) premarket notification pathway generally takes from three to twelve months from the date the application is completed, but can take significantly longer.

PMA applications must be supported by valid scientific evidence, which typically requires extensive data, including technical, preclinical, clinical and manufacturing data, to demonstrate to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the device. For diagnostic tests, a PMA application typically includes data regarding analytical and clinical validation studies. As part of its review of the PMA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities to ensure compliance with the Quality System Regulation, or QSR, which requires manufacturers to follow design, testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance procedures. The FDA’s review of an initial PMA application is required by statute to take between six to ten months, although the process typically takes longer, and may require several years to complete. If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA. If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny the approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post-approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

On July 31, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for “In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices.” According to the guidance document, for novel therapeutic products that depend on the use of a diagnostic test and where the diagnostic device could be essential for the safe and effective use of the corresponding therapeutic product, the premarket application for the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic, although the FDA recognizes that there may be cases when contemporaneous development may not be possible. However, in cases where a drug cannot be used safely or effectively without the companion diagnostic, the FDA’s guidance indicates it will generally not approve the drug without the approval or clearance of the diagnostic device. The FDA also issued a draft guidance in July 2016 setting forth the principles for co-development of an in vitro companion diagnostic device with a therapeutic product. The draft guidance describes principles to guide the development and contemporaneous marketing authorization for the therapeutic product and its corresponding in vitro companion diagnostic.

Once cleared or approved, the companion diagnostic device must adhere to post-marketing requirements including the requirements of FDA’s quality system regulation, adverse event reporting, recalls and corrections along with product marketing requirements and limitations. Like drug and biologic makers, companion diagnostic makers are subject to unannounced FDA inspections at any time during which the FDA will conduct an audit of the product(s) and the company’s facilities for compliance with its authorities.

Certain of our product candidates are regulated as biologics. An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCI Act, as part of the ACA. This amendment to the PHSA, in part, attempts to minimize duplicative testing. Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products as compared to small molecule drugs, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

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

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including the CMS, including the Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights, other divisions of the Department of HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers and physicians and any future arrangements with third party payers, 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 any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include: the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and HIPAA.

The Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by imprisonment, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, drug manufacturers can be held liable under the federal civil False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Penalties for a False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. The government may deem manufacturers to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. Claims which include items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute are false or fraudulent claims for purposes of the False Claims Act. Our future marketing and activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, if approved, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under this law.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the federal Anti-Kickback Statute a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

We may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and their implementing regulations, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities, which include certain health care providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and criminal penalties.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, or the Sunshine Act, within the ACA, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) report annually to CMS information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians, certain other healthcare professionals, and their immediate family members. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. In addition, many states also govern the reporting of payments or other transfers of value, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, are often not pre-empted, and may have a more prohibitive effect than the Sunshine Act, thus further complicating compliance efforts.

Similar federal, state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures.

In order to distribute products commercially, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices 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, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, individual imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is 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. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare.

For example, in March 2010, the ACA was enacted in the United States. The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed, and are expected to continue to significantly change, the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical industry are that the ACA:

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the Fifth Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court; the Trump Administration has issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices; and Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business.

Moreover, in May 2018, the Trump administration released its “Blueprint to Lower Drug Prices and Reduce Out-of-Pocket Costs,” or the Blueprint. The Blueprint contains several potential regulatory actions and legislative recommendations aimed at lowering prescription drug prices, including measures to promote innovation and competition for biologics, changes to Medicare Part D to give plan sponsors more leverage when negotiating prices with manufacturers, and updating the Medicare drug-pricing dashboard to make price increases and generic competition more transparent. In addition, the Department of HHS released a Request for Information, or RFI, soliciting public input on ways to lower drug pricing. Together, the recommendations in the Blueprint and RFI, if enacted by Congress and HHS, could lead to changes to Medicare Parts B and D, including the transition of certain drugs covered under Part B to Part D or the offering of alternative purchasing options under the Competitive Acquisition Program that currently applies to selected drugs and biologics covered under Part B. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. While most of the proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative, administrative and/or additional measures to control drug costs.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. 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 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013, following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional congressional action is taken. Further, in January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, 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. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability. Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices.

Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or the Right to Try Act, was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to request access to certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase I clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. There is no obligation for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

We cannot predict what healthcare reform initiatives may be adopted in the future. Further federal, state and foreign legislative and regulatory developments are likely, and we expect ongoing initiatives to increase pressure on drug pricing. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

If our products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The distribution of pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements subjects firms to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, exclusion from federal healthcare programs, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

We may be subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. From time to time and in the future, our operations may involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and may also produce hazardous waste products. Even if we contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and waste products, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from the use or disposal of our hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties for failure to comply with such laws and regulations.

We maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees, but this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. However, we do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us.

In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. Current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts. In addition, failure to comply with these laws and regulations may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of our future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA or BLA.

Marketing exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, 505(b)(2) NDA or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

In the European Union, our future products also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the European Union, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently into their national laws. This has led to significant variations in the member state regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority, or NCA, and one or more Ethics Committees, or ECs. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

The EU clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. In April 2014, the EU adopted a new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, which is set to replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. It will overhaul the current system of approvals for clinical trials in the EU. Specifically, the new regulation, which will be directly applicable in all member states, aims at simplifying and streamlining the approval of clinical trials in the EU. 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. It is expected that the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 will apply following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, the centralized EU portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the regulation, through an independent audit.

Much like the Anti-Kickback Statue prohibition in the United States, the provision of benefits or advantages to physicians to induce or encourage the prescription, recommendation, endorsement, purchase, supply, order or use of medicinal products is also prohibited in the European Union. The provision of benefits or advantages to physicians is governed by the national anti-bribery laws of European Union Member States, such as the UK Bribery Act 2010. Infringement of these laws could result in substantial fines and imprisonment.

Payments made to physicians in certain European Union Member States must be publicly disclosed. Moreover, agreements with physicians often must be the subject of prior notification and approval by the physician’s employer, his or her competent professional organization and/or the regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. These requirements are provided in the national laws, industry codes or professional codes of conduct, applicable in the EU Member States. Failure to comply with these requirements could result in reputational risk, public reprimands, administrative penalties, fines or imprisonment.

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is comprised of the 27 Member States of the European Union (including Norway and excluding Croatia), Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. There are two types of marketing authorizations.

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

In the European Union, new chemical entities, sometimes referred to as new active substances, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity upon marketing authorization and an additional two years of market exclusivity. The data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application for eight years, after which generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but not approved for two years. The overall ten-year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are determined to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with currently approved therapies.

In the European Union, the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union community (or where it is unlikely that the development of the medicine would generate sufficient return to justify the investment) and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment has been authorized (or, if a method exists, the product would be a significant benefit to those affected).

In the European Union, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and ten years of market exclusivity is granted following medicinal product approval. This period may be reduced to six years if the orphan drug designation criteria are no longer met, including where it is shown that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Orphan drug designation must be requested before submitting an application for marketing approval. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

In the EEA, MAAs for new medicinal products not authorized have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when this data is not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the marketing authorization is obtained in all Member States of the European Union and trial results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Economic Area, or the EEA, is governed by the GDPR, which became effective May 25, 2018. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EU or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the European Union. The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for data controllers of personal data, including stringent requirements relating to the consent of data subjects, expanded disclosures about how personal data is used, requirements to conduct privacy impact assessments for “high risk” processing, limitations on retention of personal data, mandatory data breach notification and “privacy by design” requirements, and creates direct obligations on service providers acting as data processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA to countries that do not ensure an adequate level of protection, like the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EEA Member States may result in fines up to 20 million Euros or 4% of a company’s global annual revenues for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. Moreover, the GDPR grants data subjects the right to claim material and non material damages resulting from infringement of the GDPR. Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, maintaining compliance with the GDPR, will require significant time, resources and expense, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Further, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU, often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. In particular, it is unclear how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated now that the United Kingdom has left the EU.

For other countries outside of the European Union and the United States, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

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

If we further expand our operations outside of the United States, we must dedicate additional resources to comply with numerous laws and regulations in each jurisdiction in which we plan to operate. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with certain accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Compliance with the FCPA is expensive and difficult, particularly in countries in which corruption is a recognized problem. In addition, the FCPA presents particular challenges in the pharmaceutical industry, because, in many countries, hospitals are operated by the government, and doctors and other hospital employees are considered foreign officials. Certain payments to hospitals in connection with clinical trials and other work have been deemed to be improper payments to government officials and have led to FCPA enforcement actions.

Various laws, regulations and executive orders also restrict the use and dissemination outside of the United States, or the sharing with certain non-U.S. nationals, of information classified for national security purposes, as well as certain products and technical data relating to those products. If we expand our presence outside of the United States, it will require us to dedicate additional resources to comply with these laws, and these laws may preclude us from developing, manufacturing, or selling certain products and product candidates outside of the United States, which could limit our growth potential and increase our development costs.

The failure to comply with laws governing international business practices may result in substantial civil and criminal penalties and suspension or debarment from government contracting. The SEC also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

Successful commercialization of new drug products depends in part on the extent to which reimbursement for those drug products will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drug products they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford a drug product. Sales of drug products depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of drugs products are paid for by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors.

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 drug products. In many countries, the prices of drug products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of drug products under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for drug products may be reduced compared with the United States.

In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new drug products are typically made by CMS, an agency within the HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new drug product will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare, and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. However, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. Any negotiated prices for any of our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the average manufacturer price, or AMP, and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although under the current state of the law these newly eligible entities (with the exception of children’s hospitals) will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. As 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. The plan for the research was published in 2012 by the Department of HHS, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures are made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our drug candidates, if any such drug or the condition that they are intended to treat are the subject of a trial. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s drug could adversely affect the sales of our drug candidate. If third-party payors do not consider our drugs to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our drugs after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our drugs on a profitable basis.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Outside of the United States, the pricing of pharmaceutical products and medical devices is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, 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 therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products, but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of pharmaceutical products and medical devices will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures.

As of December 31, 2019, we had 248 full-time employees, including 44 Eidos employees. We have never had a work stoppage, and none of our employees is represented by a labor organization or under any collective-bargaining arrangements. We consider our employee relations to be good.

We were incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 2019, under the name BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 421 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Our telephone number is (650) 391-9740.

Our web page address is https://bridgebio.com. Our investor relations website is located at https://investor.bridgebio.com. We make available free of charge on our investor relations website under “SEC Filings” our Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q, Current Reports on Form 8‑K, our directors’ and officers’ Section 16 Reports and any amendments to those reports after filing or furnishing such materials to the SEC. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012. As such, we are eligible for exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) December 31, 2024, (ii) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenues are $1.07 billion or more, (iii) the date on which we have, during the previous rolling three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities, and (iv) the date on which we are deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” as defined in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Our business involves significant risks, some of which are described below. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes. If any of the following risks actually occur, it could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition and future prospects. In such event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of factors that are described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Risk Related to our Financial Position, Need for Additional Capital and Growth Strategy

Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future. We have not generated any revenue since inception, which, together with our limited operating history, may make it difficult for you to assess our future viability.

Pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. Our subsidiaries, on whose success we largely rely, are also early-stage biopharmaceutical companies. To date, we have focused principally on identifying, acquiring or in-licensing and developing our product candidates at the subsidiary level, all of which are in discovery, lead optimization, preclinical or clinical development. Our product candidates will require substantial additional development time, including extensive clinical research, and resources before we would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales.

We are not profitable and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in April 2015. Our net losses for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 were $288.6 million, $169.5 million and $43.8 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, we had an accumulated deficit of $440.0 million. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenues from product sales, and have financed operations solely through the sale of equity securities and debt financings. We continue to incur significant research and development, or R&D, and other expenses related to ongoing operations and expect to incur losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate these losses will increase substantially in future periods and we will not generate any revenue from product sales until after we have successfully completed clinical development and received regulatory approval for the commercial sale of one or more product candidates.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of our expenses, or when we will be able to generate any meaningful revenue or achieve or maintain profitability, if ever. In addition, our expenses could increase beyond our current expectations if we are required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, to perform nonclinical or preclinical studies or clinical trials in addition to those that we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in any of our or our future collaborators’ clinical trials or the development of our product candidates that we may identify. Even if our future product candidates that we may identify are approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate and ongoing compliance efforts.

We may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable drug or achieve profitability. Revenue from the sale of any product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to obtain reimbursement at any price and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. Our growth strategy depends on our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if the number of addressable patients is not as anticipated, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than expected, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved. Even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to achieve sustained profitability would depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our research and development pipeline, market our product candidates, if approved, that we may identify and pursue or continue our operations. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We will require substantial additional funding to achieve our business goals. If we are unable to obtain this funding when needed and on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, limit or terminate our product development efforts.

Developing biopharmaceutical products is expensive and time-consuming, and we expect to require substantial additional capital to conduct research, preclinical testing and human studies, may establish pilot scale and commercial scale manufacturing processes and facilities, and establish and develop quality control, regulatory, marketing, sales and administrative capabilities to support our existing programs and pursue potential additional programs. We are also responsible for the payments to third parties of expenses that may include milestone payments, license maintenance fees and royalties, including in the case of certain of our agreements with academic institutions or other companies from whom intellectual property rights underlying their respective programs have been in-licensed or acquired. Because the outcome of any preclinical or clinical development and regulatory approval process is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development, regulatory approval process and commercialization of any future product candidates we may identify.

As of December 31, 2019, we had working capital of $508.2 million and cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $577.1 million. We expect that our cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our operations through at least the next 12 months from the date of this report. However, our operating plan may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations or license and development agreements. Any additional fundraising efforts for us may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates that we may identify and pursue. Moreover, such financing may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business. In addition, 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.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable, or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit or terminate one or more research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates or be unable to expand operations or otherwise capitalize on business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to current product candidates or to any future product candidates on unfavorable terms.

We may seek additional capital through any number of available sources, including but not limited to public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. We, and indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing any such securities and of entering into and maintaining any such strategic partnerships or other arrangements. Because any decision by us to issue debt or equity securities in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of any future financing transactions. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. The incurrence of additional indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve additional restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Additionally, any future collaborations we enter into with third parties may provide capital in the near term, but limit our potential cash flow and revenue in the future. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses or other rights on unfavorable terms.

In addition, if one of our subsidiaries raises funds through the issuance of equity securities, and our stockholders’ equity interest in such subsidiary could be substantially diminished. If one of our subsidiaries raises additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary to relinquish some rights to our technologies or our product candidates or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

If we engage in other acquisitions or strategic partnerships, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our stockholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities, and subject us to other risks.

We may engage in various acquisitions and strategic partnerships in the future, including licensing or acquiring complementary products, intellectual property rights, technologies, or businesses. Any acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

In addition, if we undertake such a transaction, we may issue dilutive securities, assume or incur debt obligations, incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense.

If we obtain a controlling interest in additional companies in the future, it could adversely affect our operating results and the value of our common stock, thereby disrupting our business.

As part of our strategy, we expect to form and invest in additional wholly-owned subsidiaries and variable interest entities, or VIEs. Investments in our existing and any future subsidiaries involve numerous risks, including, but not necessarily limited to:

If we fail to properly evaluate potential acquisitions, in-licenses, investments or other transactions associated with the creation of new research and development programs or the maintenance of existing ones, we might not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such transaction, we might incur costs in excess of what we anticipate, and management resources and attention might be diverted from other necessary or valuable activities. For instance, in August 2019, we announced a non-binding proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Eidos that were not then owned by us or our subsidiaries (or the “Eidos Buyout Offer”). Although discussions between a special committee comprised of Eidos’ disinterested and independent directors and us with respect to the proposed transaction have terminated, the attention of certain members of each company’s management and each company’s resources were diverted from day-to-day business operations during our exploration of the Eidos Buyout Offer, and we may engage in similar discussions in the future with respect to other potential transactions that may divert our time and resources from our ongoing operations.

Risks Related to our Business and the Clinical Development, Regulatory Review and Approval of our Product Candidates

Our product candidates are in preclinical or clinical development, which is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain outcomes and the potential for substantial delays. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. To date, we have focused substantially all of our efforts and financial resources on identifying, acquiring, and developing our product candidates, including conducting lead optimization, nonclinical studies, preclinical studies and clinical trials, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. We cannot be certain that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Our inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us and negatively impact our ability to generate revenue. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize product candidates. We currently have no products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from sales of drugs, and we may never be able to develop or successfully commercialize a marketable drug.

All of our product candidates require additional development; management of preclinical, clinical, and manufacturing activities; and regulatory approval. In addition, we will need to obtain adequate manufacturing supply; build a commercial organization; commence marketing efforts; and obtain reimbursement before we generate any significant revenue from commercial product sales, if ever. Many of our product candidates are in early-stage research or translational phases of development, and the risk of failure for these programs is high. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we and our subsidiaries may not be able to continue operations, which may result in us dissolving the subsidiary, selling or out-licensing the technology or pursuing an alternative strategy.

If we are unable to obtain regulatory approval in one or more jurisdictions for any product candidates that we may identify and develop, our business will be substantially harmed.

We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. Approval by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is lengthy and unpredictable, and depends upon numerous factors, including substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. Approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of nonclinical or clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidates, and it is possible that our current product candidates and any other product candidates which we may seek to develop in the future will not ever obtain regulatory approval. We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval.

Obtaining marketing approval is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process, and regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including but not limited to:

The lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials and evolving regulatory requirements, may result in our failure to obtain regulatory approval to market product candidates that we may pursue in the United States or elsewhere, which would significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may encounter substantial delays in clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete clinical trials on the expected timelines, if at all.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming, and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any of our ongoing and planned clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials are initiated or conducted on a timely basis, issues may arise that could result in the suspension or termination of such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our ongoing and future clinical trials may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:

Any inability to successfully initiate or complete clinical trials could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials to bridge data obtained from our modified product candidates to data obtained from nonclinical and clinical research conducted using earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the data safety monitoring board, or DSMB, including for our ongoing and planned Phase 3 clinical trials of BBP-265, our ongoing and planned Phase 3 clinical trials of BBP-831 and our ongoing Phase 3 and Phase 2b clinical trials of BBP-009, or by the FDA or other regulatory authority, or if the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted suspend or terminate the participation of their clinical investigators and sites subject to their review. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. For example, on October 30, 2018, the FDA notified our subsidiary Phoenix Tissue Report Inc. of a partial clinical hold, but allowed it to proceed with the planned Phase 1/2 study using only the existing drug substance of BBP-589 that was identified by the FDA. The FDA requested additional development of the analytical test method to quantitate relative potency of any new batch of product we intend to use for future clinical studies. We provided a complete response in January 2020, and the FDA removed the partial clinical hold in February 2020. Although the partial clinical hold on BBP-589 was removed, we may be required or may voluntarily determine to place BBP-589 or other product candidates on clinical hold in the future for various reasons.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

Delays in the initiation, conduct or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down the product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. In the event we identify any additional product candidates to pursue, we cannot be sure that submission of an IND or a CTA will result in the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and effectiveness of product candidates that we may identify and pursue for their intended uses, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive nonclinical studies, preclinical studies and clinical trials that the applicable product candidate is both safe and effective for use in each target indication, and in the case of our product candidates regulated as biological products, that the product candidate is safe, pure, and potent for use in its targeted indication. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical development process. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization. We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval.

We cannot be certain that our current clinical trials or any other future clinical trials will be successful. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. This is particularly true for clinical trials in very rare diseases, such as with BBP-870 for MoCD Type A, where the very small patient population makes it difficult or impossible to conduct two traditional, adequate and well-controlled studies, and therefore the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities are often required to exercise flexibility in approving therapies for such diseases. Moreover, results acceptable to support approval in one jurisdiction may be deemed inadequate by another regulatory authority to support regulatory approval in that other jurisdiction. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. For example, we intend to file an NDA for BBP-831 in second line and later advanced CCA with FGFR2 fusions or translocations in 2020. However, the FDA could disagree that data from our Phase 2 trial are sufficient to file an NDA or to approve BBP-831 for such an indication. Even if regulatory approval is secured for a product candidate, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of the specific product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential.

Results of earlier studies or clinical trials may not be predictive of future clinical trial results, and initial studies or clinical trials may not establish an adequate safety or efficacy profile for our product candidates to justify proceeding to advanced clinical trials or an application for regulatory approval.

The results of nonclinical and preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, and interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. In addition, for certain of our product candidates that we acquired, we did not undertake the preclinical studies and clinical trials ourselves. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials in one set of patients or disease indications, or from preclinical studies or clinical trials that we did not lead, may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. In addition, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to various interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through nonclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if early-stage clinical trials are successful, we

may need to conduct additional clinical trials of our product candidates in additional patient populations or under different treatment conditions before we are able to seek approvals from the FDA and regulatory authorities outside the United States to market and sell these product candidates. Our failure to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates would substantially harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. For example, if BBP-265 is first approved for ATTR-CM on the basis of efficacy endpoints other than for reduction in mortality or hospitalization, BBP-265 might be limited to a second-line claim until such data were available. Any of these events could limit the commercial potential of BBP-265 and have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, some of the clinical trials performed to date were generated from open-label studies and were conducted at a limited number of clinical sites on a limited number of patients. An “open-label” clinical trial is one where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in open-label clinical trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. Moreover, patients selected for early clinical studies often include the most severe sufferers and their symptoms may have been bound to improve notwithstanding the new treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the physiological outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Given that our Phase 2 clinical trial of BBP-265 includes an open-label clinical trial extension, the results from this clinical trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with this or other product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

We may encounter difficulties enrolling patients in clinical trials, and clinical development activities could thereby be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The indications for which we plan to evaluate our current product candidates represent a rare disease or condition with limited patient populations from which to draw participants in clinical trials. Due to our focus on the development of product candidates for the treatment of Mendelian diseases and genetically driven cancers, many of which are rare conditions, we may not be able to identify and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with required or desired characteristics and criteria, in a timely manner.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including:

If we have difficulty enrolling sufficient numbers of patients to conduct clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, either of which would have an adverse effect on our business.

Use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects, adverse events or other properties or safety risks, which could delay or halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, abandon a product candidate, limit their commercial potential, if approved, or result in other significant negative consequences that could severely harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

As is the case with pharmaceuticals generally, it is likely that there may be side effects and AEs associated with our product candidates’ use. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Moreover, if our product candidates are associated with undesirable side effects in preclinical studies or clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may elect to abandon their development or limit their development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective, which may limit the commercial expectations for the product candidate if approved. We may also be required to modify or terminate our study plans based on findings in our preclinical studies or clinical trials. For instance, in our Phase 2 clinical trial of BPP-831 for the treatment of FGFR-driven cancers, the most commonly reported treatment emergent adverse event of any grade was hyperphosphatemia, which is an electrolyte disorder in which there is an elevated level of phosphate in the blood. These and other AEs that we may observe in our ongoing and future clinical trials of our product candidates could require us to delay, modify or abandon our development plans for the affected product candidate or other product candidates that share properties of the affected product candidate. Many product candidates that initially show promise in early-stage testing may later be found to cause side effects that prevent further development. As we work to advance existing product candidates and to identify new product candidates, we cannot be certain that later testing or trials of product candidates that initially showed promise in early testing will not be found to cause similar or different unacceptable side effects that prevent their further development.

It is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials, or as the use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other AEs that were observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, will be reported by subjects. If such side effects become known later in development or upon approval, if any, such findings may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, adverse developments in clinical trials of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products conducted by others may cause the FDA or other regulatory oversight bodies to suspend or terminate our clinical trials or to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates.

In addition to side effects caused by the product candidate, the administration process or related procedures also can cause adverse side effects. If any such AEs occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. If we are unable to demonstrate that any AEs were caused by the administration process or related procedures, the FDA, the European Commission, the European Medicines Agency, or the EMA, or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, a product candidate for any or all targeted indications. Even if can demonstrate that all future serious adverse events, or SAEs, are not product-related, such occurrences could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial. Moreover, if we elect, or are required, to not initiate, delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Additionally, if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, the FDA could impose a boxed warning in the labeling of our product and could require us to adopt a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, and could apply elements to assure safe use to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh its risks, which may include, among other things, a Medication Guide outlining the risks of the product for distribution to patients and a communication plan to health care practitioners. Furthermore, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates once approved, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these occurrences could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Certain of our product candidates under development for the treatment of patient populations with significant comorbidities that may result in deaths or serious adverse or unacceptable side effects and require us to abandon or limit our clinical development activities.

Patients in certain of our ongoing and planned clinical trials of product candidates in genetically driven cancers, including clinical trials of BBP-831 of FGFR-driven cancers, as well as patients who may undergo treatment with other product candidates that we may develop, may also receive chemotherapy, radiation, and/or other high dose or myeloablative treatments in the course of treatment of their disease, and may therefore experience side effects or AEs, including death, that are unrelated to our product candidates. While these side effects or AEs may be unrelated to our product candidates, they may still affect the success of our clinical trials. The inclusion of critically ill patients in our clinical trials may also result in deaths or other adverse medical events due to underlying disease or to other therapies or medications that such patients may receive. Any of these events could prevent us from advancing our product candidates through clinical development, and from obtaining regulatory approval, and would impair our ability to commercialize our product candidates. Any inability to advance our product candidates through clinical development may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may in the future conduct clinical trials for product candidates outside the United States, and the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We may in the future choose to conduct one or more clinical trials outside the United States, including in Europe. For instance, our clinical trials of BBP-831 and BBP-870 each included patients outside of the United States and our Phase 3 clinical trials of BBP-265 will include patients outside of the United States. The acceptance by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority of study data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States or another jurisdiction may be subject to certain conditions or may not be accepted at all. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (i) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice; and (ii) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to GCP regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory authorities have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of the United States or the applicable jurisdiction, including from our ongoing and planned Phase 3 clinical trials of BBP-265, for which we plan to enroll cohorts outside the United States. If the FDA or any comparable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming and delay aspects of our business plan, and which may result in product candidates that we may develop not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Even if we obtain FDA approval for product candidates that we may identify and pursue in the United States, we may never obtain approval to commercialize any product candidates outside of the United States, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and effectiveness. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional or different administrative review periods from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs and require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our product candidates in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approval in international markets is delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.

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

From time to time, we may publish interim, “top-line,” or preliminary data from our clinical studies. Interim data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Preliminary or “top-line” data 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. Material adverse changes between preliminary, “top-line,” or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Even though we may apply for orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may not be able to obtain orphan drug marketing exclusivity.

Our business strategy focuses on the development of product candidates for the treatment of genetic diseases, which may be eligible for FDA or EMA orphan drug designation. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and European Union, may designate drugs or biologics for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In order to obtain orphan drug designation, the request must be made before submitting an NDA or BLA. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages, and user-fee waivers. After the FDA grants orphan drug designation, the generic identity of the drug and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval of that particular product for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including an NDA or BLA, to market the same drug or biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity or if FDA finds that the holder of the orphan drug exclusivity has not shown that it can assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the orphan drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. As a result, even if one of our product candidates receives orphan exclusivity, the FDA can still approve other drugs or biologics for use in treating the same indication or disease or the same biologic for a different indication or disease during the exclusivity period. Furthermore, the FDA can waive orphan exclusivity if we are unable to manufacture sufficient supply of our product or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our product.

In the European Union, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products of the EMA grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union (or where it is unlikely that the development of the medicine would generate sufficient return to justify the investment) and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment is authorized or, if a method exists, the product would be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition.

We have obtained from the FDA orphan drug designations for: BBP-009 for the treatment of nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome, or Gorlin syndrome; BBP-265 for the treatment of transthyretin amyloidosis; BBP-589 for the treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa; BBP-631 for the treatment of CAH 21OHD; BBP-870 for the treatment of molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A; BBP-551 for the treatment of Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) due to inherited mutations in RPE65 or LRAT genes and for the treatment of retinitis pigmentosa; and infigratinib for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma. We have obtained from the EMA orphan drug designation for: BBP-009 for the treatment of nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (Gorlin syndrome); BBP-265 for the treatment of ATTR amyloidosis; BBP-589 for the treatment of epidermolysis bullosa; BBP-870 for the treatment of molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A; and BBP-551 for the treatment of of retinitis pigmentosa and for the treatment of Leber’s congenital amaurosis; and BBP-631 for the treatment of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. We may seek orphan drug designation for certain other of our product candidates. Even if we obtain orphan drug designation, exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition, or if a subsequent applicant demonstrates clinical superiority over our products, if approved. In addition, although we may seek orphan drug designation for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.

Certain of our product candidates, including our protein therapeutic and gene therapy product candidates, are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience manufacturing problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs or otherwise harm our business.

The manufacturing processes our CMOs use to produce our product candidates, including our protein therapeutic and gene therapy product candidates, are complex, novel and have not been validated for commercial use. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of our suppliers.

Several of our small molecule product candidates are particularly complex and difficult to manufacture, in some cases due to the number of steps required, the process complexity and the toxicity of end or intermediate-stage products. Our protein therapeutic and gene therapy product candidates require processing steps that are more complex than those required for most small molecule drugs. Moreover, unlike small molecules, the physical and chemical properties of biologics such as ours generally cannot be fully characterized. As a result, assays of the finished product may not be sufficient to ensure that the product is consistent from lot-to-lot or will perform in the intended manner. Accordingly, our CMOs must employ multiple steps to control the manufacturing process to assure that the process is reproducible and the product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process. Problems with the manufacturing process, even minor deviations from the normal process, could result in product defects or manufacturing failures that result in lot failures, product recalls, product liability claims or insufficient inventory to conduct clinical trials or supply commercial markets. We may encounter problems achieving adequate quantities and quality of clinical-grade materials that meet the FDA, the EMA or other applicable standards or specifications with consistent and acceptable production yields and costs.

In addition, the FDA, the EMA and other foreign regulatory authorities may require us to submit samples of any lot of any approved product together with the protocols showing the results of applicable tests at any time. Under some circumstances, the FDA, the EMA or other foreign regulatory authorities may require that we not distribute a lot until the agency authorizes its release. Slight deviations in the manufacturing process, including those affecting quality attributes and stability, may result in unacceptable changes in the product that could result in lot failures or product recalls. Lot failures or product recalls could cause us to delay product launches or clinical trials, which could be costly to us and otherwise harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our CMOs also may encounter problems hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality assurance, quality-control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing processes, which could result in delays in production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any problems in our CMOs’ manufacturing process or facilities could result in delays in planned clinical trials and increased costs, and could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger biotechnology companies and academic research institutions, which could limit access to additional attractive development programs. Problems in our manufacturing process could restrict our ability to meet potential future market demand for products.

Certain of our product candidates are based on a novel AAV, gene therapy technology with which there is limited clinical or regulatory experience to date, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval.

Certain of our product candidates are based on gene therapy technology and our future success depends on the successful development of this novel therapeutic approach. We cannot assure you that any development problems we or other gene therapy companies experience in the future related to gene therapy technology will not cause significant delays or unanticipated costs in the development of our product candidates, or that such development problems can be solved. In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, EMA and other regulatory agencies and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied therapeutic modalities. Further, as we are developing novel treatments for diseases in which there is limited clinical experience with new endpoints and methodologies, there is heightened risk that the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory bodies may not consider the clinical trial endpoints to provide

clinically meaningful results, and the resulting clinical data and results may be more difficult to analyze. To date, few gene therapy products have been approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, which makes it difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in the United States, the European Union or other jurisdictions. Further, approvals by one regulatory agency may not be indicative of what other regulatory agencies may require for approval.

Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products have evolved and may continue to change in the future. For example, the FDA 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. These and other regulatory review agencies, committees and advisory groups and the requirements and guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of these treatment candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions.

The FDA, National Institutes of Health, or NIH, other regulatory agencies at both the federal and state level in the United States, U.S. congressional committees, and the EMA and other foreign governments, have expressed interest in further regulating the biotechnology industry, including gene therapy and genetic testing. For example, the EMA advocates a risk-based approach to the development of a gene therapy product. Any such further regulation may delay or prevent commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. For example, in 1999, a patient died during a gene therapy clinical trial that utilized an adenovirus vector and it was later discovered that adenoviruses could generate an extreme immune system reaction that can be life-threatening. In January 2000, the FDA halted that trial and began investigating 69 other gene therapy trials underway in the United States, 13 of which required remedial action. In 2003, the FDA suspended 27 additional gene therapy trials involving several hundred patients after learning that some patients treated in a clinical trial in France had subsequently developed leukemia. While the new AAV vectors that we use across our portfolio of gene therapy product candidates have been designed and developed to help reduce these side effects, gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and past as well as different adverse side effects could develop.

Regulatory requirements in the United States and abroad governing gene therapy products have changed frequently and may continue to change in the future. For example, in addition to the submission of an IND, to the FDA, before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials for cell therapy products and gene therapy had historically been subject to review by the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities’ Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, or the RAC, pursuant to the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Following an initial review, RAC members would make a recommendation as to whether the protocol raises important scientific, safety, medical, ethical or social issues that warrant in-depth discussion at the RAC’s quarterly meetings. Although the FDA decides whether individual gene therapy protocols may proceed under an IND, the RAC’s recommendations were shared with the FDA and, the RAC public review process, if undertaken, could have impeded or delayed the initiation of a clinical trial, even if the FDA has reviewed the trial and approved its initiation or has notified the sponsor that the study may begin. Conversely, the FDA can put an IND on clinical hold even if the RAC provided a favorable review or has recommended against an in-depth, public review.

On August 17, 2018, the NIH issued a notice in the Federal Register and issued a public statement proposing changes to the oversight framework for gene therapy trials, including changes to the applicable NIH Guidelines to modify the roles and responsibilities of the RAC with respect to human clinical trials of gene therapy products, and requesting public comment on its proposed modifications. During the public comment period, which closed on October 16, 2018, the NIH had announced that it would no longer accept new human gene transfer protocols for review as part of the protocol registration process under the existing NIH Guidelines or convene the RAC to review individual clinical protocols. In April 2019, NIH announced the updated guidelines, which reflect these proposed changes, and clarify that these trials will remain subject to the FDA’s oversight and other clinical trial regulations, and oversight at the local level will continue as otherwise set forth in the NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to the public health or

the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Even though we may not be required to submit a protocol for our gene therapy product candidates through the NIH for RAC review, we will still be subject to significant regulatory oversight by the FDA, and in addition to the government regulators, the applicable IBC and IRB, of each institution at which we or our collaborators conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, or a central IRB if appropriate, would need to review and approve the proposed clinical trial.

Similarly, the EMA governs the development of gene therapies in the European Union and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.

These regulatory review committees and advisory groups and the new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies or trials, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of such product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delays as a result of an increased or lengthier regulatory approval process or further restrictions on the development of our product candidates can be costly and could negatively impact our ability to complete clinical trials and commercialize our current and future product candidates in a timely manner, if at all.

Our product candidates based on gene therapy technology may cause undesirable and unforeseen side effects or be perceived by the public as unsafe, which could delay or prevent their advancement into clinical trials or regulatory approval, limit the commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

Public attitudes may be influenced by claims that gene therapy technology is unsafe, unethical, or immoral, and, consequently, our product candidates 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. For example, there have been several significant adverse side effects in prior clinical trials of gene therapy product candidates, including reported cases of leukemia and death seen in other trials using other vectors. While new AAV vectors have been developed to reduce these side effects, gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and additional adverse side effects could develop. There also is the potential risk of delayed AEs following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material.

Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction early after administration which could be detrimental to the patient’s health or substantially limit the effectiveness and durability of the treatment. For example, an increasingly anticipated side effect of AAV gene therapy is the development of a T-cell immunological response, most often seen affecting the liver.

The FDA has granted rare pediatric disease designation to BBP-870 for the treatment of molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A. However, a marketing application for BBP-870, if approved, may not meet the eligibility criteria for a priority review voucher.

The FDA has granted rare pediatric disease designation to BBP-870 for the treatment of molybdenum cofactor deficiency type A, or MoCD Type A. Designation of a drug as a drug for a rare pediatric disease does not guarantee that an NDA for such drug will meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher at the time the application is approved. Under the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, we will need to request a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher in our original NDA for BBP-870. The FDA may determine that an NDA for BBP-870, if approved, does not meet the eligibility criteria for a priority review voucher, including for the following reasons:

The authority for the FDA to award rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers for drugs that have received rare pediatric disease designation prior to September 30, 2020 currently expires on September 30, 2022. If the NDA for BBP-870 is not approved prior to September 30, 2022 for any reason, regardless of whether it meets the criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher, it will not be eligible for a priority review voucher. However, it is also possible the authority for FDA to award rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers will be further extended through Federal lawmaking.

We may not elect or be able to take advantage of any expedited development or regulatory review and approval processes available to product candidates granted breakthrough therapy, fast track or regenerative medicine advanced therapy designation by the FDA.

We intend to evaluate and continue ongoing discussions with the FDA on regulatory strategies that could enable us to take advantage of expedited development pathways for certain of our product candidates, although we cannot be certain that our product candidates will qualify for any expedited development pathways or that regulatory authorities will grant, or allow us to maintain, the relevant qualifying designations. Potential expedited development pathways that we could pursue include breakthrough therapy, fast track designation and or regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT.

Breakthrough therapy designation is intended to expedite the development and review of product candidates that are designed to treat serious or life-threatening diseases when “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.” The designation of a product candidate as a breakthrough therapy provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate and ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support approval; more frequent written correspondence from FDA about such things as the design of the proposed clinical trials and use of biomarkers; intensive guidance on an efficient drug development program, beginning as early as Phase 1; organizational commitment involving senior managers; and eligibility for rolling review and priority review.

Fast track designation is designed for product candidates intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, where nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need for this disease or condition.

We may seek RMAT designation for one or more of our product candidates. In 2017, the FDA established the RMAT designation as part of its implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act to expedite review of any drug that meets the following criteria: it qualifies as a RMAT, which is defined as a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. Like breakthrough therapy designation, RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion to additional sites. RMAT-designated products that receive accelerated approval may, as appropriate, fulfill their post-approval requirements through the submission of clinical evidence, clinical trials, patient registries, or other sources of real world evidence, such as electronic health records; through the collection of larger confirmatory data sets; or via post-approval monitoring of all patients treated with such therapy prior to approval of the therapy.

Although BBP-589 has received fast track designation for the treatment of dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa, or DEB, BBP-870 has received breakthrough therapy designation for MoCD, BBP-009 has received breakthrough therapy designation for the reduction of life-long, serious clinical morbidity and disease burden of persistently developing BCCs in patients with basal cell nevus syndrome, or BCNS, which is also known as Gorlin Syndrome, infigratinib has received fast track designation for the first-line treatment of adult patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 gene fusions or translocations, and BBP-551 has received fast track designation for the treatment of LCA due to inherited mutations in LRAT and RPE65 genes and for the treatment of autosomal recessive RP due to inherited mutations in LRAT and RPE genes, we may elect not to pursue any of breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designations for our other product candidates, and the FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant these designations.

Accordingly, even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for breakthrough therapy, fast track designation or RMAT, we cannot assure you that the FDA would decide to grant it. Breakthrough therapy designation, fast track and RMAT designation do not change the standards for product approval, and there is no assurance that such designation or eligibility will result in expedited review or approval or that the approved indication will not be narrower than the indication covered by the breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designation. Thus, even if we do receive breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. The FDA may withdraw breakthrough therapy, fast track or RMAT designation if it believes that the product no longer meets the qualifying criteria. Our business may be harmed if we are unable to avail ourselves of these or any other expedited development and regulatory pathways.

If we are unable to successfully validate, develop and obtain regulatory approval for companion diagnostic tests for our drug candidates that require or would commercially benefit from such tests, or experience significant delays in doing so, we may not realize the full commercial potential of these drug candidates.

In connection with the clinical development of our drug candidates for certain indications, we may work with collaborators to develop or obtain access to in vitro companion diagnostic tests to identify patient subsets within a disease category who may derive selective and meaningful benefit from our drug candidates. For example, we are currently developing a companion diagnostic for BBP-831 in patients with CCA in collaboration with Foundation Medicine, or FMI. Such companion diagnostics would be used during our clinical trials as well as in connection with the commercialization of our product candidates. To be successful, we or our collaborators will need to address a number of scientific, technical, regulatory and logistical challenges. The FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities regulate in vitro companion diagnostics as medical devices and, under that regulatory framework, will likely require the conduct of clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of any diagnostics we may develop, which we expect will require separate regulatory clearance or approval prior to commercialization.

We may rely on third parties for the design, development and manufacture of companion diagnostic tests for our therapeutic drug candidates that may require such tests. If we enter into such collaborative agreements, we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our future collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics. It may be necessary to resolve issues such as selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation of companion diagnostics during the development and regulatory approval processes. Moreover, even if data from preclinical studies and early clinical trials appear to support development of a companion diagnostic for a product candidate, data generated in later clinical trials may fail to support the analytical and clinical validation of the companion diagnostic. We and our future collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing, obtaining regulatory approval for, manufacturing and commercializing companion diagnostics similar to those we face with respect to our therapeutic candidates themselves, including issues with achieving regulatory clearance or approval, production of sufficient quantities at commercial scale and with appropriate quality standards, and in gaining market acceptance. If we are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for these therapeutic drug candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of these therapeutic drug candidates may be adversely affected, these therapeutic drug candidates may not obtain marketing approval, and we may not realize the full commercial potential of any of these therapeutics that obtain marketing approval. As a result, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially harmed. In addition, a diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic test that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate. We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our therapeutic candidates.

If approved, our investigational products regulated as biologics 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-licensed 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 licensed 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 licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a 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 of our product candidates 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 investigational medicines 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 licensed, 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 competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies, and submission of safety, efficacy, and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements imposed by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, regulations. As such, we and our CMOs will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any NDA, BLA or marketing authorization application, or MAA. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money, and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we may receive for our product candidates will be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed and promoted or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. We will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization, or increased costs to assure compliance.

The FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. We will have to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do not have approval.

The holder of an approved NDA, BLA or MAA must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling, or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets. If original marketing approval was obtained via the accelerated approval pathway, we could be required to conduct a successful post-marketing clinical trial to confirm clinical benefit for our products. An unsuccessful post-marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval.

If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, such regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected. The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. For example, certain policies of the Trump administration may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration has taken several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, the FDA’s ability to engage in routine regulatory and oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. If these executive actions impose constraints on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses.

If any of our product candidates are approved and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses of those products, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription products, if approved. In particular, while FDA permits the dissemination of truthful and non-misleading information about an approved product, a manufacturer may not promote a product for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees, corporate integrity agreements or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct must be changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our product candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research, or testing.

We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions, and clinical investigators, to conduct some aspects of research and preclinical testing and clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. If any of our relationships with these third parties terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative third parties on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it would delay product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities reduces control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our respective clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial and applicable legal, regulatory, and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. In addition, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities require compliance with GCPs for conducting, recording, and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible, reproducible and accurate and that the rights, integrity, and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators, and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP regulations, some or all of 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 nonclinical or clinical trials or to enroll additional patients before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials complies with the GCP regulations. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of clinical trials, we could be subject to untitled and warning letters or enforcement action that may include civil penalties up to and including criminal prosecution. We also are required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database within certain 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 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 any product candidates we may develop and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our medicines. Our failure or the failure of these third parties to comply applicable regulatory requirements or our stated protocols could also subject us to enforcement action.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop or commercialization of our medicines, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We rely entirely on third parties for the manufacturing of our product candidates or other product candidates that we may develop for preclinical studies and clinical trials and expect to continue to do so for commercialization. Our business could be harmed if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product, or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have, nor do we plan to acquire, the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture drug supplies for our ongoing clinical trials or any future clinical trials that we may conduct, and we lack the resources to manufacture any product candidates on a commercial scale. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party manufacturers to produce our current product candidates or other product candidates that we may identify for clinical trials, as well as for commercial manufacture if any product candidates that receive marketing approval. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete the trial, any significant delay or discontinuity in the supply of a product candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay the clinical development and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates, which could harm our business and results of operations. We also expect to rely primarily on third parties for the manufacturing of commercial supply of our product candidates, if approved.

We may be unable to identify and appropriately qualify third-party manufacturers or establish agreements with third-party manufacturers or 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:

Furthermore, all of our CMOs are engaged with other companies to supply and/or manufacture materials or products for such companies, which exposes our manufacturers to regulatory risks for the production of such materials and products. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates are subject to review by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit an NDA or BLA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements, known as current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements for manufacture of drug and biologic products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, we will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for our product candidates manufactured at these manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory agency does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if any agency withdraws its approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would negatively impact the ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Our product candidates may compete with other product candidates and marketed drugs for access to manufacturing facilities. Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development, marketing approval or commercialization. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon others for the manufacturing of our product candidates may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any product candidates that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

The drug substance and drug product for certain of our product candidates are currently acquired from single-source suppliers. The loss of these suppliers, or their failure to supply us with the drug substance or drug product, could materially and adversely affect our business.

The drug substance and drug product for certain of our product candidates, including Veratrum californicum, or corn lily, from which we obtain cyclopamine for BBP-009, are grown or manufactured by single-source suppliers or CMOs under development and manufacturing contracts and services and quality agreements and purchase orders. We do not currently have any other suppliers for the drug substance or drug product of these product candidates and, although we believe that there are alternate sources of supply that could satisfy our clinical and commercial requirements, we cannot assure you that identifying alternate sources and establishing relationships with such sources would not result in significant delay in the development of our product candidates.

Our dependence on single-source suppliers exposes us to certain risks, including the following:

Additionally, we may not be able to enter into supply arrangements with alternative suppliers on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. A delay in the development of our product candidates or having to enter into a new agreement with a different third party on less favorable terms than we have with our current suppliers could have a material adverse impact upon on our business.

If the contract manufacturing facilities on which we rely do not continue to meet regulatory requirements or are unable to meet our supply demands, our business will be harmed.

All entities involved in the preparation of product candidates for clinical trials or commercial sale, including our existing CMOs for all of our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP, or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures, including recordkeeping, and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates. Our failure, or the failure of third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, suspension of production, seizures or recalls of product candidates or marketed drugs, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect clinical or commercial supplies of our product candidates.

We or our CMOs must supply all necessary documentation in support of an NDA, BLA or MAA on a timely basis and must adhere to regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Some of our CMOs have never produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore have not obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. Although we oversee the CMOs, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our CMO partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the products may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement, and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through an NDA, BLA supplement or MAA variation, or equivalent foreign regulatory filing, which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause us to incur higher costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical trials, regulatory submissions, required approvals, or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical trials may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.

Collaborative relationships with third parties could cause us to expend significant resources and incur substantial business risk with no assurance of financial return.

We anticipate relying upon strategic collaborations for marketing and commercializing our existing product candidates, and we may rely even more on strategic collaborations for R&D of other product candidates. We may sell product offerings through strategic partnerships with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

If we enter into R&D collaborations during the early phases of product development, success will in part depend on the performance of research collaborators. We will not directly control the amount or timing of resources devoted by research collaborators to activities related to product candidates. Research collaborators may not commit sufficient resources to our R&D programs. If any research collaborator fails to commit sufficient resources, the preclinical or clinical development programs related to the collaboration could be delayed or terminated. Also, collaborators may pursue existing or other development-stage products or alternative technologies in preference to those being developed in collaboration with us. Finally, if we fail to make required milestone or royalty payments to collaborators or to observe other obligations in agreements with them, the collaborators may have the right to terminate or stop performance of those agreements.

Establishing strategic collaborations is difficult and time-consuming. Our discussions with potential collaborators may not lead to the establishment of collaborations on favorable terms, if at all. Potential collaborators may reject collaborations based upon their assessment of our financial, regulatory or intellectual property position. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future collaborators. Even if we successfully establish new collaborations, these relationships may never result in the successful development or commercialization of product candidates or the generation of sales revenue. To the extent that we enter into collaborative arrangements, the related product revenues are likely to be lower than if we directly marketed and sold products. Such collaborators 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 any future product candidate.

If we are unable to establish or maintain such strategic collaborations on terms favorable to us in the future, our R&D efforts and potential to generate revenue may be limited.

We are parties to and may seek to enter into additional collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements and may not be successful in maintaining existing arrangements or entering into new ones, and even if we are, we may not realize the benefits of such relationships.

The success of our collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include risks that:

Additionally, we may seek to enter into additional collaborations, joint ventures, licenses and other similar arrangements for the development or commercialization of our product candidates, due to capital costs required to develop or commercialize the product candidate or manufacturing constraints. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish such collaborations for our product candidates because our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort or third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy or significant commercial opportunity. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners, and the negotiation process can be time consuming and complex. Further, any future collaboration agreements may restrict us from entering into additional agreements with potential collaborators. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve an economic benefit that justifies such transaction.

Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish such collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed, the safety of a product candidate is questioned or sales of an approved product candidate are unsatisfactory.

In addition, any potential future collaborations may be terminable by our strategic partners, and we may not be able to adequately protect our rights under these agreements. Furthermore, strategic partners may negotiate for certain rights to control decisions regarding the development and commercialization of our product candidates, if approved, and may not conduct those activities in the same manner as we do. Any termination of collaborations we enter into in the future, or any delay in entering into collaborations related to our product candidates, could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their competitiveness if they reach the market, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 or other product candidates that we may identify, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize product candidates similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 and other product candidates that we may pursue may be impaired.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we may own solely and jointly with others, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates and technology. We seek to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 or other product candidates that we may identify.

Obtaining and enforcing pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the rights to patents licensed to third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal, technological and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or vice versa. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates. 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 at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Furthermore, the scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history and can involve other factors such as expert opinion. Our analysis of these issues, including interpreting the relevance or the scope of claims in a patent or a pending application, determining applicability of such claims to our proprietary technologies or product candidates, predicting whether a third party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope, and determining the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our product candidates. We do not always conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications of and patents issued to third parties. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our product candidates, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive product candidates. Even if our 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. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative product candidates in a non-infringing manner.

Our ability to enforce patent rights also depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products and services. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product or service. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. If we initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, or litigate against third-party claims, such proceedings would be expensive and would divert the attention of our management and technical personnel. Such proceedings could also provoke third parties to assert claims against us, including that some or all of the claims in one or more of our patents are invalid or otherwise unenforceable.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, 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 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. In addition, 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.

In addition, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the 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 product candidates to ours, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. 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 drugs similar or identical to ours.

Furthermore, our intellectual property rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, the research resulting in certain of our patent rights and technology was funded in part by the U.S. government. As a result, the government has certain rights, including march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention or to have others use the invention on its behalf. These rights may permit the government to disclose our information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of such rights or by any third party of its reserved rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject in part to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others, and the patent protection, prosecution and enforcement for some of our product candidates may be dependent on our licensors.

We currently are reliant upon licenses of certain intellectual property rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our proprietary technology, including technology related to our product candidates. These licenses, and other licenses we may enter into in the future, may not provide adequate rights to use such intellectual property rights and proprietary technology in all relevant fields of use or in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize technology and product candidates in the future. Licenses to additional third-party proprietary technology or intellectual property rights that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our proprietary technology or product candidates or to develop or license replacement technology, which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may not be able to develop and commercialize technology and product candidates in fields of use and territories for which we are not granted rights pursuant to such licenses, which could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and enforcement of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. In addition, some of our agreements with our licensors require us to obtain consent from the licensor before we can enforce patent rights, and our licensor may withhold such consent or may not provide it on a timely basis. Therefore, we cannot be certain that our licensors or collaborators will prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such intellectual property rights in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by taking reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of know-how and trade secrets, or by paying all applicable

prosecution and maintenance fees related to intellectual property registrations for any of our product candidates. We also cannot be certain that our licensors have drafted or prosecuted the patents and patent applications licensed to us in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. This could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

In addition, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties (potentially including our competitors) to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property rights that are subject to our existing licenses. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property rights from third parties or these agreements are terminated or we 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 various agreements that we depend on to operate our business, and our rights to use currently licensed intellectual property, or intellectual property to be licensed in the future, are or will be subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of these agreements. For example, we are a party to an exclusive license agreement with the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, or Stanford, and may need to obtain additional licenses from others to advance our research and development activities to allow the commercialization of BBP-265 or any other product candidates we may identify and pursue. Our license agreement with Stanford imposes, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various development, diligence, commercialization, and other obligations on us. For example, under our license agreement with Stanford, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to engage in various development and commercialization activities with respect to licensed products, and must satisfy specified milestone and royalty payment obligations. We are also a party to a license agreement with Novartis International Pharmaceutical Ltd. for BBP-831 under which we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop BBP-831, and to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize at least one therapeutic product incorporating BBP-831 in the United States and the European Union.

In spite of our efforts, our licensors might conclude that we have materially breached our obligations under such license agreements and might therefore terminate the license agreements, thereby removing or limiting our ability to develop and commercialize products and technology covered by these license agreements. For example, if our license agreement with Stanford is terminated, competitors or other third parties would have the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products identical to BBP-265 and we may be required to cease our development and commercialization of BBP-265. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

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

In addition, certain provisions in our license 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 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 product candidates, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and inter partes reexamination proceedings before the USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. 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 biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 or other product candidates that we may identify may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

Other third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be other third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 or other product candidates that we may identify. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 or other 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. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 or other 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.

Similarly, if any third-party patents, including any patents that may issue from the ‘257 application, were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or it may be non-exclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize BBP-265, BBP-831, BBP-454, BBP-631 or other 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.

Parties making claims against us may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or administrative proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have material adverse effect on ability to raise additional funds or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on 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 or international patent application 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 owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we are not able to obtain patent term extension or non-patent exclusivity in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation, thereby potentially extending the marketing exclusivity term of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one of the U.S. patents covering each of such product candidates or the use thereof may be eligible for up to five years of patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. Nevertheless, 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 patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product may be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration sooner, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially.

It is possible that we will not obtain patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act for a U.S. patent covering a product candidate even where that patent is eligible for patent term extension, or if we obtain such an extension, it may be for a shorter period than we had sought. Further, for certain of our licensed patents, we do not have the right to control prosecution, including filing with the USPTO, a petition for patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Thus, if one of our licensed patents is eligible for patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, we may not be able to control whether a petition to obtain a patent term extension is filed, or obtained, from the USPTO.

Also, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our product candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of product candidates is approved and a patent covering that product candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such product candidate.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, the value of our technology could be materially adversely affected and our business would be harmed.

We seek to protect our confidential proprietary information, in part, by confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties, and we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose proprietary information, including trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our confidential proprietary information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. If any of our confidential proprietary information were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position.

Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our products that we consider proprietary. We may not be able to obtain adequate remedies in the event of such unauthorized use. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Trade secrets will also over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, collaborators, licensors, suppliers, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects would be harmed.

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

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third

parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or other intellectual property. If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one or more of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including novelty, nonobviousness, written description or 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. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. 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 clinical trials, continue research programs, license necessary technology from third parties, or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring product candidates to market. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions, or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

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

Our agreements with employees and our personnel policies provide that any inventions conceived by an individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. Although our policy is to have all such individuals complete these agreements, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. The assignment of intellectual property may not be automatic upon the creation of an invention and despite such agreement, such inventions may become assigned to third parties. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information.

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 competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

If we or one of our licensing partners initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one or more of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering the relevant product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including novelty, nonobviousness, written description or 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 also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, we employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of our employee’s former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. 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.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we employ an outside firm and rely on outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. However, we cannot guarantee that our licensors have similar systems and procedures in place to pay such fees. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in 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. 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 may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, 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 and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, 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 and 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 rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Changes in U.S. patent law 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 the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. 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 a 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 America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and also may affect patent litigation. These include allowing third party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of 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 existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

Even if any product candidates we develop receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon their degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors, and others in the medical community. Even if any product candidates we may develop receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Sales of medical products also depend on the willingness of physicians to prescribe the treatment, which is likely to be based on a determination by these physicians that the products are safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective. In addition, the inclusion or exclusion of products from treatment guidelines established by various physician groups and the viewpoints of influential physicians can affect the willingness of other physicians to prescribe the treatment. We cannot predict whether physicians, physicians’ organizations, hospitals, other healthcare providers, government agencies or private insurers will determine that our product is safe, therapeutically effective and cost effective as compared with competing treatments. If any product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue, and we may not become profitable.

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market any product candidates we may develop, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have little experience in the sale, marketing, or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing, and commercial support infrastructure to market and sell our product candidates, if and when they are approved. We may also elect to enter into collaborations or strategic partnerships with third parties to engage in commercialization activities with respect to selected product candidates, indications or geographic territories, including territories outside the United States, although there is no guarantee we will be able to enter into these arrangements even if the intent is to do so.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists 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 and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition commercialization personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved product on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support, and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop internally. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us or them. We may 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 or may expose us to legal and regulatory risk by not adhering to regulatory requirements and restrictions governing the sale and promotion of prescription drug products, including those restricting off-label promotion. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates, if approved.

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Our product candidates may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage and reimbursement practices, or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage, and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently enacted 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. 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 revenue 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 any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval.

Our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates 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. 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. The availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford treatments such as gene therapy products. Sales of these or other product candidates that we may identify will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and adequate reimbursement is not available, or is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

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. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In general, the prices of medicines under such systems are substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenues and profits.

There is also significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels 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 may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Reimbursement agencies in Europe may be more conservative than CMS. For example, a number of cancer drugs have been approved for reimbursement in the United States and have not been approved for reimbursement in certain European countries. Moreover, eligibility for

reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. 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. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize product candidates, and our overall financial condition.

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. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates third-party 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.

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. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, the level of reimbursement. Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to obtain reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with our product candidates. For instance, we are partnered with FMI to develop a companion diagnostic for use in our planned NDA submission for BBP-831 for second-line CCA. We, or our collaborators, may be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for these tests separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our product candidates, once approved. Even if we obtain regulatory approval or clearance for such companion diagnostics, there is significant uncertainty regarding our ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for the same reasons applicable to our product candidates. Medicare reimbursement methodologies, whether under Part A, Part B, or clinical laboratory fee schedule may be amended from time to time, and we cannot predict what effect any change to these methodologies would have on any product candidate or companion diagnostic for which we receive approval. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement from both third-party payors for the companion diagnostic tests that we develop and for which we obtain regulatory approval could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial conditions could be adversely affected.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of pharmaceutical products. Arrangements with third-party payors and customers can expose pharmaceutical manufacturers to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which such companies sell, market and distribute pharmaceutical products. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain business arrangements in the healthcare industry, are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of ownership, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials. The applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations laws that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:

☒	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
or
☐	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to

Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	84-1850815 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
421 Kipling Street, Palo Alto, CA (Address of principal executive offices)	94301 (Zip Code)

		Page
	PART I
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	58
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	120
Item 2.	Properties	120
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	120
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	120
	PART II
Item 5.	Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	121
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	123
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	124
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	140
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	141
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	199
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	199
Item 9B.	Other Information	200
	PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	201
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	201
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	201
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	201
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	201
	PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	202
Item 16.	Form 10‑K Summary	203
Exhibits		203
Signatures		207

ORR, % (95% CI)		26.9 (16.8-39.1)
ORR in patients receiving prior lines of treatment, %
< 1 (n=28)*		39.3
> 2 (n=39)		17.9
BOR ‡ (confirmed and unconfirmed PRs)*, %		32.8
DCR, % (95% CI)		83.6 (72.5-91.5)
Median duration of response, months (95% CI)		5.4 (3.7-7.4)
Median PFS, months (95% CI)		6.8 (5.3-7.6)
Median OS, months (95% CI)		12.5 (9.9-16.6)

ORR, %		25.4 (15.5-37.5)
BOR (confirmed and unconfirmed PRs), %		41.8
DCR, %		64.2 (51.5-75.5)
Median duration of response, months (95% CI)		5.6 (2.3-11.0)
Median PFS, months (95% CI)		3.8 (3.1-5.4)
Median OS, months (95% CI)		7.8 (5.7-11.9)

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