UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

Commission File Number 001-39538

GRAYBUG VISION, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 620

Redwood City, CA 94065

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 487-2800

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:  

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As of June 30, 2021, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter the aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant computed by reference to the closing price of the Registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2021 was approximately $57.7 million. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer, director and their affiliated holders have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.    

The number of shares of the Registrant’s common stock outstanding as of March 4, 2022 was 21,357,773.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Table of Contents

2

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements about us and our industry that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. All statements, other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including statements regarding our future financial condition, business strategy and plans, and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. In some cases you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “project,” “plan,” “expect” or the negative or plural of these words or similar expressions. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning the following:

These statements are only current predictions and are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from those anticipated by the forward-looking statements. We discuss many of these risks in greater detail under the heading “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should not rely upon forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risks and uncertainties.

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. Except as required by law, after the date of this report, we are under no duty to update or revise any of the forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

We obtained industry, market and competitive position data in this report from our own internal estimates and research as well as from industry and general publications and research surveys and studies conducted by third parties. These data involve a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such information or estimates.

3

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing transformative medicines for the treatment of ocular diseases. Our novel proprietary technologies are designed to release drugs in ocular tissue at a controlled rate for up to 12 months in order to improve patient compliance, reduce healthcare burdens and, ultimately, deliver better clinical outcomes. Our lead product candidate, GB-102, is an intravitreal injection of a microparticle depot formulation of sunitinib, a potent inhibitor of neovascular growth and permeability, which are leading causes of retinal disease. We are developing GB-102 as a once-every-six month intravitreal injection for the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD. In our Phase 1/2a clinical trial, GB-102 administered as a single 1 mg dose was well-tolerated in wet AMD patients and demonstrated durable clinical evidence of disease control of at least six months in approximately 88% of patients in this cohort. Subsequently, GB-102 completed a dose-ranging, standard-of-care controlled and masked safety and efficacy Phase 2b clinical trial in previously-treated patients with wet AMD (the ALTISSIMO trial). Of the 56 patients enrolled in our Phase 2b clinical trial, 50 patients completed the 12-month treatment phase (the Core Study), while the remaining six withdrew for reasons unrelated to their treatment. We reported topline data from the Phase 2b clinical trial in March 2021. Following the 12-month Core Study, 28 of the 50 patients who completed their Month 12 visit and met the eligibility criteria agreed to continue clinical monitoring in a six-month monitoring extension of the trial (the Extension Study). The goal of the Extension Study was to observe further durability of GB-102 in wet AMD patients. We reported topline data from the Extension Study in September 2021.  Based on the durability observed in the ALTISSIMO trial, we are evaluating the possibility of also developing GB-102 for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy, or DR. Furthermore, we are using our proprietary technologies to develop GB-401, an intravitreally injected implant formulation of a beta-adrenergic blocking agent prodrug with a target dosing regimen of once every six months or longer for the treatment of primary open-angle glaucoma, or POAG. We believe that our product candidates could significantly improve clinical outcomes versus the respective standards of care for several ocular diseases.

Age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, is a chronic, progressive disease, a leading cause of vision loss in the elderly and estimated to affect approximately 15 million people in North America. The disease prevalence is approximately 85 to 90% nonexudative, or dry, AMD and 10 to 15% wet AMD. The therapeutic market for wet AMD in 2020 was estimated to be $9.0 billion worldwide and has historically grown by approximately 8% as a consequence of an aging population and the lack of preventative measures.

There is no cure for wet AMD. To maintain vision, patients must receive frequent intravitreal injections, up to 12 times per year, with short-acting anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, agents. Although the use of anti-VEGF treatments has revolutionized visual outcomes for patients, the need for frequent injection visits combined with the increasing prevalence of this disease puts an enormous pressure on healthcare systems and represents a severe burden for patients, caregivers and physicians. These dynamics often lead to a reduced frequency of treatment and result in suboptimal visual outcomes in real-world practice.

Damage to the retina as a result of DR includes a number of vision-threatening complications and has been an important cause of acquired vision loss in the young and middle-aged adult population. It is estimated that the number of patients with DR will increase globally to over 190 million by 2030. One-third of DR patients over 40 years of age in the United States are at risk of developing vision-threatening complications. Multiple clinical trials have shown that anti-VEGFs are also beneficial for the treatment of patients with DR without diabetic macular edema (DME); however, the need for frequent injections and follow-up for this often-asymptomatic population leads to inadequate compliance and suboptimal clinical benefit.

GB-102, our lead product candidate, is designed to provide pan-VEGF inhibition for six months or longer while minimizing fluctuations in retinal thickness in between treatments, which is emerging as predictive of visual outcomes. We believe durable and sustained drug delivery with dosing every six months or longer offered by GB-102 could provide improved visual outcomes for patients with wet AMD, better patient quality-of-life and reduced disease-monitoring requirements.

In the ALTISSIMO trial, disease control was achieved in 48% of patients for 6 months following a single intravitreal injection, and for 12 months in 55% of the patients who agreed to enter the 6-month Extension Study. This potentially longer duration of clinical benefit and consequently less frequent need for intravitreal injections may be more conducive to maintaining a typically asymptomatic patient with DR on an effective anti-VEGF therapy regimen. If approved for DR, GB-102 could provide a paradigm shift in the treatment of patients with DR who are currently managed either by observation alone, pan-retinal laser photocoagulation or, in rare instances, with short-acting anti-VEGF injections.

Our second product candidate, GB-401, is an intravitreally administered, proprietary implant formulation containing a prodrug of a beta-adrenergic receptor inhibitor designed to provide a controlled release of the active drug to maintain reduced intraocular pressure, or IOP, for six months or longer after a single injection, thus addressing the patient compliance problem and improving outcomes.

4

Glaucoma is an optic neuropathy that is characterized by the progressive degeneration of the optic nerve that leads to visual impairment. It is a leading cause of irreversible vision loss that is projected to affect approximately 76 million people worldwide in 2020, including approximately 2.7 million people in the United States. The most common type of glaucoma is POAG, which is characterized by an increase in IOP because fluid, which is continuously generated by cells inside the front of the eye, cannot drain properly. The global POAG therapeutics market is estimated to reach approximately $3.8 billion in 2026, of which the United States represents approximately $2.9 billion.

The most common treatment options for glaucoma are topical eye drops, which must be administered daily, or invasive medical procedures. Topical eye drops can lower IOP and have been shown to both delay and prevent the progressive degeneration associated with POAG. However, these medications must be administered up to four times per day, and approximately 30% of patients often require more than one class of drug to control IOP. It is estimated that approximately 50% of patients stop using their glaucoma medications in the first six months post-diagnosis due to various reasons, including forgetfulness, lack of disease awareness and/or cost, thus leading to uncontrolled IOP and progressive loss of peripheral vision. A sustained-release implant containing the IOP-lowering medicine bimatoprost was recently approved by the US Food & Drug Administration, or FDA, for only one injection in the front of the eye, limiting its potential use for this chronic disease. Laser-based or surgical treatments to permanently reduce IOP are invasive and achievement of IOP targets may require multiple surgeries. If approved, GB-401 could represent a significant paradigm shift in the way physicians treat POAG.

We have acquired intellectual property that will enable us to expand our pipeline into additional disease areas, including geographic atrophy as well as inherited retinal and corneal diseases.

Our pipeline

The following chart summarizes the status and development plan for the disclosed product candidates in our pipeline. We own worldwide rights to each of our programs.

Our proprietary technologies

Our proprietary technologies are designed to allow sustained delivery of pharmacologic agents to the eye in a well-tolerated and controlled manner to achieve extended duration of effectiveness. Our proprietary technologies utilize microparticle depot and implant formulations each containing biodegradable polymers such as poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid), or PLGA.

The microparticles are engineered to carry a hydrophilic coating such as polyethylene glycol, or PEG, that helps eliminate or minimize inflammation typically associated with intraocular administration of conventional PLGA microparticles. Our preclinical studies and Phase 1, 2a, and 2b clinical trials provided preliminary evidence that our microparticles are well-tolerated in the eye.

Furthermore, our microparticles are designed to aggregate after intravitreal injection upon exposure to the vitreous fluid at body temperature to form a depot near the bottom of the eye, outside of the visual axis. Our biodegradable microparticles then gradually release the active ingredient at a rate dependent on the composition of the polymers and biodegrade into lactic acid, glycolic acid and

5

PEG that are naturally cleared from the body.  Our implants are designed to be injected near the bottom of the eye and are expected to remain in place due to their geometry and the structure of the vitreous humor.

Some molecules, due to their physicochemical properties, are difficult to integrate into polymer formulations and deliver in a controlled manner. For that purpose, we have developed a proprietary prodrug technology to enable sustained delivery of these therapeutics. Our research and development team has developed our product candidates with different pharmacologic agents using these prodrug technologies. For example, GB-401 has been developed using this approach.

We have also developed intravitreally-injected implant formulations containing biodegradable polymers such as poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), or PLGA, in the form of a rod, that we intend to use in our upcoming Phase 1/2a clinical trial for our GB-401 program.  

Our lead program GB-102

We are developing our lead product candidate, GB-102, as a once-every-six months intravitreally delivered microparticle depot formulation of sunitinib for the treatment of wet AMD. Sunitinib is a pan-VEGF inhibitor that targets several neovascular pathways (VEGF-A, B, C and D). We believe that GB-102 is differentiated from the current standard of care, which requires more frequent dosing, up to 12 times per year, and primarily targets one neovascular pathway (VEGF-A).

In January 2019, we completed a Phase 1/2a trial in 32 patients with wet AMD (the ADAGIO trial). This trial met its primary endpoint of safety and tolerability. No ocular serious adverse event, or SAE, or dose-limiting toxicity was reported, and the majority of patients had no drug-related adverse events, or AEs. The most common AE was the presence of medication in the anterior chamber. These AEs were reversible and with no long-term sequelae. In this trial, 88% of patients who were previously treated with an average of eight injections annually were able to maintain stable central retinal thickness and visual acuity for six months or more with a single injection of 1 mg of GB-102.

Based on the data from the ADAGIO trial, we initiated the Phase 2b ALTISSIMO trial in September 2019 to evaluate an improved product formulation that would minimize the presence of medication within the anterior chamber. This trial was designed to compare two doses of GB-102 (1 or 2 mg) administered every six months to aflibercept administered every two months in up to 56 patients with anti-VEGF-responsive wet AMD. On the basis of a safety analysis of the Phase 2a clinical trial of GB-102 in macular edema (ME), described below, and the interim safety data in the ALTISSIMO trial, we terminated the development of the GB-102 2 mg dose in all of our clinical trial programs. The primary endpoint of the ALTISSIMO trial was to determine time-to-additional anti-VEGF supportive therapy. Of the 56 patients originally enrolled in the study, 50 completed the 12-month Core Study and six withdrew for reasons unrelated to their treatment. Furthermore, 28 of the 50 patients who completed their Month 12 ALTISSIMO visit were eligible and agreed to continue masked clinical monitoring until the point at which they required additional supportive therapy, up to a maximum of six months. ALTISSIMO topline results were released in March 2021, and the topline results of the 6-month Extension Study were released in September 2021.

In September 2019, we initiated a Phase 2a clinical trial of GB-102 in 21 patients with ME secondary to DME and branch or central retinal vein occlusion (RVO). This trial was designed to be a six-month, single injection, multicenter, open-label, parallel arm trial with a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability of two dose levels of GB-102 (1 and 2 mg) in patients with ME secondary to DME or RVO who had been previously treated with anti-VEGFs. All patients have completed the study and the final safety analysis has been performed. An interim data analysis from the ALTISSIMO and ME trials identified 1 mg of GB-102 as the optimal dose for future clinical trials. In 2021, we decided to prioritize development of GB-102 in wet AMD.

6

Additional pipeline programs

We are also applying our proprietary technologies to develop GB-401, a proprietary implant formulation containing a prodrug of a beta-adrenergic receptor inhibitor, designed to be injected once every six months or longer to reduce IOP in POAG patients. We expect to submit an investigational new drug application, or IND, for GB-401 and initiate a dose-escalating Phase 1/2a clinical trial of GB-401 in patients with POAG in the first half of 2023.

We believe our proprietary technologies and our acquired intellectual property will allow us to develop other novel therapeutics, either alone or in combination, that can treat additional diseases, achieve extended durations of effectiveness, and improve the care and quality of life for patients with chronic diseases and disorders of the eye.

Our executive leadership team

We are led by a team of experienced pharmaceutical industry executives with significant experience in ophthalmology:

Wet AMD

Wet AMD is a common ocular disease caused by the growth of abnormal blood vessels under the central portion of the retina, or macula. This growth is triggered by VEGF, a protein produced by cells that stimulates the formation of new abnormal blood vessels, a process called neovascularization, and induces vascular permeability, leading to leakage and swelling of the retina. Anti-VEGF treatment has been shown to improve vision in patients with wet AMD when compared to either no treatment or laser alone.

According to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, it is estimated that 15 million people in North America have AMD. The prevalence of the disease is approximately 85 to 90% nonexudative, or dry, AMD and 10 to 15% wet AMD. As a greater percentage of Americans are living well beyond 60 years of age, more patients will become visually impaired from AMD than from glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy combined. Early intervention is essential to treat wet AMD; without treatment, vision rapidly declines. The figure below illustrates the primary effects of wet AMD.

7

Our market opportunity in wet AMD

In 2020, annual anti-VEGF sales reported for the treatment of retinal diseases exceeded $15 billion in 2020 globally. We believe a substantial majority of these sales were in connection with the treatment of wet AMD and DME. Avastin is also used off-label in over 50% of the wet AMD patients in the United States, therefore the potential therapeutic market is greater than reported. The wet AMD market has historically grown by approximately 8% because of an aging population and lack of preventative procedures.

Despite the significant benefits of existing therapeutic options, the need for frequent intravitreal injections is burdensome for both patients and retinal specialists. Retinal practitioners surveyed by the American Society of Retinal Specialists responded that their three greatest unmet needs are availability of long-acting sustained drug delivery, therapies that reduce treatment burden and new treatment mechanisms of action. According to a 2019 study of patient interviews in the United States, France and Australia, the factors affecting adherence from the patient perspective included the psychological burden of repeated intravitreal injections, the time burden of both treatment and monitoring visits for both patients and caregivers, which could take up to 12 hours per visit including travel time.

In clinical trials, intravitreal injections of anti-VEGF drugs resulted in significant gains in visual acuity for patients with retinal diseases. However, in settings outside of clinical trials, patients often receive less frequent injections than in clinical trial settings. Long-term observational studies in the United States, Europe and Japan have demonstrated that many patients with wet AMD lose visual acuity due to the challenges associated with receiving anti-VEGF injections at an optimal frequency.

The diagram below shows the declining visual acuity, or VA, results over four years after the first anti-VEGF injection in patients with wet AMD in the United States.

Most recently, it was shown that fluctuations between injections in retinal thickness in eyes receiving treatment for wet AMD is adversely associated with visual outcomes.

Diabetic retinopathy

Diabetic retinopathy, or DR, is the leading cause of acquired vision loss in the young and middle-aged adult population. Of an estimated 463 million people with diabetes mellitus, or DM, worldwide, approximately one-third have signs of DR and of these, a further one-third  experience vision-threatening DR. Mild, or non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) is the first stage of diabetic retinopathy which is often asymptomatic but shows blocked or abnormal blood vessels, such as microaneurysms.  Without good control of diabetes, patients can develop diabetic macular edema, or DME, and/or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). DME affects central vision and can lead to a decline in vision ranging from slight visual blurring to blindness, substantially affecting independence and quality of life. If left untreated, DME is the most common cause of vision loss in patients with DR. The abnormal blood vessels (neovascularization) in PDR can lead to reduction of vision and, if left untreated, eventually to retinal detachment and blindness.

8

The figure below illustrates the primary effects of diabetic retinopathy with diabetic macular edema compared to a healthy eye.

Our market opportunity in DR

Approximately 30 million people in the United States have diabetes, 10 million of whom suffer from DR, including 1.5 million with DME. DME is the second largest market for anti-VEGF therapies, accounting for approximately $3.8 billion of sales worldwide and approximately $1.1 billion in the United States in 2020. It is estimated that there are three times as many DR patients as there are DME patients, which illustrates the commercial attractiveness of the DR indication for which short-acting anti-VEGFs have been recently approved. Multiple trials have shown that anti-VEGFs are also beneficial for the treatment of DR without DME; however, the need for frequent injections and follow-up in this often asymptomatic population leads to inadequate compliance and subsequent vision loss.

Our product candidates

GB-102

GB-102 is a potent small molecule multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib malate, or sunitinib, formulated in our proprietary microparticles and designed to be administered intravitreally once every six months. Prior to administration, GB-102 is suspended in a buffered diluent and injected intravitreally in a manner similar to the standard in clinical practice with anti-VEGFs. After injection, sunitinib is gradually released from the microparticle formulation into the vitreous chamber and is designed to sustain therapeutic drug levels in the ocular tissues for up to six months. Sunitinib also has a high binding affinity to the natural melanin pigment granules in the retina that allows the retinal pigmented epithelium, or RPE, to serve as a potential secondary drug reservoir and extend duration of action.

Sunitinib is an orally administered treatment for advanced renal, gastric and pancreatic malignancies that was originally approved in 2006. Oral sunitinib has demonstrated efficacy in murine laser choroidal neovascularization, or CNV, models and in wet AMD patients for the treatment of their cancers. However, because of a boxed warning related to hepatotoxicity for cancer indications, oral sunitinib has not been used for retinal indications. There are no reported cases of retinal toxicities in patients receiving continuous oral sunitinib for up to six years for the management of primary malignancies. In our preclinical and clinical studies, we have demonstrated that there are no detectable levels of sunitinib in the plasma after intravitreal injections of GB-102. Sunitinib’s mechanism of action is the inhibition of receptor tyrosine kinases, specifically of VEGF receptors 1, 2 and 3, blocking all VEGF signals, including VEGF-A, -B, -C and -D and placental growth factor, or PlGF, which are ligands implicated in pathologic neovascularization in patients with wet AMD. Moreover, sunitinib is a DLK-inhibitor, which may result in a neuroprotective effect.

9

Our clinical trials

Phase 1/2a trial of GB-102 in patients with wet AMD

In January 2019, we completed our Phase 1/2a clinical trial of GB-102 in patients with wet AMD, or our ADAGIO trial. This trial enrolled patients with wet AMD diagnosed less than 18 months prior to enrollment who had received at least three prior injections of any anti-VEGF treatment and demonstrated a response to anti-VEGF treatment, defined as physician-reported improvement in vision or reduction in macular thickness. Eligible patients received a single injection of GB-102 and were followed for eight months. Monthly assessments included adverse events, best-corrected visual acuity, or BCVA, using the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study, or ETDRS, protocol letter score, central sub-field thickness, or CST, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, dilated fundoscopy and plasma blood samples to detect systemic levels of sunitinib. Patients were eligible for supportive anti-VEGF treatment if any of the following criteria were met: ≥ 10 letter loss in BCVA (ETDRS) with new or increasing intra- or sub-retinal fluid judged to be the cause in the reduction in BCVA; an increase of ≥ 75 µm in CST from baseline; new onset vitreous hemorrhage.

In the ADAGIO trial, GB-102 met its primary endpoint of safety and tolerability with no ocular SAEs or dose limiting toxicities. Our data demonstrated that for patients who required an average of eight injections per year to control their disease, a single injection of GB-102 at various doses was able to maintain their central retinal thickness and visual acuity for six months or more, while significantly reducing the frequency of injection. The overall best performing dose was the 1 mg, which controlled the disease in seven out of eight patients for six months, and in four out of eight patients beyond eight months.

Since the most commonly reported ocular AE was presence of medication in the anterior chamber, we optimized the manufacturing process for GB-102 to enhance the binding affinity of the microparticles’ surface, thus improving their ability to aggregate post injection. This optimized version of the microparticles was used for the Phase 2a Macular Edema and Phase 2b ALTISSIMO trials.

Phase 2 clinical trials

Phase 2a trial of GB-102 in ME secondary to DME or RVO. In September 2019, we initiated a Phase 2a clinical trial of GB-102 in 21 patients with ME secondary to DME and RVO. This trial was designed to be a six-month, single injection, multicenter, open-label, parallel arm trial with a primary endpoint of safety and tolerability of two dose levels of GB-102 (1 and 2 mg).

Six centers in the United States enrolled 21 patients (n=10 DME; n=5 BRVO; n=6 CRVO) who had received at least three prior injections of anti-VEGF and shown at least some response within the last 24 months. In addition to the primary safety and tolerability endpoints noted above, secondary endpoints of the ME study were pharmacodynamics measures including mean change from baseline in BCVA (ETDRS), mean change from baseline in CST (SD-OCT), and time to rescue treatment. As the focus of the ME trial was safety, disease control was not a requirement at enrollment, and patient eligibility was not verified by independent third parties. On average, at enrollment, patients required eight injections per year to control their disease. Eligible patients received GB-102 (1 or 2 mg) at day 1 and were followed monthly.

There were no drug related non-ocular AEs in the trial. The 1 mg dose met its primary endpoint of safety and tolerability with seven out of ten patients demonstrating no adverse events. One patient had only vitreous floaters and one patient had vitreous floaters, medication present in the vitreous, and reduction in vision. The other AEs occurred in a single patient with medication present in the anterior chamber. The 2 mg dose was associated with medication present in the anterior chamber of five out of 11 patients. The majority of AEs occurred in these patients. Two SAEs were reported in a single patient (severe vision loss due to presence of medication in the anterior chamber and corneal edema as a result of wash-out of the anterior chamber). On the basis of an interim analysis performed at month 3 in the ME trial, it was determined that the 1 mg dose was well-tolerated. We believe that the number of microparticles injected

10

in the 2 mg dose (approximately 2 million) were too many to allow adequate aggregation. The graphic below, photographed using wide field color fundus photography, represents an example of progression of the GB-102 1 mg depot throughout the six-month observation period.

The table below summarizes the drug-related adverse events reported in the ME trial.

These results provided additional support for terminating further development of GB-102 2 mg dose.

11

Phase 2b trial

We initiated the Phase 2b clinical trial of GB-102 in patients with wet AMD (ALTISSIMO trial) in September 2019 and reported topline data from the 12-month treatment phase in March 2021 (the Core Study). ALTISSIMO was a 12-month, multicenter, prospective, double-masked, randomized (3:3:2), 3-parallel arm trial comparing two doses of GB-102 (1 and 2 mg) administered every six months to aflibercept administered every two months in patients with anti-VEGF-responsive wet AMD. GB-102 subjects were injected on the first day of the study (D1, or Baseline) and at their six-month visit (M6, or Month 6) and were followed for a total of 12 months.  Eligible subjects were offered monthly monitoring visits for an additional six months during the Extension Study. The results of the Extension Study were communicated in September 2021.

Similar to the population in the ADAGIO trial, key eligibility criteria included patients with wet AMD diagnosed less than 18 months prior to enrollment, who had received at least three prior injections of any anti-VEGF and demonstrated response to anti-VEGF treatment, defined as physician-reported reduction in macular thickness. In addition, those patients received an anti-VEGF injection within 21 days of screening. Eligible patients received either GB-102 (1 or 2 mg) or aflibercept at day one and were followed monthly for 12 consecutive months during the Core Study. Monthly assessments included adverse events, BCVA, CST, complete ophthalmic examination, wide-field fundus photography and plasma blood samples to detect systemic levels of sunitinib.

Patients were eligible for additional anti-VEGF supportive therapy (aflibercept) if they met the following prespecified criteria:

We initially designed the ALTISSIMO trial to enroll 160 patients and initiated the trial in September 2019. In December 2019, we voluntarily paused enrollment as a precautionary measure following the report of a single patient experiencing SAEs with the 2 mg dose in the Phase 2a trial of GB-102 in ME patients, as noted in the table above. Interim safety analyses of the macular edema trial demonstrated that five out of 11 patients in the 2 mg dose had medication in the anterior chamber as compared to one patient in the 1 mg dose. We then performed an ad-hoc interim safety analysis of ALTISSIMO in February 2020. In order to preserve data integrity, trial personnel including investigators, patients, study technicians and reading center remained masked at all times. No drug related SAEs were reported in ALTISSIMO. Presence of medication in the anterior chamber was reported in four patients in the GB-102 2 mg dose group and one patient in the 1 mg dose group.

Based on the number of patients in the 2 mg dose group who had medication in the anterior chamber in our ME and the ALTISSIMO trials, we decided to terminate the development of the GB-102 2 mg dose in all of our clinical trial programs. In addition, we capped enrollment in the ALTISSIMO trial at 56 patients as we had sufficient patients to explore repeat dosing with the GB-102 1 mg dose. We amended the protocol of the ALTISSIMO trial to ensure the GB-102 1 mg dose was used for re-dosing of all patients on GB-102 at month six, regardless of their original dose assignment. Finally, following discussions with the FDA, we shifted the primary endpoint—median time to first additional anti-VEGF supportive therapy—from month 10 to month 12. On the basis of a safety analysis of the ME trial and interim safety data in the ALTISSIMO trial, we terminated the development of the GB-102 2 mg dose in all of our clinical trial programs and amended the protocol of the ALTISSIMO trial, so that patients who had received a first dose of GB-102 2mg would be re-dosed with GB-102 1mg at their M6 visit.

12

The revised ALTISSIMO trial design is provided in the figure below:

A total of 56 patients were randomized with 21 patients receiving GB-102 1 mg/1 mg (Group 1), 22 patients receiving GB-102 2 mg/1 mg (Group 2), and 13 patients receiving aflibercept bimonthly as per label (Group 3).  D1, or Day 1, indicates the first visit for each patient at which the patient was dosed with the drug for the study arm to which they were randomized; a safety monitoring visit occurred approximately two weeks (D14) following each patient’s first injection, after which all study visits were monthly (M1, M2 and so on).

In December 2020, a total of 50 out of the 56 patients that enrolled (89.3%) completed the study through M12, and 6 patients (10.7%) discontinued prematurely due to reasons unrelated to the study medication. 28 patients continued into the Extension Study (11 patients in Group 1; 11 patients in Group 2 and 6 patients in Group 3).

The main safety endpoint was the occurrence of ocular and non-ocular AEs and SAEs. A higher proportion of patients in the GB-102 groups reported drug-related AEs in the study eye compared to patients in the aflibercept group. In the GB-102 groups, the majority of drug-related AEs in the study eye were mild or moderate in severity. AEs in the study eye that were considered by investigators to be related to study drug were reported in 17 patients (77.3%) in Group 2, 9 patients (42.9%) in Group 1 and no patients in Group 3.

The majority of patients in Group 1 (those receiving GB-102 1mg/1mg, the intended dose for future clinical trials) had no drug related AEs. Out of the 9 patients with drug-related AEs, four patients had vitreous floaters which were transient in nature, mostly noted after the first dose and were only associated with blurring of vision in one patient. Two patients had the majority of the AEs, both related to dispersion of particles and concurrent inflammation.

The amount of time between treatment and the need for subsequent treatment is known as duration.  Of the 21 patients in Group 1, 48% (10 patients) achieved duration of 6 months or more and experienced an average 58% reduction in the annualized frequency of injections required to manage their disease, as compared to their treatments prior to entering the trial. Of the Group 1 patients who enrolled in the Extension Study, 55% of those patients (6 of 11) did not receive rescue treatment until Month 18 representing an average 73% reduction in the annualized frequency of injections required to manage their disease, as compared to their treatments prior to entering the trial.

CST was controlled by both GB-102 (1 mg/1 mg) and GB-102 (2 mg/1 mg) within about 50 μm of aflibercept. The mean BCVA trended lower as compared to aflibercept in both GB-102 groups. The decrease in BCVA was mainly driven by 4 subjects in Group 1. These subjects had a combination of high anti-VEGF need prior to enrollment, particle dispersion during the study, or AEs unrelated to the drug. It is likely that patients who require frequent high dose anti-VEGF injections to control their disease  are not the best candidates to receive extended-release formulations such as GB-102 1mg.  

We believe that reduction in particle dispersion will likely lead to a better safety and efficacy profile in a future clinical trial.  We have developed a reformulation of the diluent used in GB-102 1 mg to increase the speed at which the microparticles aggregate immediately following their injection into the eye.  We have conducted preclinical studies of this reformulated diluent in anticipation of submitting an IND amendment in the second half of 2022.  We have not modified the composition or manufacturing methods of the microparticles from those used in ALTISSIMO.

Our future development plans

Pending positive feedback from the FDA on our amended IND application, we expect that an additional Phase 2 study to evaluate the safety, efficacy and durability of GB-102 1mg, with the reformulated diluent, in non-naïve wet AMD patients could substantially mitigate the risk of proceeding to Phase 3 studies. We believe that the optimal design of this Phase 2 trial requires it to be open label

13

with only one study arm, and the visual acuity evaluator must be masked.   Eligibility criteria will benefit from the lessons learned in ALTISSIMO, and will, among other things, require that patients participating in the study to have been diagnosed with wet AMD within 12 months of screening, treated at least three times with an anti-VEGF within six months of screening, and must have demonstrated good response to such treatments.

The design of the Phase 2 trial is provided in the figure below (numbers in blue indicate weeks from first injection with GB-102):

We expect that this study design will be sufficient to determine whether particle dispersion, which appeared to be most prevalent within three months following each injection of GB-102 1mg in ALTISSIMO, has been satisfactorily resolved by the new formulation.

GB-102: Potential for 6-month or longer duration in DR

Based on the results of the ALTISSIMO trial, GB-102 has demonstrated the potential to maintain therapeutic drug levels in the retinal tissue for up to 12 months from a single intravitreal injection. We believe that GB-102’s potential for at least 6-month durability and reduction in frequency of injections could significantly improve the standard of care for DR patients.

The results of an additional Phase 2 study of GB-102 with the reformulated diluent in wet AMD will inform the timing and design of the clinical development program to explore the future development of GB-102 for DR. 

GB-401

Disease overview

Glaucoma is an optic neuropathy that is characterized by the progressive degeneration of the optic nerve, leading to visual impairment, and is a leading cause of irreversible vision loss worldwide. POAG is the most common type of glaucoma.

Though the specific mechanism of neuronal damage in POAG has not been fully identified, progressive visual field loss is associated with increased IOP. Chronically elevated IOP can lead to neuronal degeneration and retinal ganglion cell death with resulting disruption of the visual pathway. Increased IOP is caused by the over-production of the clear fluid in the eye behind the cornea, or aqueous humor, and/or decreased drainage of the aqueous humor from the eye. Currently approved topical eye drops can lower IOP by either decreasing aqueous humor production and/or enhancing aqueous humor drainage when used as directed by a physician. These medications must be administered up to four times per day, and it is estimated that approximately 30% of patients often require more than one medication.

In the healthy eye, the ciliary body produces fluid that circulates through the pupil and drains in the corner, or the angle, of the eye where the cornea and iris meet. In POAG, pressure in the eye can increase if there is increased fluid production and/or decreased drainage in the angle leading to elevated IOP. Chronically elevated IOP can lead to neuronal degeneration and retinal ganglion cell death with resulting disruption of the visual pathway.

Market overview

Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible vision loss affecting approximately 76 million people worldwide in 2020, including approximately 2.7 million people in the United States. The global POAG therapeutics market is estimated to reach approximately $3.8 billion in 2026, of which the United States represents approximately $2.9 billion.

Various drug classes for glaucoma therapy include prostaglandin analogs, or PGAs, beta-blockers, alpha-adrenergic agonists, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, rho-kinase inhibitors, combination drugs and others. PGAs are preferred as first-line therapy for glaucoma due to their effectiveness in reducing IOP, once-daily dosing and reduced side effects as compared to other therapies. The PGA segment accounted for a market share of approximately 40% in the United States in 2019 and is expected to remain dominant until meaningfully

14

superior agents are developed and approved. The second most prescribed class of eye drops is beta-blockers, however, these have a less favorable systemic side effect profile, including decreased heart rate, slowed breathing rate and decreased blood pressure.

A number of procedures have been developed to treat patients whose disease has significantly progressed. These include laser or surgical treatments reserved for patients for whom other measures have failed.

Unmet need

Importance of greater compliance in glaucoma is considered a large unmet need. It is estimated that approximately 50% of patients stop taking their glaucoma medications within the first six months of treatment initiation due to various reasons, including forgetfulness, lack of disease awareness and/or cost. Poor adherence to glaucoma medication regimens has been documented in numerous independent studies, particularly in patients on two or more prescription eye drops. Additionally, studies show that more than 30% of patients often require more than one medication.

Furthermore, because glaucoma progresses slowly and causes few symptoms, patients often do not adhere to their medication regimens as prescribed until the disease has progressed to the point of significant vision loss. As a result, despite the availability of medication to treat glaucoma, progressive visual loss and blindness still often occur. According to a 2015 analysis published in the Translational Vision Science & Technology Journal, 15% to 20% of glaucoma patients progress to blindness within 15 to 20 years of diagnosis.

Our goal is to provide sustained reduction of elevated IOP associated with POAG to increase compliance for patients and improve the medical management of glaucoma. For patients, our goal is to eliminate the need for daily eye drops required to manage elevated IOP. For physicians, our goal is to design a long-acting IOP-lowering treatment that can be administered in the office through intravitreal injections, ensuring patient compliance for up to six months.

Our solution

GB-401 has the potential to reduce elevated IOP for up to six months. GB-401 contains a proprietary new chemical entity, or NCE, prodrug of a beta-adrenergic receptor inhibitor, or beta-blocker, formulated with our biodegradable polymer implant technology for controlled release and is designed to be administered intravitreally once every six months. Upon exposure to water under physiological conditions, the prodrug is released from the implant and is converted into the active beta-blocker by hydrolysis. The polymer biodegrades into normal metabolic by-products of lactic and glycolic acid and is naturally cleared from the eye.

Our proprietary implant formulation of GB-401 is designed to provide controlled drug release within the eye that minimizes the risk for systemic exposure of the beta-blocker, a class of drugs known to have significant risks of cardiac side effects when administered topically, such as with eye drops. The figure below illustrates sustained in vitro drug release from the GB-401 implant for approximately 120 days at 37° C.  We have successfully completed preclinical studies to evaluate the potential pharmacokinetics of GB-401.  There is,

15

however, a lack of validated animal models for reliably predicting long-term pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in humans in the treatment of glaucoma using beta-blockers, so preclinical results may not be predictive of human clinical results.

In a preclinical study in rabbits, the biodegradability of GB-401 implant was visually assessed over a period 24 weeks, or 168 days.  Similar to prior experiences with GB-102 microparticles, which demonstrated a durability of six months for approximately half of the patients studied in clinical trials while appearing to be nearly biodegraded within approximately four months in rabbits, the GB-401 implants also appeared to be substantially biodegraded in rabbit eyes within four months post injection.  The images below are representative color fundus photographs from different animals at different timepoints.

Beta-blockers have been used as the comparative control for the approval of topical agents for IOP reduction, including PGAs, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, rho-kinase inhibitors and alpha-adrenergic receptor agonists. Beta-blocker eye drops must be administered once or twice daily and often produce systemic exposure which can lead to decreases in heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory function. Though prostaglandins are the leading class of agents used to reduce IOP, evidence suggests that continuous exposure may lead to loss of IOP reduction effects that may be due to receptor fatigue from continuous stimulation, as well as poor compliance due to topical side effects.

We believe that GB-401 has the potential to provide sustained reduction in IOP for up to six months, thus eliminating the need for frequent patient-instilled eye drops and potentially improving patient compliance in this vision-threatening disease. GB-401 could also improve tolerability by reducing ocular hyperemia (red eyes due to irritation) and sunken eye (reduction in peri-orbital fat), which are common side effects for PGAs and rho-kinase inhibitors, while eliminating systemic drug exposure. Therefore, we believe our proprietary beta-blocker technology represents a validated but differentiated pharmacological approach.

16

We have also developed a proprietary custom applicator that is designed to enable convenient and safe injection of the GB-401 implant in the vitreous.

Our future development plans

We may pursue clinical development for GB-401 under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which would obviate the need to conduct certain preclinical toxicology and safety studies. If we decide to use the 505(b)(2) pathway, we would rely in part on the FDA’s prior findings for the previously approved active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, as well as relevant publications, and to complete a repeat-dose GLP toxicology study with GB-401, to support the filing of an IND for GB-401 and any future 505(b)(2) new drug application, or NDA. At the time of NDA submission, we expect to provide the FDA with all required nonclinical elements in the NDA either directly through original studies, published literature, and the FDA’s prior findings as reflected in the approved labeling for the previously approved API which contains the same API as GB-401. We plan to initiate a first-in-human, multicenter, open-label, sequential escalating dose-cohorts Phase 1/2a clinical trial evaluating the safety, tolerability and pharmacodynamic effects of a single intravitreal injection of GB-401 in patients with POAG in the first half of 2023. The primary endpoint will be the occurrence of ocular and non-ocular adverse events. Secondary endpoints will include pharmacodynamic evaluation of IOP. If we pursue the 505(b)(2) pathway, we would expect to rely upon this Phase 1/2a clinical trial, as well as two Phase 3 trials, which we currently envision as multi-center, randomized, double-blind trials with dosing once every 6 months in patients with POAG or ocular hypertension, with approximately 350 to 600 participants per trial. The final Phase 3 trial designs and sample sizes will be determined based upon our ongoing discussions with the FDA and the results of the Phase 1/2a trial.

Commercialization

We currently have no sales, marketing or commercial product distribution capabilities. We intend to secure a partner to fund and complete Phase 3 development of GB-102 and, if approved, commercialize it in the territories in which GB-102 would be licensed out.

If GB-401 receives marketing approval, we plan to commercialize it in the United States with our own specialty sales force, which we would expect to range from 50 to 125 sales representatives. We will also explore a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties in markets outside the United States.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial and human resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller and other early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These organizations compete with us for recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient enrollment for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring products, product candidates or other technologies complementary to our programs.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of GB-102, if approved, are likely to be its efficacy, safety, method and frequency of administration, on-mechanism durability of therapeutic effect, convenience, price, level of generic competition and availability of coverage and reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. The method of administration of GB-102, intravitreal injection, is commonly used to administer ophthalmic drugs for the treatment of severe disease and is generally accepted by patients facing the prospect of severe visual loss or blindness. However, a therapy that offers a less invasive method of administration might have a competitive advantage over one administered by intravitreal injection, depending on the relative efficacy, safety and durability of the other method of administration.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of irreversible blindness among people who are 50 years of age or older in the industrialized world. Current anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatments have proven to be safe and effective in restoring vision, but they require frequent injections to maintain the visual acuity gain (every 4 weeks with ranibizumab, every 4 to 8 weeks with aflibercept, and every 8 to 12 weeks with brolucizumab). This frequency of injection puts an enormous burden on the patients, their caregivers, physicians, and the healthcare system overall. As a result, many patients do not receive frequent injections, which leads to suboptimal visual acuity. An annual survey conducted for retinal specialists worldwide by the American Society of

17

Retinal Specialists (ASRS) reported that in wet AMD therapeutics, the greatest unmet needs is for “long-lasting therapies”, further reinforcing the need for durable intervention.

The current standard of care for wet AMD is monotherapy administration of anti-VEGF drugs, principally Avastin (bevacizumab), Lucentis (ranibizumab), and Eylea (aflibercept), which are well-established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors. Beovu was approved in 2019 and demonstrated superior durability to the current standard of care but, due to rare but blinding complication of vascular occlusion, is being used as the 2nd line therapy

Recently, faricimab, a bispecific antibody against VEGF and Angiopoietin-2(Ang-2), was approved for the treatment of wet AMD and DME in the U.S. and is marketed under the trade name VABYSMO. Faricimab has the potential to prolong the existing treatment intervals with its demonstrated disease control of up to 16 weeks (VABYSMO Prescribing Information). The recent approval of the Port Delivery System (PDS) with ranibizumab, marketed under the trade name SUSVIMO, allows delivery of a steady dose of ranibizumab for 6 months or longer can further extend the injection intervals. In clinical trials of SUSVIMO, 98.4% of patients did not require supplemental intravitreal treatment for at least 24 weeks, however, SUSVIMO requires surgical intervention that may impose additional burden overall and is associated with AEs from the surgical procedure, including a boxed warning for endophthalmitis (SUSVIMO Prescribing Information 2021). Therefore, sustained, predictable disease control with infrequent injection remains an unmet need.

Kodiak Sciences is also developing KSI-301 and is in the phase 2b/3 trials for treatment of wet AMD, DME and RVO, but has recently announced that the first Phase 2b/3 trial of KSI-301 in wet AMD failed to meet its primary endpoint.  REGENEXBIO is also developing a suprachoroidal or subretinal gene therapy that delivers anti-VEGF and is currently in phase 3 treatments for wet AMD, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is currently in a phase 3 trial of a higher dose of aflibercept, the active ingredient in Eylea. Results from the Regeneron Pharmaceutical trials are expected in 2022. Physicians, patients, and third-party payors may not accept the addition of GB-102 to their current treatment regimens for a variety of potential reasons, including:

We are developing GB-102 as an alternative to existing anti-VEGF drugs, including Avastin, Lucentis, Eylea, Beovu, VABYSMO, and SUSVIMO. Accordingly, GB-102 would directly compete with these therapies. While we believe GB-102 will compete favorably with existing anti-VEGF drugs, future approved standalone or combination therapies for wet AMD and for DR with demonstrated improved efficacy over GB-102 or currently marketed therapies with a favorable safety profile and any of the following characteristics, might pose a significant competitive threat to us:

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if one or more of our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. An anti-VEGF gene therapy product might substantially reduce the number and frequency of intravitreal injections when treating wet AMD and DR, making GB-102 unattractive to physicians and patients. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected because in many cases insurers or other third-party payors seek to encourage the use of generic products.

We expect that product candidates currently in clinical development, or that could enter clinical development in the near future, could represent competition, if approved. These product candidates may provide efficacy, safety, convenience and other benefits that are not provided by currently marketed therapies. Because there are a variety of means to treat wet AMD and DR, our patents and other proprietary protections for GB-102 will not prevent development or commercialization of product candidates that are different from GB-102.

Manufacturing

18

We have neither large-scale manufacturing facilities nor personnel, other than personnel who manage our contract manufacturing organization, or CMO, relationships. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, for the next few years, on third parties for the manufacture of certain components of our product candidates undergoing preclinical testing and clinical testing.  We are establishing low-volume good manufacturing practice, or GMP, manufacturing capability to support our Ph 1/2a clinical trial of GB-401 and the next Phase 2 clinical trial of GB-102.  We have contracted with a single contract manufacturing and development organization to design, develop, and manufacture a proprietary applicator for our GB-401 implant.

Our drug candidates include small molecules and are manufactured in synthetic processes from base materials. We purchase our drug substances from reliable sources and we believe that our microparticle and implant manufacturing processes are amenable to scale-up. We expect to continue to develop product candidates that can be produced cost-effectively at contract manufacturing facilities. We anticipate that these arrangements will be sufficient for the manufacture of our product candidates until such time that we decide that we should establish our own large-scale manufacturing facility and it becomes operational.

Until we believe it is prudent to establish our own large-scale manufacturing facility, we will continue to rely on CMOs for parts of the drug manufacturing process, such as filling and labelling of our products for commercial sale and the manufacture of implant applicators. While we believe that having control over the whole manufacturing process would allow us to reduce cycle times, increase the robustness and consistency of the process and reduce cost of goods for commercial production, we also believe that investing in a dedicated manufacturing facility at this time would not be an efficient use of our capital.

Intellectual property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our therapeutic products for ocular diseases, which include our novel microparticle aggregation and implant technologies, to deliver known active agents such as sunitinib as well as our novel prodrugs such as the one in GB-401. We also seek to protect our proprietary methods of treatment using our delivery technologies for ocular disease, alone and in combination with other therapeutic agents. In addition, we seek protection on processes for the production of our aggregating microparticles and implants, and dosing regimens and formulations for the ocular administration of our products. Our success also depends on our ability to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights.

Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by filing, purchasing, or exclusively in-licensing U.S. and foreign patent applications covering our proprietary technologies, active pharmaceutical ingredients, inventions, and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. In addition, we currently plan to seek patent term adjustments, restorations and/or patent term extensions where applicable in the United States, Europe and other jurisdictions. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we expect to benefit, where appropriate, from statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe and other countries that provide a period of regulatory data exclusivity to compensate for the time required for regulatory approval of our drug products.

We are the sole owner of eleven patent families covering our products, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and proprietary aggregating microparticle technology, which include composition of matter, methods of use and processes of manufacture, as described in more detail below. Our owned patent estate as of December 31, 2021, on a worldwide basis, includes over 60 granted or pending patent applications with nine granted U.S. patents, one allowed U.S. patent application, eleven pending U.S. non-provisional applications, one pending international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and more than 40 pending patent applications that have entered the national phase of prosecution in countries outside the United States.

We have exclusively licensed five patent families from Johns Hopkins University, or JHU, described below, and have granted an exclusive sublicense to Kala Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Kala, solely in the area of delivery through a mucosal barrier for the five families licensed from JHU only. Our patent estate exclusively licensed from JHU as of December 31, 2021, on a worldwide basis, includes 43 granted or pending patent applications with ten granted U.S. patents, four pending U.S. non-provisional applications and 30 pending or granted patents that have entered the national phase of prosecution in countries outside the United States.

We have acquired two patent families and licensed one patent family from a private company for the treatment of disorders of the ear and eye, including retinitis pigmentosa, Stargardt’s Disease, and Leber’s congenital amaurosis. The two patent families that we acquired have also been licensed back to the private company for their use in non-overlapping therapeutic areas. As of December 31, 2021, this acquired patent estate includes two pending U.S. non-provisional applications and five pending patent applications that have entered the national phase of prosecution in countries outside the United States.

We continually assess and refine our intellectual property strategies as we develop new technologies and product candidates. We plan to file additional patent applications based on our intellectual property strategies where appropriate, including where we seek to adapt to competition or to improve business opportunities. Further, we plan to file patent applications, as we consider appropriate under the circumstances, to protect new technologies that we develop. Our patent filing strategy generally includes seeking patent protection

19

in the United States, the European Union and China (which may include Macau and Hong Kong) and may in addition seek protection in countries where we believe such protection is likely to be useful, including one or more of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, India, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Russia and Taiwan.

The exclusivity terms of our patents depend upon the laws of the countries in which they are obtained. In the countries in which we currently file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing of a non-provisional patent application. The term of a U.S. patent may be extended to compensate for the time required to obtain regulatory approval to sell a drug, referred to as a patent term extension, or by delays encountered during patent prosecution that are caused by the PTO, referred to as patent term adjustment. For example, the Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension for FDA-approved new chemical entity drugs of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review and diligence during the review process. Patent term extensions in the United States cannot extend the term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval, and only one patent covering an approved drug or its method of use may be extended. A similar kind of patent extension, referred to as a Supplementary Protection Certificate, is available in Europe. Legal frameworks are also available in certain other jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent. We currently intend to seek patent term extensions on any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where we have a qualifying patent and the extension is available; however, there is no guarantee that the applicable regulatory authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and even if granted, the length of such extensions. Further, even if our patent is extended, the patent, including the extended portion of the patent, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction in the United States or a foreign country.

Current issued patents and patent applications covering the composition of matter for GB-102 expires on dates ranging from 2031 to 2039, if the applications are issued and held valid by a court of final jurisdiction if challenged. Current issued patents and patent applications covering our clinical candidate GB-401 will also expire on dates ranging from 2031 to 2041, if the applications are issued and held valid if challenged. Our pending applications on additional methods of use of our clinical candidates, should they issue, will expire in 2039. We plan to file additional applications on aspects of our innovations that may have patent terms that extend beyond these dates. However, any of our patents, including patents that we may rely on to protect our market for approved products, may be held invalid or unenforceable by a court of final jurisdiction. Alternatively, we may decide that it is in our interest to settle a litigation in a manner that affects the term or enforceability of our patent. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that have been or may be granted on our patents or on third-party patents. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to obtain and maintain our proprietary position for our microparticle and implant technologies and novel prodrugs will depend on our success in enforcing the claims that have been granted or may grant. We do not know whether any of the pending patent applications that we have filed or may file or license from third parties will result in the issuance of any additional patents. The issued patents that we own or may receive in the future may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize drugs with similar mechanisms of action and/or duplicate our methods of treatments or strategies without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a drug we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our drugs can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent.

GB-102 patent coverage

Patents solely owned by us

We own a first patent family that generally describes our proprietary surface modifying microparticle technology that allows the microparticles to remain separate prior to in vivo administration and then aggregate in vivo into at least one microparticle of at least 500 microns that provides controlled drug delivery. Alternatively, our microparticles can be formed into an implant that is used in the eye. This family consists of one issued U.S. Patent (US 10,441,548) and two pending U.S. applications (US 2020/0000734 and US 2020/0000735) covering the GB-102 aggregating microparticle composition-of-matter and their pharmaceutical compositions. Several pending corresponding patent applications cover methods of use of these aggregated microparticles and their processes of manufacture. This patent family is now also in the national stage of prosecution in Australia, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, Hong Kong, and Japan. The expected year of expiration for these composition-of-matter patents, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2036, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

We also own a second patent family that cover additional microparticle formulations and methods of manufacture, including for example suspensions of GB-102 and lyophilized solid GB-102 that have been treated to remove adhered air or gas. It consists of one issued U.S. Patent (US 11,160,870), two U.S. applications, and is currently in the national phase of prosecution in Australia, Canada,

20

China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, and Russia. The expected year of expiration for this patent family, if issued, valid and enforceable, is 2038, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under U.S. or other national laws.

We own a third patent family that discloses coordinated control of a number of processing factors that result in a significantly harder or more durable aggregated microparticle, and which may be used in the process of manufacture of our GB-102 product. This family includes one U.S application (US 2021/0275456), and foreign applications in Taiwan, Argentina, Japan, Australia, Canada, China, Europe, and Russia. The expected year of expiration for this patent family, if issued, valid and enforceable, is 2039, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under U.S. or other national laws.

In addition, we own a fourth patent family that discloses various processes for the manufacture of our aggregating microparticles that can be used to manufacture GB-102. The family comprises one U.S. application (US 2021/085607). This patent family is now also in the national stage of prosecution in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan, and Russia. The expected year of expiration for this patent family, if issued, valid and enforceable, is 2039, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under U.S. or other national laws.

Patent Filings Exclusively Licensed from JHU

We have exclusively licensed from JHU a first patent family that claims microparticles with a hydrophobic polymeric core (such as PLGA or polylactic acid (PLA) or a combination of both PLGA and PLA) and a hydrophilic coating (such as PLGA permanently linked to polyethylene glycol) to reduce inflammation for intraocular injections and their methods of use. This patent family includes four U.S. Patents (US 8,889,193; US 9,566,242; US 9,937,130; and US 10,369,107). This patent family also currently includes one pending U.S. application, , as well as a corresponding patent application in Europe and a granted patent in Canada. The expected year of expiration for this patent family, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2031, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

We have also exclusively licensed from JHU a second patent family, which covers sunitinib-encapsulated polymeric microparticles, including GB-102, and their use as therapeutic compositions to treat disorders of the eye. This patent family currently includes two U.S. pending applications, US 2017/0273901 and US 2019/0275001 and is also pending in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, and Russia. The application has been allowed in Australia, Canada, Japan, and Russia. The expected year of expiration for this patent family, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2035, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

A third patent family exclusively licensed from JHU discloses method for reducing neuronal damage in the eye that includes administration of a sustained release formulation of dual leucine kinase inhibitor in a polymeric particle, and wherein the dual leucine kinase inhibitor may be sunitinib. This family consists of two issued U.S. Patents, US 10,525,034 and US 11,013,719, one pending U.S. application, US 2021/0251959, and corresponding applications in Europe, China, Japan and Hong Kong. The application has been allowed in Japan. The expected year of expiration for this patent family, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2035, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

GB-401 patent coverage

We own a fifth patent family that describes the composition of matter of a range of proprietary prodrugs, one of which is a prodrug of a beta-adrenergic receptor inhibitor that is in GB-401. This patent family provides the basis for compound (new chemical entity), pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use of these prodrugs. The family includes one pending U.S. patent application, US 2020/0031783, and corresponding applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, and Russia. The expected year of expiration for these composition-of-matter patents, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2038, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

We own a sixth patent family that consists of an international application (WO 2021/237096) that describes microparticles and implants with high-drug loadings of GB-401, which we intend to file in the United States and other selected foreign countries on or before the deadline to do so.  The expected year of expiration for this patent family, if issued, valid and enforceable, is 2041, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of terms that may be available under U.S. or other national laws.

The four patent families that we solely own described above covering GB-102 also cover aggregating microparticles that encapsulate GB-401, pharmaceutical compositions of these aggregating microparticles, and methods of use. Therefore, we have six patent families that cover GB-401 as a compound and in an aggregating microparticle, and their uses and manufacture.

In addition, the first patent family exclusively licensed from JHU described above that describes polymeric microparticles has claims that cover GB-401, pharmaceutical compositions of these microparticles, and methods of use.

21

Patent filings that cover additional novel prodrugs, compositions, uses and manufacture

Patent filings solely owned by us

We also own several patent families that cover additional novel prodrugs, pharmaceutical compositions and methods of use in the area of ocular therapy. We may or may not develop these inventions to commercial products, and we have the possibility to license undeveloped technologies to other entities where advantageous to us.

The seventh patent family covers prodrug derivatives of ethacrynic acid, timolol, brinzolamide and pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of use for ocular disorders, including the lowering of intraocular pressure. The patent family includes one U.S. pending application (US 2020/0308162) and corresponding applications in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and Russia. The expected year of expiration for these composition-of-matter patents, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2038, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

The eighth patent family covers novel prodrugs of loop diuretics, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of use for ocular disorders, including the lowering of intraocular pressure. This family includes one U.S. application (US 2021-0040111). The expected year of expiration for this composition-of-matter patent, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2039, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

Our ninth patent family includes one U. S. application (US 2021/0214374) and one patent application filed in Taiwan that covers additional novel prodrugs of sunitinib, brinzolamide, and dorzolamide, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of use for ocular disorders. The expected year of expiration for these composition-of-matter patents, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2039, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

Patent filings exclusively licensed from JHU

We have exclusively licensed a fourth patent family from JHU that covers hydrophobic-hydrophilic copolymers of HIF-1 inhibitors, pharmaceutical compositions, and method of use for ocular therapeutics. This patent family includes two granted U.S. Patents (US 8,962,577 and US 9,950,072) and corresponding applications in Australia, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, Hong Kong and Japan. These applications have granted in Australia, Canada, China, Eurasia, Hong Kong, and Japan. The expected year of expiration for these composition-of-matter patents, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2033, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

We have in addition exclusively licensed a fifth patent family from JHU that covers hydrophobic-hydrophilic copolymers of non-HIF active agents for ocular therapy, pharmaceutical compositions, and method of use. The family includes two granted U.S. Patents (US 10,159,743 and US 10,933,144) and one pending U.S. application (US 2021/0177979) as well as corresponding granted patents in Australia, Canada, China, Eurasia, Europe, Hong Kong and two in Japan. The expected year of expiration for these composition-of-matter patents, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2033, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

Acquired patent families

We have acquired two patent families from a private company. These patent families cover new cyclic monophosphate (cGMP) compounds for the treatment of ocular disorders. The first family is currently pending in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Japan. The second family is currently pending in the United States, Europe, and Japan. The expected year of expiration for these patent applications, where issued, valid and enforceable, is 2037, without regard to any extensions, adjustments or restorations of term that may be available under national law.

License agreements

Johns Hopkins University

In June 2011, we entered into an Exclusive License Agreement with JHU, which has been amended from time to time, which we refer to as the JHU Agreement. Pursuant to the JHU Agreement, JHU granted us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license to three patent families to research, develop, make, use and sell products and provide services in any field, and a non-exclusive license to use specified know-how and materials with a provision that JHU will not grant a license to know how and materials to any other commercial entity. The JHU first patent family describes microparticles with a hydrophobic polymeric core (such as PLGA or PLA or a combination of both PLGA and PLA) and a hydrophilic coating (such as PLGA permanently linked to polyethylene glycol) to reduce inflammation for intraocular injections and their methods of use, which technology is incorporated into our GB-102 product candidate. The JHU licensed fourth and fifth patent families cover potential future technologies. See “Intellectual Property” above for additional description of the JHU patent families.

22

In September 2015, the JHU Agreement was amended to include the JHU second patent family which covers sunitinib-encapsulated polymeric microparticles, including GB-102, and their use as therapeutic compositions to treat disorders of the eye. Under the terms of the amended JHU Agreement, we paid a one-time, non-refundable upfront fee, with a remaining amount to be paid upon the occurrence of certain events. We also agreed to pay an additional one-time, non-refundable fee of $100,000 on the occurrence of the first commercial sale of a product falling under the claims of a patent in the second patent family.

In April 2016, the JHU Agreement was further amended to include a third patent family which discloses a method for reducing neuronal damage in the eye that includes administration of a sustained release formulation of a dual leucine kinase inhibitor in a polymeric particle, and wherein the dual leucine kinase inhibitor may be sunitinib, and thus is relevant to GB-102. Under the terms of the amended JHU Agreement, we paid a one-time, non-refundable upfront fee, and a milestone payment for the grant of the first patent. We also agreed to use our best efforts to develop a licensed product under the third patent family and enter into a Phase I clinical trial on or before April 2019, and to have cumulatively spent several million dollars on research and development within six years of execution of the amendment.

Upon execution of the JHU Agreement in 2011, we paid JHU an upfront license fee in the low tens of thousands of dollars and issued to JHU a low single digit percentage of our equity interests as of such date. We have also reimbursed JHU for the prosecution and maintenance costs incurred by JHU for the licensed patent rights prior to our entering into the JHU Agreement, and we are responsible for all of the ongoing costs relating to the prosecution and maintenance of the JHU patent rights licensed to us. We also agreed to pay minimum annual royalties in the tens of thousands of dollars per year until the first commercial sale of a licensed product or service.

The JHU Agreement further requires single digit running royalties on our annual net sales, which may be reduced by 50% of any payments we make to third parties for freedom to operate, up to a maximum credit of 50% of the running royalty rate otherwise due to JHU. Royalties must be paid on products that fall within a patent claim of an issued and unexpired patent or a pending patent application that has not been finally rejected or is pending for less than seven years. We also must pay developmental milestones for achieving certain clinical progression events, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousand dollars per event, which in the aggregate, total less than $2 million per product. Under the JHU Agreement, prior to the Kala Agreement renegotiation described below, we were responsible for paying each developmental milestone payment for the first three products to achieve such milestone, and milestones for the second and third products are reduced by 50%. We further agreed to pay a percentage of any sublicense consideration we receive. Once commercial, we expect ongoing royalties on sales to be in the low single digits.

The JHU Agreement will remain effective until (i) the later of the expiration date of the last-to-expire patents covered under the JHU Agreement or 20 years from the effective date; (ii) the termination by either party upon the bankruptcy or uncured breach of the other party or (iii) if we terminate the JHU Agreement, with a 90-day notification period. We may terminate the entire agreement or on a patent by patent basis if desired, subject to the 90-day notification period.

Kala Pharmaceuticals

A dispute arose between us, JHU and Kala, over rights licensed to us and Kala by JHU. In October 2014, we entered into a Settlement and License Agreement, or the Kala Agreement, with Kala and JHU, which settled all pending disputes and amended our and Kala’s existing license agreements with JHU and created new rights and obligations among the parties.

Under the Kala Agreement, each of Kala and us provided the other with a royalty-free, exclusive sublicense with respect to certain intellectual property rights granted by JHU in limited fields of use. Specifically, we provided Kala with an exclusive sublicense for the use of a particle with specific characteristics for delivery of a biologically active material through mucus, mucin or a mucosal barrier (provided that such delivery does not involve administration via injection to the eye), or the Kala Field of Use, and Kala provided us with an exclusive sublicense to the use of a particle with specific characteristics for delivery of a biologically active material to the eye via injection (excluding such use of any particle comprising or consisting of loteprednol etabonate). Kala also agreed not to use a particle with those specific characteristics that include sunitinib in the Kala Field of Use under the license from us or JHU. Neither we nor Kala owe JHU any payments under its existing JHU agreement with respect to the sublicenses granted to the other. Both we and Kala hold rights to sublicense our respective rights in connection with a future collaboration arrangement and subject to any such sublicensee being bound by the applicable terms of the Kala Agreement.

Under the Kala Agreement, JHU agreed to a number of financial concessions to both us and Kala. The payments under the existing JHU agreements were modified by reducing all milestones and minimum annual royalties by 25%, including the development milestone payments due for the first licensed product; the development milestone payments due for the first license product were each extended by one year; development milestone payments for the second and third licensed products were eliminated; and the commercial milestone payments for the first commercial sale of a licensed product were reduced by 50% in the United States. New sales-based milestones were added for the second and third licensed products. Upon the second licensed product under the JHU Agreement reaching a certain level of sales or receiving sublicense royalty income, we are required to pay $100,000 plus the amounts of the eliminated development

23

milestones and reduced first commercial sale milestone. For the third licensed product, on reaching the same level of sales or receiving sublicense royalty income, we are required to pay $150,000 plus the amounts of the eliminated development milestones and reduced first commercial sale milestone. In addition, we, Kala and JHU released each other from any liability or claims known to Kala and us as of the Kala Agreement and arising out of the actions leading to, and related to the subject of, the Kala Agreement.

The Kala Agreement will expire upon the expiration of all the patent rights that are the subject of the Kala Agreement. We may terminate one or more of the licenses or sublicenses granted to us in the Kala Agreement on a country-by-country basis for convenience upon 30 days’ prior written notice to Kala. We or Kala may terminate one or more the sublicenses granted to the other party under the JHU patent rights if the other party, or its employees, officers, directors, agents or representatives, takes certain steps to oppose, attempt to invalidate or prevent the issuance of any of the patent rights directly licensed to the terminating party by JHU.

AffaMed Therapeutics

In July 2019, we entered into a letter agreement with AffaMed Project Limited, or AffaMed, in connection with their purchase of our Series C preferred stock, which we refer to as the AffaMed Letter. Under the AffaMed Letter, we granted AffaMed a right of first negotiation, or the Option, to enter into a license agreement to exclusively develop, register and commercialize GB-102 solely in the territories of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and South Korea. The Option expired on July 31, 2021 and we have no further obligation to AffaMed to license rights to GB-102, and we no longer have any limits on our ability to develop, register and commercialize GB-102 in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau and South Korea.

Recent transactions

In December 2021, we entered into a cross-licensing agreement with a private company pursuant to which we acquired exclusive rights to several small molecules for use in the fields of ophthalmology and otology and by which we granted back exclusive rights to certain small molecules for use outside the fields of ophthalmology and otology.  Per the terms of the agreement, we are required to work diligently to develop one or more products, make milestone payments upon the achievement of certain clinical and regulatory milestones, and pay royalties upon commercial sales of products that we develop incorporating these molecules.

In March 2022, we acquired a private company in the United States with certain gene therapy technology and preclinical data.  The company was purchased for cash, and no further payments are required until FDA approval of a product based upon the acquired assets and the sale or utilization of any priority review voucher that may be granted in connection with such approval.

Government regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post-approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

FDA approval process

In the United States, pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and other federal and state statutes and regulations. The failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the U.S. typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to FDA of an IND, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long-term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is

24

submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans.

If FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin. Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to FDA as part of the IND.

FDA may order the temporary, or permanent, discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board, or IRB, for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence of effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a drug demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit FDA to evaluate the overall benefit-risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases, FDA requires two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial may be sufficient in rare instances, including (1) where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically very persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome, and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible or (2) when in conjunction with other confirmatory evidence.

The manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to disclose, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access to such investigational drug.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. Furthermore, under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, and the applicant under an approved NDA is also subject to an annual program fee for each prescription product. These fees are typically increased annually.

FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be filed based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is filed, FDA begins an in-depth review. Under PDUFA, FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs to encourage timeliness. NDAs for most standard review drug products are reviewed within twelve months from submission of NDAs for new molecular entities, or NMEs, and within ten months from submission of NDAs for non-NMEs. Priority review can be applied to drugs that FDA determines offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. NDAs for most priority review drug products are reviewed within eight months from submission of NDAs for NMEs and within six months from submission of NDAs for non-NMEs. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an outside 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. FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Before approving an NDA, FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. FDA will not approve the product unless compliance

25

with current good manufacturing practices is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for FDA to reconsider the application. The applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, FDA will issue an approval letter. FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

Disclosure of clinical trial information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Pediatric information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs or supplements to NDAs must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. With certain exceptions, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides NDA holders a six-month extension of any exclusivity—patent or nonpatent—for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Post-approval requirements

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post-approval requirements, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, providing the FDA with updated safety information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and promotion and advertising requirements. For instance, FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs may be marketed or promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of an NDA. FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality control, drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to conform to current good manufacturing practices after approval. Drug

26

manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by FDA, during which the Agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with current good manufacturing practices. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality-control to maintain compliance with current good manufacturing practices. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals, request product recalls or take other administrative or judicial enforcement actions if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing, or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Orange Book listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent whose claims cover the applicant’s product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be referenced by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown through bioequivalence testing to be therapeutically equivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug pursuant to each state’s laws on drug substitution.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA label does not contain (or carve out) any language regarding the patented method-of-use rather than certify to a listed method-of-use patent. A recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, held that a generic manufacturer launching a product with a patented method-of-use carve out may, nonetheless, still be liable for patent infringement by inducement based on certain information in the label and external information such as press releases and product catalogues. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 7 F.4th 1320 ‎‎(Fed. Cir. 2021) reh’g denied, en banc, Glaxosmithkline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 3812 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 11, 2022).  

If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non-patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.

Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which FDA may not receive any ANDA seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, can be the subject of a three-year period of exclusivity if the application contains reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) conducted or sponsored by the sponsor that were essential to approval of the application. FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes the change during the period of exclusivity.

Patent term extension

27

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase (the time between IND application and NDA submission) and all of the review phase (the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years). The time can be shortened if FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue development or approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years, and only one patent can be extended. For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted.

Hatch-Waxman patent certification and the 30-month stay

Upon approval of an NDA or a supplement thereto, NDA sponsors are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s product or an approved method of using the product. Each of the patents listed by the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired (other than method of use patents involving indications for which the applicant is not seeking approval).

If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. As a result, approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

NDAs for most new drug products are based on two full clinical studies which must contain substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy of the proposed new product for the proposed use. These applications are submitted under Section 505(b)(1) of the FDCA. The FDA is, however, authorized to approve an alternative type of NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. This type of application enables the applicant in certain circumstances to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings in approving a similar product or published literature in support of its application. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA may provide an alternate path to FDA approval for a new or improved formulation, a new route of administration or a new use of a previously approved product.

Specifically, Section 505(b)(2) applies to NDAs for a drug for which the investigations made to show whether or not the drug is safe for use and effective in use and relied upon by the applicant for approval of the application “were not conducted by or for the

28

applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted.” If the Section 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and/or effectiveness is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Thus, Section 505(b)(2) authorizes the FDA to approve an NDA based on safety and effectiveness data that were not developed by the applicant. NDAs filed under Section 505(b)(2) may provide an alternate and potentially more expeditious pathway to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, the applicant may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new drug candidate for all or some of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on the FDA’s prior findings of safety or effectiveness for an already approved product, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would. Thus, approval of a Section 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non-patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Other U.S. healthcare laws and compliance requirements

In the United States, pharmaceutical company activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs may have to comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the federal false claims laws, the privacy and security provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, and similar state laws, each as amended.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, recommending or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and/or formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor.

Additionally, the intent standard under the Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below).

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, 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.

Federal false claims laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for

29

money or property presented to the U.S. government. In addition, manufacturers can be held liable under the civil False Claims Act even when they do not submit claims directly to government payors if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims. Pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for, among other things, allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus generally non-reimbursable, uses and purportedly concealing price concessions in the pricing information submitted to the government for government priced reporting purposes.

HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit 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 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. Similar to the 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.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

Data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which business is conducted may also be applicable. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes requirements on certain types of people and entities relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA requires covered entities to limit the use and transmission of individually identifiable health information. HIPAA requires covered entities to limit the use and disclosure of protected health information to specifically authorized situations and requires covered entities to implement security measures to protect health information that they maintain in electronic form. Among other things, HITECH made HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to 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 attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Additionally, the federal Physician Payments 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 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, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. The reported information is made publicly available on a searchable website.  Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties.

Commercial distribution of products requires compliance with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug 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. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. 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. Sales and marketing activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

Violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations may result in penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, refusal to enter into government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings.

30

Pharmaceutical insurance coverage and health care reform

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

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable marketing approvals. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician utilization once the product is approved and have a material adverse effect on sales, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage and reimbursement for the product, and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor.

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

Healthcare reforms that have been adopted, and that may be adopted in the future, could result in further reductions in coverage and levels of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products, increases in rebates payable under U.S. government rebate programs and additional downward pressure on pharmaceutical product prices. On September 9, 2021, the Biden administration published a wide-ranging list of policy proposals, most of which would need to be carried out by Congress, to reduce drug prices and drug payment. The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, plan includes, among other reform measures, proposals to lower prescription drug prices, including by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices and disincentivizing price increases, and to support market changes that strengthen supply chains, promote biosimilars and generic drugs, and increase price transparency. Many similar proposals, including the plans to give Medicare Part D authority to negotiate drug prices, require drug manufacturers to pay rebates on drugs whose prices increase greater than the rate of inflation, and cap out-of-pocket costs, have already been included in policy statements and legislation currently being considered by Congress. It is unclear to what extent these and other statutory, regulatory, and administrative initiatives will be enacted and implemented.

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

There have been executive, legislative and judicial efforts to modify, repeal, replace, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain aspects, of the ACA.  For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 included, among other things, a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.”  In June 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge constitutionality of the individual mandate. It is unclear whether there may be other efforts to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA.   Further, prior to the Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021 and closed on August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. We are continuing to monitor any changes to the ACA that, in turn, may potentially impact our business in the future. We cannot predict the ultimate content, timing or effect of any healthcare reform legislation or other healthcare measures on our business.

31

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Medicare reductions phase back in starting with a 1% reduction in effect from April 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022 before increasing to the full 2% reduction.  Moreover, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, 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.

Recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, reduce the costs of drugs under Medicare, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. By way of example, in December 2020, CMS issued a final rule implementing significant manufacturer price reporting changes under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including regulations that affect manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs subject to pharmacy benefit manager accumulator programs and Best Price reporting related to certain value-based purchasing arrangements. On September 9, 2021, the Biden Administration published a wide-ranging list of policy proposals, most of which would need to be carried out by Congress, to reduce drug prices and drug payment. The HHS plan includes, among other reform measures, proposals to (1) give Medicare authority to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, (2) authorize HHS to negotiate Medicaid supplemental rebates on behalf of states, (3) allow employer-based, ACA marketplace and commercial health insurance plans to access Medicare negotiated drug prices, (4) place a cap on out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D beneficiaries and redistribute a higher proportion of drug costs to Part D and manufacturers, (5) mandate purchase of the least costly-alternative and to institute value-based or outcomes-based pricing arrangements, (6) disincentivize drug price increases, (8) facilitate approval and prescription of biosimilar and generic drugs, (9) increase drug pricing transparency, (10) prohibit certain types of rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, and (11) develop drug pricing models by tying price to outcomes. Many similar proposals, including the plans to give Medicare authority to negotiate drug prices and cap out-of-pocket costs, have already been included in policy statements and legislation currently being considered by Congress. It is unclear to what extent new statutory, regulatory, and administrative initiatives will be enacted and implemented. Additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will likely be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for such product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Finally, in the European Union, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the European Union or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the European Union, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of healthcare and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most European Union member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing European Union and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and the European Union, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2021, we had 27 full time employees, all in the United States, 7 of whom have an M.D. or Ph.D. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by collective bargaining agreements, and we believe our relationship with our employees is good.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing and integrating our existing and additional employees. The principal purposes of our equity incentive and cash-based performance bonus plans are to attract, retain and motivate selected employees, consultants and directors through the granting of stock-based compensation awards.  

Properties and facilities

Our principal executive office is located Redwood City, California, and consists of 2,560 square feet of office space under a lease which expires in August 2022. We use this facility for operations and administrative purposes. We also have a facility located in Baltimore, Maryland, which consists of 15,649 square feet of office and laboratory space under a lease which expires in June 2023. We

32

use the Maryland facility for our internal research and development activities. We believe that our facilities are adequate to meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

Legal proceedings

From time to time, we may be involved in legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of our business. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of management, would have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us due to defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, negative publicity and reputational harm, and other factors.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in May 2011 and our principal executive office is located in Redwood City, California. Our website is www.graybug.vision. We are subject to the informational requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and file or furnish reports, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to reports filed pursuant to Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. We make copies of these reports and other information available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file or furnish them with the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at www.sec.gov. The information contained on the websites referenced in this Annual Report is not incorporated by reference into this filing, and the website addresses are provided only as inactive textual references.

33

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

RISK FACTORS

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. 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 our financial statements and the related notes and the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding to invest in our common stock. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that affect us. We cannot assure you that any of the events discussed below will not occur. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition could suffer materially. Additionally, to the extent the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and financial results, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks incorporated by reference or set forth below. In such event, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you might lose all or part of your investment.

Summary of Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock involves various risks, and prospective investors are urged to carefully consider the matters discussed in the section titled “Risk Factors” prior to making an investment in our common stock. These risks include, but are not limited to, the following:

34

35

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need For Additional Capital

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company no products approved. We have incurred significant losses since inception, and we expect to incur continued and increasing losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net loss was $35.8 million and $27.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $169.2 million and $133.4 million, respectively. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through private placements of convertible preferred stock and convertible promissory notes and the issuance of common stock upon our initial public offering, or IPO. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials and general and administrative costs to support such efforts. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance.

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

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

We have no product sales. We do not expect sales of any product candidate for several years. For us to become profitable, we will need to succeed in developing and commercializing products. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including:

36

We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenue that is sufficient or great enough to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would reduce the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

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

We expect to devote substantial financial resources to our ongoing and planned activities, particularly as we conduct pre-clinical studies or clinical trials for our wet AMD product candidates, preclinical studies and clinical trials for our other product candidates, and seek marketing approval for any such product candidate for which we obtain favorable clinical results. We also expect to devote significant financial resources to conducting research and development and potentially seeking regulatory approval for our other product candidates. In addition, we plan to devote substantial financial resources to our commercialization efforts, including product manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution for any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing and planned operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $63.7 million, which we believe is sufficient to fund our operations as currently planned beyond the next 12 months. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval of products with the market potential sufficient to enable us to achieve profitability. We do not expect to generate sales of any commercial product for several years, if at all. Accordingly, we may need to obtain substantial additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. 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.

37

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

We are an early-stage company. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring rights to intellectual property, business planning, raising capital, developing our technology, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials and manufacturing initial quantities of our products and product candidates. Consequently, any predictions you make about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

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

We expect our financial condition and operating results to continue to fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual period as an indication of future operating performance.

Risks Related to Product Development, Regulatory Approval and Commercialization

Our approach to the treatment of retinal diseases is unproven, and we do not know whether we will be able to successfully develop any products.

GB-102 is designed to deliver therapeutic drug levels to the retinal tissue for up to six months from a single intravitreal injection. There are currently no FDA-approved therapies that treat retinal diseases with a six-month dosing regimen. Our future success depends on the successful development of product candidates, including GB-102, based on this novel therapeutic approach. We have not yet demonstrated efficacy and safety for GB-102 or any other product candidates in a pivotal trial or obtained marketing approval of any product candidate. GB-102 may not demonstrate in patients any or all of the pharmacological benefits we believe it may possess. If we are unsuccessful in our development efforts, we may not be able to advance the development of GB-102 or any other product candidate, commercialize products, raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.

We will require a partner to fund, in whole or in part, further clinical trials of GB-102 for wet AMD. Without such a partnership, further clinical development of GB-102 for wet AMD is uncertain.

Although we plan to continue to prioritize investing in preclinical development of GB-102 for wet AMD, we do not have sufficient cash resources to complete additional clinical trials for both GB-102 and GB-401 at this time. We intend to pursue a partnership in which we license the commercial rights to GB-102 in one or more territories in exchange for funding of further clinical trials. Such partnerships generally require substantial amounts of time to secure, and often involve economic returns for the licensor that are significantly reduced from that attainable by developing and commercializing the product without a partner. Moreover, while we are actively seeking such a partnership, there can be no guarantee that we will secure one in a timely fashion, or on reasonable economic terms, if at all. Failing to secure such a partnership could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We depend heavily on the success of our wet AMD product candidates, in particular GB-102. Clinical trials of our product candidates may not be successful. If we are unable to successfully complete clinical development of, and obtain marketing approvals for, our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, or if after obtaining marketing approvals, we fail to commercialize these product candidates, our business will be materially harmed.

We have devoted a significant portion of our financial resources and business efforts to the development of our product candidates for diseases and conditions of the eye. In particular, we are investing substantial resources to complete the development of GB-102 for wet AMD. We cannot accurately predict when or if any of our retinal disease product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or whether these product candidates will receive marketing approval. Our ability to generate product revenues sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on our obtaining marketing approval for and commercializing GB-102.

The success of GB-102 and other product candidates will depend on many factors, including:

38

If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

We have not yet initiated or completed any Phase 3 clinical trials nor commercialized any pharmaceutical products, which may make it difficult to evaluate our future prospects.

Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, developing our technology and conducting preclinical research and Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials for our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to initiate or complete Phase 3 clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Accordingly, you should consider our prospects in light of the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties frequently encountered by clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies such as ours. Any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will eventually need to transition from a company with a development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

If clinical trials of GB-102 or any other product candidate that we develop fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities or do not otherwise produce favorable results, we may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be delayed or unable to complete, the development and commercialization of such product candidate.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, including GB-102, we must complete preclinical development and then conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing.

We designed our Phase 1/2a, Phase 2a and Phase 2b clinical trials of GB-102 to assess safety and preliminary efficacy and did not power the trials to measure any efficacy endpoints with statistical significance. We expect that our Phase 3 clinical trials for GB-102 for the treatment of wet AMD will be the first clinical trial for GB-102 to be powered with an appropriate number of patients to allow us to measure with statistical significance the non-inferiority of GB-102 compared to the standard of care. As a result, favorable results from our Phase 1/2a, Phase 2a, and potential future clinical trials may not necessarily predict a likelihood of achieving statistical significance on our primary efficacy endpoint in the Phase 3 clinical trials, which will be required for us to obtain marketing approval of GB-102. Historically, the FDA has required that Phase 3 clinical trials in wet AMD use some measure of patient visual performance as the primary endpoint to evaluate efficacy, most often Best Corrected Visual Acuity, or BCVA. Although it was not powered to statistically determine efficacy, our Phase 2b clinical trial of GB-102 showed that, on average across all time points, patients on the 1 mg dose of GB-102 were assessed to have a mean BCVA across all time points of approximately 9 letters lower than that observed in the trial control arm, in which patients received bi-monthly injections of Eylea. If such a difference were to be repeated in a Phase 3 clinical trial

39

of GB-102, it is unlikely that the FDA would approve the product based on a claim of non-inferiority to Eylea. Additionally, our clinical trials to date have only evaluated GB-102 against treatment with Eylea, and there may be current or future products that deliver better results in terms of safety and/or efficacy.

The success of our product candidates is dependent upon the drug-elution profile during the course of intended therapy. Our Phase 1/2a and our Phase 2a trials have been open label and have not been compared to any active treatments. The treatment phase of our Phase 2b trial with GB-102 in wet AMD included a control arm with Eylea, which is the current standard of care. Compared to Eylea, GB-102 1 mg demonstrated median durability of 5 months and improved safety profile. Compared to Eylea, we observed non-statistical similar control of Central Subfield Thickness, or CST, of the retina, and lower average BCVA across all time points. In March 2020, we terminated the development of the 2 mg dose of GB-102 in all of our clinical trial programs, including the arm of our Phase 2b trial, so the results of that arm have been disregarded. If we determine to make any future changes to the formulation, such changes could affect the outcome of any subsequent clinical trials. As a result of any of these therapeutic or formulation changes, the outcome of our potential future or Phase 3 clinical trials may differ from the outcome of our Phase 1/2a and Phase 2b clinical trials. If the BCVA results of clinical trials with any potential new therapeutic or product formulation, including therapies that do not involve intravitreal delivery, are similar to the results from the Phase 2b trial, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals or, even if approved, achieve market acceptance of our product candidates.

The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later-stage clinical trials.

Successful results in preclinical or early clinical trials do not ensure that later-stage clinical trials will be successful. In January 2019, we completed our Phase 1/2a trial of GB-102 evaluating various doses of GB-102 in patients with wet AMD. Although the data indicated that GB-102 was well-tolerated and reduced the need for supportive anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, or anti-VEGF, treatments, these results may not be indicative of future clinical trials with different designs. For example, 88% of patients in our Phase 1/2a trial of GB-102 1 mg did not require additional supportive therapy for six months or longer, while only 48% of patients in our Phase 2b ALTISSIMO trial of GB-102 1 mg achieved six months without requiring additional supportive therapy. Moreover, as is common for early trials, in our Phase 1/2a trial, we looked at a number of efficacy measures without accounting for multiplicity. Accordingly, it is possible that positive results, including nominally statistically significant results, observed in our Phase 1/2a trial will not be replicated in our future trials with a different design or in other future trials.

Subsequently, we tested two doses of an optimized formulation of GB-102 in a Phase 2a clinical trial in patients with macular edema, or ME, secondary to either DME or branch/central retinal vein occlusion, or RVO, as well as in the completed Phase 2b clinical trial in wet AMD. In the Phase 2a trial, we observed that there were more incidences of medication present in the anterior chamber with the 2 mg dose of GB-102, which, in a single patient, resulted in two serious adverse events, or SAEs (severe vision loss due to presence of medication in anterior chamber and corneal edema as a result of wash-out of the anterior chamber). As a result, we paused enrollment in our Phase 2b wet AMD trial until an interim safety analysis of both trials could be performed. On the basis of the results of this safety analysis, we terminated the development of the 2 mg dose of GB-102 in all of our clinical trial programs and have disregarded the results, other than those related to safety, of the GB-102 2 mg arm of the ALTISSIMO Phase 2b trial.

Some of our clinical trials, including our Phase 1/2a clinical trial and our completed Phase 2b clinical trial of GB-102 for the treatment of wet AMD, had small patient populations, making it difficult to predict whether the favorable results from such trials will be repeatable in larger, more advanced clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

Even if the results of future Phase 3 clinical trials are positive, we may have to commit substantial time and additional resources to conducting further preclinical studies and clinical trials before obtaining FDA approval for any of our drug candidates.

If serious adverse or unacceptable side effects are identified during the development of GB-102 or any other product candidates that we may develop, we may need to abandon or limit our development of such product candidates.

If GB-102 or any of our other product candidates are associated with SAEs or other undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the SAEs, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective.

40

Out of 32 patients enrolled in our Phase 1/2a trial, no GB-102 related non-ocular adverse events, or AEs, and no SAEs or dose limiting toxicities were reported. All drug-related AEs were mild or moderate and transient and resolved by the end of the trial. The most common AE observed in more than one patient was vitreous floaters (n=5). Most vitreous floaters are caused by age-related changes that occur as the vitreous becomes more liquid.

Microscopic fibers in the vitreous tend to clump and can cast tiny shadows on the retina, commonly referred to as floaters. Intravitreal injections can increase the number of floaters, and any other particle that similarly casts a shadow may also be referred to as a floater. For nine patients enrolled in the higher dose cohorts, medication presence was observed in the anterior chamber. All nine of those patients completed the trial. Overall, the medication presence in the anterior chamber appeared to be self-limited and reversible, with no long-term consequences.

In our Phase 2a clinical trial, there were no drug-related, non-ocular AEs. The patients in the 1 mg dose experienced nine drug related AEs, and seven out of ten patients demonstrated no AEs. One patient had only vitreous floaters, medication present in the vitreous, and one patient had vitreous floaters coincident with a reduction in vision. The other AEs occurred in a single patient with medication present in the anterior chamber. The 2 mg dose was associated with medication present in the anterior chamber in five out of 11 patients. The majority of AEs occurred in one patient. Two SAEs were reported in a single patient (severe vision loss due to presence of medication in the anterior chamber and corneal edema as a result of wash-out of the anterior chamber).

Our Phase 2b clinical trial of GB-102 was designed to test two different doses: 1 mg and 2 mg.  We conducted an interim safety analysis in the trial and found that the presence of medication in the anterior chamber was reported in four patients in the GB-102 2 mg dose group and one patient in the 1 mg dose group. On the basis of these data, we terminated the development of the 2 mg dose of GB-102 in all of our clinical trial programs. We believe that the number of microparticles injected in the 2 mg dose (approximately 2 million) were too numerous to allow adequate aggregation. All patients in the Phase 2b trial having received GB-102 at either the 1 mg or 2 mg doses for the first six-month period of the trial received the 1 mg dose as repeat therapy at month six.

In the 12-month treatment phase of our Phase 2b clinical trial, there were no drug-related, non-ocular AEs in the GB-102 1 mg arm, nor were there any drug-related SAEs nor dose-limiting toxicity. No treatment-emergent adverse events led to drug discontinuation and none of the adverse events required surgical intervention. Nine out of the 21 patients in the 1 mg dose experienced 23 events of drug related AEs. Five patients had vitreous floaters attributable to GB-102 1 mg and, in the majority of patients, these had no or minimal transient effect on visual acuity. Medication was detected in the anterior chamber, or AC, in three out of 21 patients. In one patient, the presence of particles in the AC was transient with no other associated adverse events. In two patients, the presence of GB-102 microparticles in the AC was associated with transient inflammation and there was an associated moderate BCVA loss in one of these patients. An additional three patients had intraocular inflammation that was mild to moderate, responded well to short courses of treatment with corticosteroids, and was not associated with any change in BCVA. One patient had dispersion of GB-102 microparticles in the vitreous cavity that were not characterized as floaters but was associated with a decrease in visual acuity.

In the six-month, post treatment observational phase of our Phase 2b clinical trial, no drug-related adverse events or vision-threatening inflammation were reported. One patient on GB-102 1 mg developed a cataract, which was evaluated to be unrelated to GB-102 treatment.

There are potential side effects that are related to intravitreal injection procedures. These side effects are shared by any treatment that uses intravitreal injection as a means of delivering medication. These can include conjunctival hemorrhage, punctate keratitis, eye pain, conjunctival hyperemia, intraocular pressure rise, intraocular inflammation, retinal detachment and endophthalmitis.

Finally, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. However, with a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure, rare and severe side effects of our product candidates may only be uncovered when a significantly larger number of patients are exposed to the product. If safety problems occur or are identified after one of our products reaches the market, the FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may require that we amend the labeling of our product, recall our product or even withdraw approval for our product.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may, directly or indirectly, adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business could be materially adversely affected, directly or indirectly, by the widespread outbreak of contagious disease, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has spread to many of the countries in which we and our suppliers do business. National, state, and local governments in affected regions have implemented and may continue to implement safety precautions, including quarantines, border closures, increased border controls, travel restrictions, shelter in place orders and shutdowns, business closures, cancellations of public gatherings and other measures. Organizations, businesses and individuals are taking additional steps to avoid or reduce infection, including business and facility closures or suspensions, limitations on travel and remote working measures. These measures are disrupting normal business operations both in and outside of affected areas and have had significant negative impacts

41

on businesses and financial markets worldwide. As new variants of the coronavirus emerge, or if the rates of infections increase, these measures and associated disruptions could intensify in both scope and adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused us to modify our business practices (including but not limited to curtailing or modifying employee travel, moving to full remote work for many employees, and cancelling physical participation in meetings, events and conferences) and we may take further actions as may be required by government authorities or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees, patients and business partners. The majority of our office-based employees have been working from home since March 2020, while we ensure essential staffing levels in our physical operations remain in place, including maintaining key personnel in our laboratories. Further, given that a greater number of our employees are working remotely than usual in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and related government actions, we could be exposed to greater risks related to cybersecurity and our information technologies systems.

Notwithstanding these measures, the COVID-19 pandemic could affect the health and availability of our workforce as well as those of the third parties we rely on taking similar measures. If members of our management and other key personnel in critical functions across our organization are unable to perform their duties or have limited availability due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we may not be able to execute on our business strategy and/or our operations may be negatively impacted. We may also experience limitations in employee resources, including because of sickness of employees or their families or the desire of employees to avoid contact with individuals or large groups of people. In addition, we have experienced and will continue to experience disruptions to our business operations resulting from quarantines, self-isolations and other restrictions on the ability of our employees to perform their jobs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted business operations. The extent and severity of the impact on our business and clinical trials will be determined largely by the extent of future disruptions in the supply chains for GB-102 and our future product candidates and delays in the conduct of current and future clinical trials. Further, our ability to conduct our future clinical trials may be adversely affected, directly or indirectly, by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been known to cause disruptions in the ability to monitor patients in person due to clinics and hospitals closing sites or diverting the resources that are necessary to conduct clinical trials to care for COVID-19 patients. Further, our suppliers, vendors and manufacturing and clinical trial partners have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including by adversely impacting the ability of their employees to get to their places of work and maintain the continuity of their on-site operations. COVID-19 could potentially lead to the closure of our research lab and potentially delay IND-enabling activities, which could delay the start of clinical trials. In addition, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the operations of the FDA and other health authorities may delay potential approvals of GB-102 and our future product candidates.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also impacted and may further impact the global economic and capital markets, including by negatively impacting capital markets, which may adversely affect our business, liquidity and access to capital. It is further possible that the COVID-19 pandemic will cause another economic slowdown of potentially extended duration.

While it is not possible at this time to estimate the entirety of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic will have on our business, operations, employees, customers or suppliers, continued spread of COVID-19, measures taken by governments, actions taken to protect employees and the broad impact of the pandemic on all business activities may materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, and the nature and extent of such impact is highly uncertain and unpredictable.

If we experience any of a number of possible unforeseen events in connection with our clinical trials, potential marketing approval or commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed or prevented.

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

42

If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not favorable or are only modestly favorable or if there are safety concerns, we may:

Our product development costs will also increase if we experience delays in testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be restructured or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant preclinical or clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do and impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

If we experience delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials, our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals could be delayed or prevented.

We may not be able to initiate clinical trials for our wet AMD, DME, diabetic retinopathy, or DR, or glaucoma product candidates or our other product candidates that we may develop if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA, the EMA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Although there is a significant prevalence of disease in the areas of ophthalmology in which we are focused, we may nonetheless experience unanticipated difficulty with patient enrollment.

A variety of factors affect patient enrollment, including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Enrollment

43

delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

We may not be successful in our efforts to develop product candidates based on our proprietary technology other than GB-102 or expand the use of our proprietary technology for treating additional eye diseases and conditions.

We are currently directing all of our development efforts towards applying our proprietary technology to product candidates that are designed to provide sustained delivery of therapeutic agents to the eye using active pharmaceutical ingredients that are currently used in FDA-approved drugs. We have a number of product candidates at various stages of development and are exploring the potential use of our proprietary technologies in other eye diseases and conditions. Our existing product candidates and any other potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for continued preclinical or clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates that we develop based upon our technological approach, we will not be able to obtain substantial product revenues in future periods.

Sunitinib, the active ingredient of GB-102, has a boxed warning regarding hepatotoxicity for its use in oncology indications.

Sunitinib, which was originally developed for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumors, has been shown to cause liver damage, or hepatotoxicity, in some patients. As a result, in 2010, the prescribing information for orally administered sunitinib for its use in treating renal cell carcinoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumors was revised to include a boxed warning regarding hepatotoxicity. A boxed warning is a warning put in the labeling of a drug product that is designed to call attention to serious or life-threatening risks.

There is no approved therapy for retinal diseases using sunitinib. We have not seen any evidence of hepatotoxicity in our preclinical studies or clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical toxicity studies and the results of our Phase 1/2a and Phase 2b clinical trials with GB-102 have not detected the presence of sunitinib in the systemic blood circulation at any time point. However, the boxed warning for orally administered sunitinib may make it more difficult for us to achieve widespread market acceptance or regulatory approval for our product candidates.

Moreover, there can be no assurance that comparable AEs and other side effects will not appear over the course of our trials, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

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

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

We intend to conduct, and may in the future conduct, clinical trials for product candidates at sites outside of the United States, and the FDA may not accept data from trials conducted in such locations.

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

44

Other risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include:

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of computer system failures or security breaches.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, store and transmit confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information, health information and personal information. Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, and those of our contract research organizations, or CROs, and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, cyberattacks, natural disasters, fire, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Cyberattacks are increasing in their frequency, sophistication and intensity. Cyberattacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of information. Significant disruptions of our information technology systems or security breaches could adversely affect our business operations and/or result in the loss, misappropriation, and/or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information (including trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information), and could result in financial, legal, business and reputational harm to us. If such disruptions were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or planned clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Further, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant number of our employees and partners working remotely, which increases the risk of a data breach or issues with data and cybersecurity. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our future product candidates could be delayed. In addition, our remediation efforts may not be successful. If we do not allocate and effectively manage the resources necessary to build and sustain the proper technology and cybersecurity infrastructure, we could suffer significant business disruption, including transaction errors, supply chain or manufacturing interruptions, processing inefficiencies, data loss or the loss of or damage to intellectual property or other proprietary information.

Moreover, if a computer security breach affects our systems or results in the unauthorized access, use or disclosure of personal information, our reputation could be materially damaged. In addition, such a breach may require notification to governmental agencies, the media and/or affected individuals pursuant to various federal, state and international privacy and security laws, if applicable, including HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and its implementing rules and regulations, as well as regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission and state breach notification laws. We would also be exposed to a risk of loss or litigation and potential liability under laws, regulations and contracts that protect the privacy and security of personal information. As described below in “We are subject to stringent and changing privacy laws, regulations and standards as well as contractual obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could harm our reputation, subject us to significant fines and liability, or otherwise adversely affect our business or prospects,” the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, provides a private right of action for security breaches, which could lead to some form of remedy including regulatory scrutiny, fines, private right of action settlements, and other consequences. The financial exposure from the events referenced above could either not be insured against or not be fully covered through any insurance that we may maintain, and there can be no assurance that the limitations of liability in any of our contracts would be enforceable or adequate or would otherwise protect us from liabilities or damages as a result of the events referenced above. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to Manufacturing

We could potentially contract with third parties for the production of our product candidates. This could increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We currently rely on third parties for the production of GB-102 and our product candidates for preclinical testing and clinical trials, including supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient drug substance, sunitinib, as well as polymers used in the formulations, such as poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), or PLGA, injection devices, and other raw materials and for sterilization of the finished product. We intend to build our own manufacturing capabilities for our drug formulations, but could also decide to keep contracting with third parties

45

if it is more advantageous. While we believe that our existing manufacturing partners have facilities that will be sufficient to meet our requirements for manufacturing GB-102 and any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, we may in the future need to rely on additional contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for some aspects of the manufacture of our product candidates.

Reliance on third parties for aspects of the supply of our product candidates entails additional risks, including:

We, or our third-party suppliers or CMOs, may not be able to comply with quality assurance standards, current good manufacturing practices regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. If we or our CMOs cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA and comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, if the quality and accuracy of the manufacturing and quality control data is compromised due to failure to adhere to protocols or to regulatory requirements or if we or our CMOs fail to maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, we may not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for our product candidates. In addition, we or our CMOs must maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If we or our CMOs cannot maintain a compliance status acceptable to the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority in another jurisdiction, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved.

Any failure to achieve and maintain compliance with these laws, regulations and standards could subject us to the risk that we may have to suspend the manufacturing of our product candidates and that obtained approvals could be revoked, which would adversely affect our business and reputation. Our failure, or the failure of our suppliers or CMOs, 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, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products and product candidates. The same risks, however, would also apply to any internal manufacturing facilities, should we in the future decide to build internal manufacturing capacity.

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

The manufacture of our product development candidates requires outsourced, custom manufacturing and we may encounter difficulties in production, particularly with respect to formulation, process development or scaling up of our manufacturing capabilities. If we, or our CMOs, encounter such difficulties, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for preclinical studies, clinical trials or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped, or we may be unable to maintain a commercially viable cost structure.

As product candidates are developed, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. For example, due to adverse events related to presence of medication in the anterior chamber observed in some patients in the Phase 1/2a trial for GB-102, changes were made to the manufacturing process for GB-102. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned preclinical studies or future clinical trials.

For our recently completed Phase 2b trial, GB-102 was manufactured by Lubrizol Life Science Health. We will need to obtain future supplies of GB-102 from our own manufacturing or from third-party manufacturers that we have engaged, or expect to engage. Although we are working to develop commercially viable manufacturing processes, doing so is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for advanced clinical trials or commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale up, formulation or formulation changes, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. Any of these challenges could delay completion of preclinical studies or clinical trials, require bridging studies or trials, or the repetition of one or more studies or trials, increase development costs, delay approval of our product candidates, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

46

We have no experience manufacturing any of our product candidates at a commercial scale. We, or our CMOs, may be unable to successfully scale up manufacturing of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, which would delay or prevent us from developing our product candidates and commercializing approved products, if any.

In order to conduct clinical trials of, and commercialize, our product candidates, we will need to manufacture them in large quantities. We may, in the future, establish and operate our own manufacturing facility, which will require significant amounts of additional capital and adequate personnel infrastructure. We, or any manufacturing partners, may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we, or any manufacturing partners, are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of that product candidate may be delayed or infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing, including changes introduced by building our own manufacturing capabilities, may result in additional costs or delay.

We currently rely on third parties for the production of GB-102 and our product candidates for preclinical testing and clinical trials, including supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient drug substance, sunitinib, as well as polymers used in the formulations, such as PLGA, injection devices, other raw materials, and for the sterilization of the finished product. We intend to build our own manufacturing capabilities, and it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, may be altered in an effort to optimize yield, manufacturing batch size, minimize costs and achieve consistent quality and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenue.

Our current operations are in two locations, and we or the third parties upon whom we depend, may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Our current operations are located in Baltimore, Maryland and Redwood City, California, and our planned clinical trials will be conducted at a limited number of other sites. Any unplanned event, such as earthquake, flood, fire, explosion, extreme weather condition, medical epidemic or pandemic, including COVID-19, power shortage, telecommunication failure or other natural or manmade accidents or incidents that result in us being unable to fully utilize our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our CMOs, may have a material and adverse effect on our ability to operate our business, particularly on a daily basis, and have significant negative consequences on our financial and operating conditions. Loss of access to these facilities may result in increased costs, delays in the development of our product candidates or interruption of our business operations. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could further disrupt our operations and have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our research or manufacturing facilities or the manufacturing facilities of our CMOs, or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place may prove inadequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, the long-term effects of climate change on a general economic conditions and the pharmaceutical industry in particular are unclear, and may heighten or intensify existing risk of natural disasters. As part of our risk management policy, we maintain insurance coverage at levels that we believe are appropriate for our business. However, in the event of an accident or incident at these facilities, we cannot assure you that the amounts of insurance will be sufficient to satisfy any damages and losses. If our facilities, or the manufacturing facilities of our CMOs, are unable to operate because of an accident or incident or for any other reason, even for a short period of time, any or all of our research and development programs may be harmed. Any business interruption could have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Risks Related to Commercialization

Our products may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, and the market opportunity for these products may be smaller than we estimate.

GB-102 or any of our product candidates that receives marketing approval may fail to gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. We have not received marketing approval and have not commercially launched GB-102 or any of our product candidates and cannot yet accurately predict whether it or they will gain market acceptance and become commercially successful.

47

The degree of market acceptance of GB-102 or any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval will depend on a number of factors, including:

For example, even though we believe that GB-102 will have a longer duration of effect compared to approved treatments for wet AMD, it is possible that the market acceptance of GB-102, if it is approved for marketing, could be less than anticipated.

Our assessment of the potential market opportunity for GB-102 and our other product candidates is based on industry and market data that we obtained from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties. Industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies generally indicate that their information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. While we believe these industry publications and third-party research, surveys and studies are reliable, we have not independently verified such data. If the actual market for GB-102 or any of our product candidates is smaller than we expect, our product revenue may be limited, and it may be more difficult for us to achieve or maintain profitability.

If we are unable to secure a partner that can establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing any of our product candidates if and when they are approved.  If we are unable to establish and maintain our own adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing our other product candidates if and when they are approved.

We have no experience in the sales, marketing and distribution of drug and device products, or in building a commercial team to do so. Furthermore, we lack sufficient capital resources to complete development of GB-102 without a partner, and we will be dependent on such partner, should we secure one, for the successful sales, marketing and distribution of GB-102. To achieve commercial success for any other product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, either ourselves or through collaborations or other arrangements with third parties. If product candidates other than GB-102 are approved for marketing, we plan on commercializing them through our own specialty sales force. Alternatively, we may rely on a network of independent distributors across the United States to sell such products. We expect that a direct sales force will be required to effectively market and sell these products. We cannot be certain when, if ever, we will recognize revenue from commercialization of our product candidates in any international market. If we decide to commercialize our potential products outside of the United States, we expect to utilize a variety of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties. These may include independent distributors, pharmaceutical companies or our own direct sales organization.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities and with entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. We may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell, market and distribute our products or may be unable to do so on terms that are most beneficial to us. We likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to market, sell and distribute our products effectively. Our product revenues and our profitability, if any, under third-party collaboration, distribution or other marketing arrangements may also be lower than if we were to sell, market and distribute a product ourselves. On the other hand, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of any product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.

48

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

If we do not establish sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

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

The development and commercialization of new drug and device products is highly competitive. We face competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide with respect to our product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing and commercialization.

The current standard of care for wet AMD is monotherapy administration of anti-VEGF drugs, principally Eylea, Avastin and Lucentis, which are well-established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors, as well as the Port Delivery System with ranibizumab, or PDS, and Beovu, the two most recently approved anti-VEGF drugs. There are also several product candidates in late-stage clinical development for wet AMD, including those being developed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Kodiak Sciences Inc., Samsung Bioepis, Clearside Biomedical, Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., REGENXBIO, Inc., Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd, Outlook Therapeutics, Inc., and Opthea Limited. Physicians, patients and third-party payors may not accept the addition of GB-102 to their current treatment regimens for a variety of potential reasons, including:

We are developing GB-102 as an alternative to existing anti-VEGF drugs, including Eylea, Avastin, Lucentis, Beovu, and PDS. Accordingly, if approved, GB-102 would directly compete with these therapies. While we believe GB-102 will compete favorably with existing anti-VEGF drugs, future approved standalone or combination therapies for wet AMD with demonstrated improved efficacy over GB-102 or currently marketed therapies with a favorable safety profile and any of the following characteristics might pose a significant competitive threat to us:

We also expect that product candidates currently in clinical development, or that could enter clinical development in the near future, could represent additional competition, if approved. These product candidates may provide efficacy, safety, convenience and other benefits that are not provided by currently marketed therapies. Because there are a variety of means to treat wet AMD, our patents and other proprietary protections for GB-102 will not prevent development or commercialization of product candidates that are different from GB-102.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, certain of these products may be available on a biosimilar basis, and our product candidates may not demonstrate sufficient additional clinical benefits to

49

physicians, patients or payors to justify a higher price compared to generic products. In many cases, insurers or other third-party payors, particularly Medicare, seek to encourage the use of biosimilar products.

If the development of GB-102 is delayed due to the time required to secure partner funding, or if such a partner requires additional clinical trials before commencing Phase 3 trials, the commercial launch of GB-102 could be delayed by several years. Such a delay could afford our competitors significant advantages in market adoption, penetration and reimbursement, and the future pricing of our products could be driven down substantially by a larger number of mature competitors. Any or all of these factors could significantly reduce the potential future revenue generated by GB-102 and adversely impact our stock price.

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

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party coverage or reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which could harm our business.

Our ability to commercialize our product candidates that we may develop successfully will depend, in part, on the extent to which coverage and adequate reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government healthcare programs, private health insurers, managed care plans 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. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug and device companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. Coverage and reimbursement may not be available for GB-102 or any other product that we commercialize and, even if they are available, the level of reimbursement may not be satisfactory.

Inadequate reimbursement may adversely affect the demand for, or the price of, GB-102 or any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. Obtaining and maintaining adequate reimbursement for our products may be difficult. We may be required to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies to justify coverage and reimbursement or the level of reimbursement relative to other therapies. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available or reimbursement is available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize GB-102 or any other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the indications for which the drug is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement rates from both government-funded and private payors for any FDA-approved products that we develop would compromise our ability to generate revenues and become profitable.

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

50

limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

Any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval in the United States or in other countries may not be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, may not be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, coverage and an adequate level of reimbursement may not be available and reimbursement policies of third-party payors may adversely affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and to limit commercialization of any products that we develop.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the use of our product candidates that we develop in clinical trials. We face an even greater risk for any products we develop and sell commercially. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our product candidates or products caused injuries, we will incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

We currently hold $10 million in product liability insurance coverage, with a per incident limit of $250,000, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We will need to increase our insurance coverage as we conduct additional or larger clinical trials and should we eventually realize sales of any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval.

Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We intend to enter into collaborations with third parties in which they may complete or fund the clinical development, secure regulatory approval, and conduct the commercialization of GB-102, and may also do so for our other product candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates.

We may utilize a variety of types of collaboration arrangements with third parties to develop or commercialize GB-102 and any of our other product candidates. We also may enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services in the United States if we do not establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities in the United States for our product candidates or if we determine that such arrangements are otherwise beneficial. We also may seek collaborators for development and commercialization of other product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any sales, marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. We are not currently party to any such arrangement. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Collaborations that we enter into may pose a number of risks, including the following:

51

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. If any collaborations that we enter into do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

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

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

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

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay its development program or one or more of our other development

52

programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaborations and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our product platform.

We have relied, and may continue to rely, on third parties for certain aspects of our clinical development, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

We have relied and may continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs to conduct clinical trials of GB-102 and other product candidates. If we deem necessary, we may engage CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators to conduct or assist in our clinical trials or other clinical development work. If we are unable to enter into an agreement with a service provider when required, our product development activities would be delayed.

Our reliance on third parties for development activities reduces our control over these activities but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with standards, commonly referred to as good clinical practices, or GCPs, for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We are also required to register ongoing clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database, ClinicalTrials.gov, within specified timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions. If we engage third parties and they do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our product candidates.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If our patent position does not adequately protect our product candidates, others could compete against us more directly, which would harm our business.

We own and exclusively license a number of U.S. issued patents, pending U.S. provisional and non-provisional patent applications, as well as pending Patent Cooperating Treaty applications and associated foreign patents and patent applications. Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection both in the United States and in other countries for our product candidates. Our ability to protect our product candidates from unauthorized or infringing use by third parties depends in substantial part on our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents. Due to evolving legal standards relating to the patentability, validity and enforceability of patents covering pharmaceutical inventions and the scope of claims made under these patents, our ability to maintain, obtain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Accordingly, rights under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection for our product candidates or provide sufficient protection to afford us a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes. We cannot guarantee that any patents will issue from any pending or future patent applications owned by or licensed to us.

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming. We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. We may choose not to seek patent protection for certain innovations and may choose not to pursue patent protection in certain jurisdictions. Under the laws of certain jurisdictions, patents or other intellectual property rights may be unavailable or limited in scope. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

We currently solely own or exclusively license patents and patent applications that encompass our current product candidates. We do not control the prosecution of the exclusively licensed patents and patent applications from Johns Hopkins University, or JHU, although we have input into the prosecution. In the future, we may choose to license additional patents or patent applications from third parties that we conclude are useful or necessary for our business goals. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution or maintenance of such additional licensed patent applications. Therefore, if we do license additional patents or patent applications in the future, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

Patent applications in the United States are maintained in confidence for up to 18 months after their filing. In some cases, however, patent applications remain confidential in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or PTO, for the entire time prior to issuance as a U.S. patent. Similarly, publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries. Consequently, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to invent, or the first to file patent applications on, our product candidates or

53

their intended uses. Furthermore, we may not have identified all U.S. and foreign patents or published applications that affect our business either by blocking our ability to commercialize our products or by covering similar technologies that affect our product market or patentability, or all prior art that could be considered relevant to our patent claims.

The claims of any patents which have already issued or may issue in the future and are owned by or licensed to us, may not confer on us significant commercial protection against competing products. Additionally, our patents may be challenged by third parties, resulting in the patent being deemed invalid, cancelled, unenforceable or narrowed in scope, or the third party may circumvent any such issued patents.

Our patents may be challenged, for example, in a U.S. federal court or alternatively challenged in an adversarial proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, or PTAB, at the PTO, using an inter partes Review or Post Grant Review process. The cost of these procedures is often substantial, and it is possible that our efforts would be unsuccessful resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position. Further, even if a U.S. federal court or PTAB rules that a patent owned by us is valid and enforceable, if the other venue takes a contrary position, the patent can be considered invalid and not enforceable.

Therefore, a party seeking to invalidate a patent owned by or licensed to us in the United States has the procedural advantage of two alternative venues. To date, the PTAB has cancelled over 60% of the patent claims it has reviewed and is considered to be a forum of choice for infringers for patent cancellation.

Also, our pending patent applications may not issue, and we may not receive any additional patents. Our patents might not contain claims that are sufficiently broad to prevent others from utilizing our technologies. For instance, GB-102 uses our proprietary aggregating microparticle technologies to deliver sunitinib for ocular treatment. If a competitor develops a product that uses a different particle or non-particle technology to deliver sunitinib to the eye, it may be able to compete with us without infringing our owned or licensed patents, as the patents on sunitinib expired in August 2021. GB-401 includes our proprietary beta-adrenergic blocking agent prodrug molecule in our proprietary sustained release formulation technology. If a competitor develops a product that uses a different prodrug of the same beta-blocker, or the beta-blocker itself, or uses a delivery system that is different from our proprietary sustained release formulation technologies, then it may be able to compete with our GB-401 product without infringing our owned or licensed patent claims. Consequently, our competitors may independently develop competing products that do not infringe our patents or other intellectual property. To the extent a competitor can develop similar products using a different delivery system, microparticle or molecule, our patents may not prevent them from directly competing with us.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or America Invents Act, was signed into law in September 2011, and many of the substantive changes became effective in March 2013. The America Invents Act revised U.S. patent law in part by changing the standard for patent approval from a “first to invent” standard to a “first to file” standard and developing a post-grant review system. This legislation changes U.S. patent law in a way that may weaken our ability to obtain patent protection in the United States for those applications filed after March 2013. For example, if we were the first to invent a new product or its use, but another party is the first to file a patent application on this invention, under the new law the other party may be entitled to the patent rights on the invention.

The America Invents Act created for the first time new procedures to challenge issued patents in the United States, including post-grant review and inter partes review proceedings, which some third parties have been using to cause the cancellation of selected or all claims of issued patents of competitors. For a patent with a priority date of March 16, 2013 or later, a petition for post-grant review can be filed by a third party in a nine-month window from issuance of the patent. A petition for inter partes review can be filed immediately following the issuance of a patent if the patent was filed prior to March 16, 2013. A petition for inter partes review can be filed after the nine-month period for filing a post-grant review petition has expired for a patent with a priority date of March 16, 2013 or later. Post-grant review proceedings can be brought on any ground of challenge, whereas inter partes review proceedings can only be brought to raise a challenge based on published prior art. These adversarial actions at the PTO review patent claims without the presumption of validity afforded to U.S. patents in lawsuits in U.S. federal courts and use a lower burden of proof than used in litigation in U.S. federal courts. The PTO issued a Final Rule on November 11, 2018, announcing that it will now use the same claim construction currently used in the U.S. federal courts to interpret patent claims, which is the plain and ordinary meaning of words used. If any of our patents are challenged by a third party in such a PTO proceeding, there is no guarantee that we or our licensors will be successful in defending the patent, which would result in a loss of the challenged patent right to us.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued opinions in patent cases in the last few years that many consider may weaken patent protection in the United States, either by narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances, holding that certain kinds of innovations are not patentable or generally otherwise making it easier to invalidate patents in court. Additionally, there have been recent proposals for additional changes to the patent laws of the United States and other countries that, if adopted, could impact our ability to obtain patent protection for our proprietary technology or our ability to enforce our proprietary technology. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the PTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

54

The laws of some foreign jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as in the United States and many companies have encountered significant difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. If we encounter such difficulties in protecting or are otherwise precluded from effectively protecting our intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions, our business prospects could be substantially harmed. For example, we could become a party to foreign opposition proceedings, such as at the European Patent Office, or patent litigation and other proceedings in a foreign court. If so, uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of such proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. The cost of foreign adversarial proceedings can also be substantial, and in many foreign jurisdictions, the losing party must pay the attorney fees of the winning party.

Because of the extensive time required for development, testing and regulatory review of a potential product, it is possible that, before any of our product candidates can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization of our product candidates, thereby reducing or eliminating any advantages of the patent. To the extent our product candidates based on that technology are not commercialized significantly ahead of the date of any applicable patent, or to the extent we have no other patent protection on such product candidates, those product candidates would not be protected by patents, and we would then rely solely on other forms of exclusivity, such as regulatory exclusivity provided by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, or trade secret protection.

Patents filed by our licensor, Johns Hopkins University, may have been discovered through government funded programs and thus may be subject to federal regulations such as “march-in” rights, certain reporting requirements and a preference for U.S.-based companies. Compliance with such regulations may limit our exclusive rights and may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. manufacturers.

Any patents licensed from JHU that cover inventions generated in whole or part through the use of U.S. government funding are subject to certain federal regulations. As a result, the U.S. government may have certain rights to licensed patents embodied in our current or future product candidates pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, or Bayh-Dole Act. These U.S. government rights in certain inventions developed under a government-funded program include a non-exclusive, non-transferable, irrevocable worldwide license to use inventions for any governmental purpose. In addition, the U.S. government has the right, under certain limited circumstances, to require JHU, and thus us, to grant exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses to any of these inventions to a third party if it determines that: (i) adequate steps have not been taken to commercialize the invention; (ii) government action is necessary to meet public health or safety needs; or (iii) government action is necessary to meet requirements for public use under federal regulations (also referred to as “march-in rights”). The U.S. government also has the right to take title to these inventions if JHU fails to disclose the invention to the government or fails to file an application to register the patents within specified time limits. Patents generated under a government-funded program are also subject to certain reporting requirements, compliance with which may require us to expend substantial resources. In addition, the U.S. government requires that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention be manufactured substantially in the United States. The manufacturing preference requirement can be waived if the owner of the intellectual property can show that reasonable but unsuccessful efforts have been made to grant licenses on similar terms to potential licensees that would be likely to manufacture substantially in the United States or that under the circumstances domestic manufacture is not commercially feasible. This preference for U.S. manufacturers may limit our ability to contract with non-U.S. product manufacturers for products covered by such intellectual property. To the extent any of our current or future intellectual property is generated through the use of U.S. government funding, the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act may similarly apply.

If we infringe or are alleged to infringe intellectual property rights of third parties, our business could be harmed.

Our research, development or commercialization activities, including any product candidates or products resulting from these activities, may infringe or be claimed to infringe patents or other proprietary rights owned by third parties and to which we do not hold licenses or other rights. We may not be aware of third-party patents that a third party might assert against us. For example, there may be third-party applications that have been filed but not published that, if issued, could be asserted against us. If a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. Further, if we are found to have infringed a third-party patent, we could be obligated to pay royalties and/or other payments to the third party for the sale of our product, which may be substantial, or we could be enjoined from selling our product. We could also incur substantial litigation costs.

55

Litigation regarding patents, intellectual property and other proprietary rights may be expensive and time-consuming. If we are involved in such litigation, it could cause delays in bringing product candidates to market and harm our ability to operate.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Although we are not currently aware of any litigation or other proceedings or third-party claims of patent infringement against us related to our product candidates, the pharmaceutical industry is characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Other parties may obtain patents in the future and allege that the use of our technologies infringes these patent claims or that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. Likewise, third parties may challenge or infringe upon our existing or future patents. Proceedings involving our patents or patent applications or those of others could result in adverse decisions regarding:

Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and divert management time and attention in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. If we are unable to avoid infringing the patent rights of others, we may be required to seek a license, defend an infringement action or challenge the validity of the patents in court. Patent litigation is costly and time consuming. We may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion. In addition, if we do not obtain a license, develop or obtain non-infringing technology, fail to defend an infringement action successfully or have infringed patents declared invalid, we may:

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

Because our current clinical candidates incorporate small molecules, after commercialization they will be subject in the United States to the patent litigation process of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, which allows a generic company to submit an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, to the FDA to obtain approval to sell our drug using bioequivalence data only. Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, we will have the opportunity to list all of our patents that cover our drug product or its method of use in the FDA’s compendium of “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluation,” sometimes referred to as the FDA’s Orange Book. Currently, in the United States, the FDA may grant three years of exclusivity to a new formulation, for which our GB-102 product would qualify, and other changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, if the application contains reports of new clinical investigations (other than bioavailability studies) conducted or sponsored by the sponsor that were essential to the approval of the application. The FDA also may grant five years of exclusivity for new chemical entities, or NCEs, for which GB-401 would qualify. An NCE is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. A generic company can submit an ANDA to the FDA immediately after FDA approval of our GB-102 product and four years after approval of GB-401. The submission of an ANDA by a generic company is considered a technical act of patent infringement. The generic company can certify that it will wait until the natural expiration date of our listed patents to sell a generic version of our product or can certify that one or more of our listed patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. If the latter, we will have 45 days to bring a patent infringement lawsuit against the generic company. This will initiate a challenge to one or more of our Orange Book listed patents based on arguments from the generic company that either our patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. Under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, if a lawsuit is brought, the FDA is prevented from issuing a final approval on the generic drug until 30 months after the end of the data exclusivity period, or a final decision of a court holding that our asserted patent claims are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. If we do not properly list our relevant patents in the Orange Book, or timely file a lawsuit in response to a certification from a generic company under an ANDA, or if we do not prevail in the resulting patent litigation, we can lose our proprietary market, which can rapidly become generic. Further, even if we do correctly list our relevant patents in the Orange Book, bring a lawsuit in a timely manner and prevail in that lawsuit, it may be at a very significant cost to us of attorneys’ fees and employee time and distraction over a long period. Further, it is common for more than one generic company to try to sell an innovator drug at the same time, and so we may be faced with the cost and distraction of multiple lawsuits. We may also determine it is necessary to settle the lawsuit in a manner that allows the generic company to enter our market prior to the expiration of our patent or otherwise in a manner that adversely affects the strength, validity, or enforceability of our patent.

A number of pharmaceutical companies have been the subject of intense review by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission or a corresponding agency in another country based on how they have conducted or settled drug patent litigation, and certain reviews

56

have led to an allegation of an anti-trust violation, sometimes resulting in a fine or loss of rights. We cannot be sure that we would not also be subject to such a review or that the result of the review would be favorable to us, which could result in a fine or penalty.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, has brought a number of lawsuits in federal court in the past few years to challenge Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation settlements between innovator companies and generic companies as anti-competitive. The FTC has taken an aggressive position that anything of value is a payment, whether money is paid or not. Under their approach, if an innovator as part of a patent settlement agrees not to launch or delay launch of an authorized generic during the 180-day period granted to the first generic company to challenge an Orange Book listed patent covering an innovator drug, or negotiates a delay in entry without payment, the FTC may consider it an unacceptable reverse payment. The biopharmaceutical industry has argued that such agreements are rational business decisions to dismiss risk and are immune from antitrust attack if the terms of the settlement are within the scope of the exclusionary potential of the patent. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-three decision in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. rejected both the biopharmaceutical industry’s and the FTC’s arguments with regard to so-called reverse payments, and held that whether a “reverse payment” settlement involving the exchange of consideration for a delay in entry is subject to an anticompetitive analysis depends on five considerations: (a) the potential for genuine adverse effects on competition; (b) the justification of payment; (c) the patentee’s ability to bring about anticompetitive harm; (d) whether the size of the payment is a workable surrogate for the patent’s weakness; and (e) that antitrust liability for large unjustified payments does not prevent litigating parties from settling their lawsuits, for example, by allowing the generic to enter the market before the patent expires without the patentee’s paying the generic. Furthermore, whether a reverse payment is justified depends upon its size, its scale in relation to the patentee’s anticipated future litigation costs, its independence from other services for which it might represent payment, as was the case in Actavis, and the lack of any other convincing justification. The Court held that reverse payment settlements can potentially violate antitrust laws and are subject to the standard antitrust rule-of-reason analysis, with the burden of proving that an agreement is unlawful on the FTC and leaving to lower courts the structuring of such rule of reason analysis. If we are faced with drug patent litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation with a generic company, we could be faced with such an FTC challenge based on that activity, including how or whether we settle the case, and even if we strongly disagree with the FTC’s position, we could face a significant expense or penalty.

We may not be able to enforce 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. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we may obtain patent protection, but where patent enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products in jurisdictions where we do not have any issued or licensed patents and any future patent claims or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from so competing.

Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the United States and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, including India, China and other developing countries, may not favor the enforcement of our patents and other intellectual property rights.

This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or the misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights in certain foreign countries. A number of foreign countries have stated that they are willing to issue compulsory licenses to patents held by innovator companies on approved drugs to allow the government or one or more third-party companies to sell the approved drug without the permission of the innovator patentee where the foreign government concludes it is in the public interest. India, for example, has used such a procedure to allow domestic companies to make and sell patented drugs without innovator approval. There is no guarantee that patents covering any of our drugs will not be subject to a compulsory license in a foreign country, or that we will have any influence over if or how such a compulsory license is granted. Further, Brazil allows its regulatory agency ANVISA to participate in deciding whether to grant a drug patent in Brazil, and patent grant decisions are made based on several factors, including whether the patent meets the requirements for a patent and whether such a patent is deemed in the country’s interest. In addition, several other countries have created laws that make it more difficult to enforce drug patents than patents on other kinds of technologies. Further, under the treaty on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, or TRIPS, as interpreted by the Doha Declaration, countries in which drugs are manufactured are required to allow exportation of the drug to a developing country that lacks adequate manufacturing capability. Therefore, our drug markets in the United States or foreign countries may be affected by the influence of current public policy on patent issuance, enforcement or involuntary licensing in the healthcare area.

In addition, in November 2015, members of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, which administers TRIPS, voted to extend the exemption against enforcing pharmaceutical drug patents in least developed countries until 2033. We currently have no patent applications filed in least developed countries, and our current intent is not to file in these countries in the future, at least in part due to this WTO pharmaceutical patent exemption.

57

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 PTO 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 our outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. 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 rely on our ability to stop others from competing by enforcing our patents; however, some jurisdictions may require us to grant licenses to third parties. Such compulsory licenses could be extended to include some of our product candidates, which may limit our potential revenue opportunities.

Many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties, in certain circumstances. For example, compulsory licensing, or the threat of compulsory licensing, of life-saving products and expensive products is becoming increasingly popular in developing countries, either through direct legislation or international initiatives. Compulsory licenses could be extended to include some of our product candidates, if they receive marketing approval, which may limit our potential revenue opportunities. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in certain countries outside the United States and Europe. Competitors may also use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, if our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities is inadequate. 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. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and resources from other aspects of our business. Furthermore, while we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in major markets for our products where such patent rights exist, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our products. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate.

In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may be limited to monetary relief and may be unable to enjoin infringement if a government is the infringer, which could materially diminish the value of the patent.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under the license agreement with JHU, we could lose license rights that are necessary for developing and commercializing one or more of our product candidates.

Our exclusive license with JHU for technology relating to our lead product candidates imposes various development, commercialization, royalty payment, diligence and other obligations on us. Specifically, we are required to:

If we breach any of these obligations, JHU may have the right to terminate the license, which would result in our being unable to develop, manufacture and sell products that are covered by the licensed technology, or in a competitor’s gaining access to the licensed technology.

58

The rights we rely upon to protect our unpatented trade secrets may be inadequate.

We rely on unpatented trade secrets, know-how and technology, which are difficult to protect, especially in the pharmaceutical industry, where much of the information about a product must be made public during the regulatory approval process. We seek to protect trade secrets, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with employees, consultants and others. These parties may breach or terminate these agreements or may refuse to enter into such agreements with us, and we may not have adequate remedies for such breaches. Furthermore, these agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information or result in the effective assignment to us of intellectual property and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential information or other breaches of the agreements. Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, we or our collaboration partners, board members, employees, consultants, contractors or scientific and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our proprietary information to competitors.

If we fail to maintain trade secret protection, our competitive position may be adversely affected. Competitors may also independently discover our trade secrets. Enforcement of claims that a third party has illegally obtained and is using trade secrets is expensive, time consuming and uncertain. If our competitors independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how, we would not be able to assert our trade secrets against them and our business could be harmed.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information and may not adequately protect our intellectual property.

We rely on trade secrets to protect our technology, especially where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. To protect our proprietary technology and processes, we also rely in part on confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with our current and potential corporate partners, employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information nor result in the effective assignment to us of intellectual property and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information or other breaches of the agreements. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such case, we could not assert any trade secret rights against such party. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States may be less willing to protect trade secrets. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to seek to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates and Other Legal Compliance Matters

We may be required, or choose, to suspend, repeat or terminate our clinical trials if they are not conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements, the results are negative or inconclusive, the trials are not well-designed, or research participants experience adverse safety outcomes.

Regulatory agencies, institutional review boards, or IRBs, or data safety monitoring boards may at any time recommend the temporary or permanent discontinuation of our clinical trials or request that we cease using investigators in the clinical trials if they believe that the clinical trials are not being conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, or that they present an unacceptable safety risk to participants. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCPs and other applicable foreign regulatory authority guidelines. Clinical trials are subject to oversight by the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities and IRBs at the trial sites where the clinical trials are conducted. In addition, clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates produced in accordance with applicable current good manufacturing practices. Clinical trials may be placed on a full or partial clinical hold by the FDA, foreign regulatory authorities, or us for various reasons, including, but not limited to: deficiencies in the conduct of the clinical trials, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or clinical protocols; deficiencies in the clinical trial operations or trial sites; deficiencies in the trial designs necessary to demonstrate efficacy; fatalities or other AEs arising during a clinical trial due to medical problems that may or may not be related to clinical trial treatments; the product candidates may not appear to be more effective than current therapies; or the quality or stability of the product candidates may fall below acceptable standards.

Although we have never been asked by a regulatory agency, IRB or data safety monitoring board to temporarily or permanently discontinue a clinical trial, if we elect or are forced to suspend or terminate a clinical trial of any of our current or future product candidates, the commercial prospects for that product may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenue from that product may be delayed or eliminated. Furthermore, any of these events could prevent us or our partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates and impair our ability to generate revenue from the commercialization of these products either by us or by our collaboration partners. In our Phase 2a trial of GB-102 for the treatment of ME secondary to DME or RVO, 16 of the 21 patients had at least one drug-related AE, with the majority of them in the 2 mg dosing arm. In addition, one patient in the 2 mg dosing arm experienced two ocular SAEs. As a result, we decided to pause enrollment of new patients in our Phase 2b wet AMD trial until we could collect more data on the Phase 2a trial. We subsequently conducted an interim safety analysis which led to the selection of the 1 mg dose for GB-102. We then amended the Phase

59

2b protocol such that all patients having originally received the 2 mg dose of GB-102 received the 1 mg dose as their repeat therapy at their six-month visit. In the treatment phase of our Phase 2b trial, nine of 21 patients in the 1 mg arm had at least one drug-related AE, and 17 of 22 patients in the 2 mg arm who were all subsequently re-dosed with 1 mg had at least one drug-related AE.

In our future clinical trials, any SAEs could result in the FDA delaying such clinical trials or denying or delaying clearance or approval of a product. Even though an AE may not be the result of the failure of one of our drug candidates, the FDA or an IRB could delay or halt a clinical trial for an indefinite period of time while an AE is reviewed, and likely would do so in the event of multiple such events. Any delay or termination of our current or future clinical trials as a result of the risks summarized above, including delays in obtaining or maintaining required approvals from IRBs, delays in patient enrollment, the failure of patients to continue to participate in a clinical trial, and delays or termination of clinical trials as a result of protocol modifications or AEs during the trials, may cause an increase in costs and delays in the submission of any New Drug Applications, or NDAs, to the FDA, delay the approval and commercialization of our products or result in the failure of the clinical trial, which could adversely affect our business, operating results and prospects. Lengthy delays in the completion of clinical trials of our products would adversely affect our business and prospects and could cause us to cease operations.

If preliminary data demonstrate that any of our product candidates has an unfavorable safety profile and is unlikely to receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized, we may voluntarily suspend or terminate future development of such product candidate. Any one or a combination of these events could prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval and achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of commercializing the product candidate, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating significant revenues from the sale of the product.

If we are not able to obtain required regulatory approvals, we will not be able to commercialize our product candidates and our ability to generate significant revenue will be materially impaired. The regulatory approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain. As a result, we cannot predict when or if we, or any collaborators we may have in the future, will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates.

The activities associated with the development of our product candidates, including design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing a product candidate. We have not submitted for regulatory approval to market GB-102 or any other product candidate.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and may take many years, especially if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and purity. The FDA’s and other regulatory agencies’ decision to grant us regulatory approval will depend on our ability to demonstrate with substantial clinical evidence through adequate well-controlled clinical trials, that the product candidates are effective, as measured statistically by comparing the overall improvement in actively-treated patients against improvement in the control group. However, there is a possibility that our data may fail to demonstrate statistically significant non-inferiority versus the active control. Alternatively, there is a possibility that our data may be statistically significant, but that the actual clinical benefit of the product candidates may not be considered to be clinically significant, clinically relevant or clinically meaningful. We cannot predict whether the regulatory agencies will find that our clinical trial results provide compelling data. Even if we believe that the data from our trials will support regulatory approval in the United States or in Europe, we cannot predict whether the agencies will agree with our analyses and approve our applications.

Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. The FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe or effective, are only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining regulatory approval or prevent or limit commercial use. In addition, while we have had general discussions with the FDA concerning the design of some of our clinical trials, we have not discussed with the FDA the specifics of the regulatory pathways for our product candidates. Any regulatory approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Approval of our product candidates may be delayed or refused for many reasons, including the following:

60

Even if our product candidates meet their safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process.

The regulatory process can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. If we experience delays in obtaining approval, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval in international jurisdictions would prevent our product candidates from being marketed abroad.

In order to market and sell our product candidates in the European Union and many other jurisdictions, we or our third-party collaborators must obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval may differ substantially from that required to obtain FDA approval. The regulatory approval process outside the United States generally includes all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval. In addition, in many countries outside the United States, it is required that the product be approved for reimbursement before the product can be sold in that country. We or our collaborators may not obtain approvals from regulatory authorities outside the United States on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions, and approval by one regulatory authority outside the United States does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions or by the FDA. However, a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country may have a negative effect on the regulatory process in other countries. We may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market.

Additionally, on June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit. Following protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020. The United Kingdom and European Union entered into the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, effective January 1, 2021, which sought to resolve some of the outstanding issues related to Brexit, including free trade and an overarching governance structure for business conducted between the jurisdictions. Under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, there was a transition period in which the U.K. was not designated as a “third country” and, as a result, personal data could flow from the EU to the U.K. without any adequacy mechanisms (e.g., Standard Contractual Clauses, etc.). The Trade and Cooperation Agreement went into full force on May 1, 2021, and the transition period with regard to personal data automatically terminated on June 26, 2021.  On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted two definitive adequacy decisions addressing the transfers of personal data to the United Kingdom under the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, and the Law Enforcement Directive.

Because this Trade and Cooperation Agreement is still new, it is unclear how it may affect the regulatory framework for our products. Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from European Union directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime that applies to products

61

and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, may force us to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

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

The terms of approvals, ongoing regulations and post-marketing restrictions for our products may limit how we manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

Once regulatory approval has been granted, an approved product and its manufacturer and marketer are subject to ongoing review and extensive regulation. We, and any collaborators we may have in the future, must therefore comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for any of our products for which we or our collaborators obtain regulatory approval. Promotional communications with respect to drug products and medical devices are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved labeling. Thus, if any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval, the accompanying approved labeling may limit the promotion of our product, which could limit sales of the product.

In addition, manufacturers of approved products and those manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA requirements, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to current good manufacturing practices applicable to drug manufacturers or quality assurance standards applicable to medical device manufacturers, which include requirements relating to quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and reporting requirements. We, any CMOs we may engage in the future, our future collaborators and their CMOs will also be subject to other regulatory requirements, including submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration and listing requirements, requirements regarding the distribution of samples to physicians, recordkeeping and costly post-marketing studies or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the product such as the requirement to implement a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

If any of our product candidates receives regulatory approval and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by the product, our ability to market and derive revenue from the products could be compromised.

In the event any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval and we or others identify undesirable side effects, AEs or other problems caused by one of our products, any of the following adverse outcomes could occur, which could result in the loss of significant revenue to us and materially and adversely affect our operating results and business:

62

Any of these events could have a material and adverse effect on our operations and business. The commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we will also be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory review, such as continued safety reporting requirements, and we may also be subject to additional FDA post-marketing obligations or new regulations, all of which may result in significant expense and limit our ability to commercialize our drugs.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate and may require us to conduct post-approval clinical studies. The FDA has significant post-market authority, including the authority to require labeling changes based on new safety information and to require post-market studies or clinical trials to evaluate safety risks related to the use of a product or to require withdrawal of the product from the market. The manufacturing facilities used to manufacture our product candidates will also be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA and other regulatory agencies, including for continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices requirements. The discovery of any new or previously unknown problems with our third-party manufacturers, manufacturing processes or facilities may result in restrictions on the product, manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the product from the market. Any product promotion and advertising will also be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA imposes stringent restrictions on manufacturers’ communications regarding use of their products. If we promote our product candidates in a manner inconsistent with FDA-approved labeling or otherwise not in compliance with FDA regulations, we may be subject to enforcement action.

In addition, if the FDA or a foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices and GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

Moreover, if we obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will only be permitted to market our products for the indication approved by the FDA or foreign regulatory authority, and such approval may involve limitations on the indicated uses or promotional claims we may make for our products, or otherwise not permit labeling that sufficiently differentiates our product candidates from competitive products with comparable therapeutic profiles. For example, we will not be able to claim that our products have fewer side effects, or improve compliance or efficacy as compared to other drugs unless we can demonstrate those attributes to the FDA or foreign regulatory authority in comparative clinical trials.

If we or our CMOs or service providers fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements in the United States or foreign jurisdictions in which we seek to market our products, we or they may be subject to, among other things, fines, warning or untitled letters, holds on clinical trials, delay of approval or refusal by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory bodies to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approval, product recalls and seizures, administrative detention of products, refusal to permit the import or export of products, operating restrictions, injunction, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

The FDA’s and foreign 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 cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any regulatory approval that we may have obtained, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

We may be subject to substantial penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our products.

Violations of the FDCA relating to the promotion or manufacturing of drug products may lead to investigations by the FDA, the Department of Justice and state Attorneys General alleging violations of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, as well as state consumer protection laws. In addition, later discovery of previously unknown AEs or other problems with our products, manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may yield various results, including:

63

Non-compliance with European Union requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, or with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties.

If the FDA does not conclude that the product candidates for which we may use the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval pathway satisfy the requirements for the use of such pathway, or if the requirements for such product candidates under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for any such product candidates will likely take significantly longer, cost significantly more and entail significantly greater complications and risks than anticipated, and in either case may not be successful.

We may seek FDA approval through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway for GB-401. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments added Section 505(b)(2) to the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) permits the submission of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. Section 505(b)(2), if applicable to us under the FDCA, would allow an NDA to rely in part on data in the public domain or the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of approved drug products, which could expedite the development program for our product candidates by potentially decreasing the amount of preclinical or clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. For GB-102, we are seeking to rely on the FDA’s prior conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of sunitinib, which has previously been approved for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors, advanced renal cell carcinoma, and a certain type of pancreatic cancer. For GB-401, we intend to rely in part on the FDA’s prior findings for the previously approved active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, as well as relevant publications, and to conduct additional good laboratory practice, or GLP, toxicology studies with GB-401, to support the GB-401 IND and any future 505(b)(2) NDA.

If we cannot pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we may need to conduct additional clinical trials, provide additional data and information, and meet additional standards for regulatory approval. If this were to occur, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for these product candidates, and complications and risks associated with these product candidates, would likely substantially increase.

Moreover, our inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway would likely result in new competitive products reaching the market more quickly than GB-102 or GB-401, which would likely adversely impact our competitive position and prospects. Even if we can pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot assure you that GB-102 or GB-401 will receive the requisite approvals for commercialization.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of products by the FDA under Section 505(b)(2), certain pharmaceutical companies and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s current interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may change its 505(b)(2) policies and practices, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2). In addition, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. These requirements may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our NDAs for up to 30 months or longer depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is not uncommon for the owner of the NDA of an approved product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions could significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of a new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition. In addition, even if we are able to utilize the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, there is no guarantee this would ultimately lead to earlier approval.

64

Moreover, even if our product candidates are approved under Section 505(b)(2), the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

Our relationships with customers and third-party payors may be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, transparency, health information privacy and security, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation, affordability, and use of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. Our future arrangements with third-party payors and customers may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain regulatory approval. In addition, we may be subject to transparency laws and patient privacy regulation by U.S. federal and state governments and by governments in foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. 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, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. 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, it may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government funded healthcare programs. Although effective compliance programs can mitigate the risk of investigation and prosecution for violations of these laws, these risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with applicable laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources.

65

Recently enacted and future legislation, including healthcare legislative reform measures, may adversely affect or limit our ability to commercialize our products, including the prices that we can obtain for any products that are approved in the United States or foreign jurisdictions, and may negatively impact our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could affect our ability to profitably sell or commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain regulatory approval. The pharmaceutical industry and medical device industry have been a particular focus of these efforts and have been significantly affected by legislative initiatives. Current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any FDA approved product.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could limit coverage of and reduce the price that we receive for any FDA approved products. While the MMA applies only to product benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates. Therefore, any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA or other healthcare reform measures may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

In March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our business, including, without limitation, our ability to commercialize and the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates and that are approved for sale, are increased manufacturer rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, imposition of a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products and the requirement for manufacturers to provide a discount off the negotiated price of prescriptions filled by beneficiaries in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, referred to as the “donut hole,” which is now 70% of the negotiated price.

There have been executive, legislative and judicial efforts to modify, repeal, or otherwise invalidate all, or certain aspects of, the ACA. By way of example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Reform Act, included, among other things, a provision repealing the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace, which began on February 15, 2021 and closed on August 15, 2021. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is uncertain how any such challenges and the healthcare measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted to reduce healthcare expenditures. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, unless additional Congressional action is taken. The Medicare reductions phase back in starting with a 1% reduction in effect from April 1, 2022 to June 30, 2022 before increasing to the full 2% reduction. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our drugs, if approved, and accordingly, our financial operations.

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. By way of example, in December 2020, CMS issued a final rule implementing significant manufacturer price reporting changes under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including regulations that affect manufacturer-sponsored patient assistance programs subject to pharmacy benefit manager accumulator programs and Best Price reporting related to certain value-based purchasing arrangements. On September 9, 2021, the Biden Administration published a wide-ranging list of policy proposals, most of which would need to be carried out by Congress, to reduce drug prices and drug payment. The HHS plan includes, among other reform measures, proposals to (1) give Medicare authority to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, (2) authorize HHS to negotiate Medicaid supplemental rebates on behalf of states, (3) allow employer-based, ACA marketplace and commercial health insurance plans to access Medicare negotiated drug prices, (4) place a cap on out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D beneficiaries and redistribute a higher proportion of drug costs to Part D and

66

manufacturers, (5) mandate purchase of the least costly-alternative and to institute value-based or outcomes-based pricing arrangements, (6) disincentivize drug price increases, (8) facilitate approval and prescription of biosimilar and generic drugs, (9) increase drug pricing transparency, (10) prohibit certain types of rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, and (11) develop drug pricing models by tying price to outcomes. Many similar proposals, including the plans to give Medicare authority to negotiate drug prices and cap out-of-pocket costs, have already been included in policy statements and legislation currently being considered by Congress. It is unclear to what extent new statutory, regulatory, and administrative initiatives will be enacted and implemented and to what extent these or any future legislation or regulations by the Biden administration will have on our business, including our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability.

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

The pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is also subject to governmental control outside the United States. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of regulatory approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies. If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our ability to generate revenues and become profitable could be impaired.

We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, particularly in light of the new presidential administration. Such reform measures may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our therapeutics.

Laws and regulations governing any international operations we may have in the future may preclude us from developing, manufacturing or selling certain products outside of the United States and such foreign operations would require us to develop and implement costly compliance programs.

If we 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 Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, also may suspend or bar issuers from trading securities on U.S. exchanges for violations of the FCPA’s accounting provisions.

We are subject to stringent and changing privacy laws, regulations and standards as well as contractual obligations related to data privacy and security. Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could harm our reputation, subject us to significant fines and liability, or otherwise adversely affect our business or prospects.

We are, and may increasingly become, subject to various laws and regulations, as well as contractual obligations, relating to data privacy and security in the jurisdictions in which we operate. The regulatory environment related to data privacy and security is increasingly rigorous, with new and constantly changing requirements applicable to our business, and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. These laws and regulations may be interpreted and applied differently over time and from

67

jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and it is possible that they will be interpreted and applied in ways that may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In the United States, in addition to HIPAA, various federal and state regulators have adopted, or are considering adopting, laws and regulations concerning personal information and data security. Certain state laws may be more stringent or broader in scope, or offer greater individual rights, with respect to personal information than federal, international or other state laws, and such laws may differ from each other, all of which may complicate compliance efforts. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which increases privacy rights for California residents and imposes obligations on companies that process their personal information, came into effect on January 1, 2020, and became enforceable by the California Attorney General on July 1, 2020, along with related regulations which came into force on August 14, 2020. Additionally, although not effective until January 1, 2023, the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which expands upon the CCPA, was passed in the recent election on November 3, 2020.  Among other things, the CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California consumers about their data collection, use and sharing practices and provide such consumers new data protection and privacy rights, including the ability to opt out of certain sales of personal information, right to request correction, access, and deletion of their personal information, the right to opt out of certain personal information sharing, and the right to receive detailed information about how their personal information is processed. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that result in the loss of personal information. This private right of action may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation. The CPRA significantly modifies the CCPA, including by expanding consumers’ rights with respect to certain personal information and creating a new state agency to oversee implementation and enforcement efforts. The CCPA and CPRA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, particularly in the event of a data breach, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, including how we use personal information, our financial condition, the results of our operations or prospects. State laws are changing rapidly and there is discussion in the U.S. of a new comprehensive federal data privacy law to which we would become subject if it is enacted.

Additionally, the CCPA has prompted a number of proposals for new federal and state-level privacy legislation, such as in Nevada, Virginia, New Hampshire, Illinois and Nebraska. Such new privacy laws add additional complexity, requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment in resources for compliance programs, and could impact business strategies and the availability of previously useful data.  

Internationally, laws, regulations and standards in many jurisdictions apply broadly to the collection, use, retention, security, disclosure, transfer and other processing of personal information. For example, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, of the European Union, or EU, which became effective in May 2018, greatly increased the European Commission’s jurisdictional reach of its laws and adds a broad array of requirements for handling personal information, including, for example, requirements to establish a legal basis for processing, higher standards for obtaining consent from individuals to process their personal information, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, requirements to implement safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal information that requires the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards, shortened timelines for data breach notifications to appropriate data protection authorities or data subjects, limitations on retention and secondary use of information, increased requirements pertaining to health data and additional requirements that we impose certain contractual obligations on third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal information. EU member states are tasked under the GDPR to enact, and have enacted, certain implementing legislation that adds to and/or further interprets the GDPR requirements and potentially extends our obligations and potential liability for failing to meet such obligations. The GDPR, together with national legislation, regulations and guidelines of the EU member states governing the processing of personal information, impose strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, use, retain, protect, disclose, transfer and otherwise process personal information. In particular, the GDPR includes obligations and restrictions concerning the consent and rights of individuals to whom the personal information relates, the transfer of personal information out of the European Economic Area, security breach notifications and the security and confidentiality of personal information. The GDPR authorizes fines for certain violations of up to 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million, whichever is greater, and other administrative penalties. Additionally, the United Kingdom (“UK”) implemented the Data Protection Act effective in May 2018 and statutorily amended in 2019, that substantially implements the GDPR and contains provisions, including UK-specific derogations, for how GDPR is applied in the UK. On May 1, 2021, the transition period of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the UK ended.  Subsequently, the European Commission adopted a definitive adequacy decision addressing the transfers of personal data from the European Economic Area to the United Kingdom under the GDPR on June 28, 2021. As a result, we will have to continue to comply with the GDPR and also the Data Protection Act in the UK as well as the EU, with each regime having the ability to fine up to the greater of €20 million (£17 million) or 4% of global turnover. The costs of compliance with, and other burdens imposed by, such laws and regulations that are applicable to our business operations may limit the use and adoption of our services, reduce overall demand for them. Changes in these legislations may add additional complexity, variation in requirements, restrictions and potential legal risk, require additional investment in resources for compliance programs, could impact strategies and availability of previously useful data, and could result in increased compliance costs and/or changes in business practices and policies.

Additionally, on July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or the Court of Justice, invalidated the European Union-United States (EU-U.S.) Privacy Shield on the grounds that the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield failed to offer adequate protections to

68

EU personal information transferred to the United States. While the Court of Justice upheld the use of other data transfer mechanisms, such as the Standard Contractual Clauses, the decision has led to some uncertainty regarding the use of such mechanisms for data transfers to the United States, and the court made clear that reliance on Standard Contractual Clauses alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances. The use of Standard Contractual Clauses for the transfer of personal information specifically to the United States also remains under review by a number of European data protection supervisory authorities. For example, German and Irish supervisory authorities have indicated that the Standard Contractual Clauses alone provide inadequate protection for EU-U.S. data transfers. Use of the data transfer mechanisms must now be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the legal regime applicable in the destination country, in particular applicable surveillance laws and rights of individuals. The European Data Protection Board (the EDPB) issued additional guidance regarding the Court of Justice’s decision on November 11, 2020 which imposes higher burdens on the use of data transfer mechanisms, such as the Standard Contractual Clauses, for cross-border data transfers.

To comply with this guidance, we may need to implement additional safeguards to further enhance the security of data transferred out of the EU, which could increase our compliance costs, expose us to further regulatory scrutiny and liability, and adversely affect our business. Further, in November 2020, the European Commission published new versions of the Standard Contractual Clauses. Other countries (e.g., Australia and Japan) have also adopted certain legal requirements for cross-border transfers of personal information. These obligations may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another and may conflict with other requirements or our practices. While the Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld the adequacy of the Standard Contractual Clauses, it made clear that reliance on them alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances. Some countries also are considering or have passed legislation requiring local storage and processing of data, or similar requirements, which could increase the cost and complexity of delivering our products and services. If we are required to implement additional measures to transfer data from the European Economic Area, this could increase our compliance costs, and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

All of these evolving compliance and operational requirements impose significant costs, such as costs related to organizational changes, implementing additional protection technologies, training employees and engaging consultants, which are likely to increase over time. In addition, such requirements may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies, distract management or divert resources from other initiatives and projects, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with any applicable federal, state or similar foreign laws and regulations relating to data privacy and security could result in damage to our reputation, as well as proceedings or litigation by governmental agencies or other third parties, including class action privacy litigation in certain jurisdictions, which would subject us to significant fines, sanctions, awards, injunctions, penalties or judgments. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

If we or any CMOs we engage fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur significant costs.

We and any CMOs we may engage in the future are 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 materials, including chemicals and biological materials, and produce hazardous waste products. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of 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.

Although we maintain general liability insurance as well as workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials.

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

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

69

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical and business development expertise of Frederic Guerard, our chief executive officer, as well as other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products. Competition to hire from this limited pool is intense, and we may be unable to hire, train, retain or motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for similar personnel. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability to us. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

We expect to expand our development, regulatory and manufacturing capabilities and potentially implement sales, marketing, and distribution capabilities and, as a result, we may encounter difficulties in managing our growth, which could disrupt our operations.

We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of product development, clinical, regulatory affairs, manufacturing, sales, marketing, finance and distribution, which growth we expect to begin before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or other regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product approvals. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational, and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Due to our limited financial resources and our limited experience in managing such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

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

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