Table of Contents

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

​

​

FORM 10-K

​

​

(Mark One)

​

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

​

OR

​

​

For the transition period from                      to                    

​

Commission File Number: 001-38492

​

​

Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
​

​

​

Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.

Clarendon House

2 Church Street

Hamilton HM11, Bermuda
+ (44) 808-189-6257

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

​

Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals Corp.

100 Hayden Avenue

Lexington, MA, 02421

(781) 431-9100

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

​

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

​

​

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

​

​

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

​

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

​

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T 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 ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the common shares on The Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2021, was approximately $487.2 million.

As of January 31, 2022, there were 69,104,419 common shares outstanding in aggregate, comprised of:

34,103,741 Class A common shares, par value $0.000273235 per share

1,813,457 Class B common shares, par value $0.000273235 per share

17,129,603 Class A1 common shares, par value $0.000273235 per share

16,057,618 Class B1 common shares, par value $0.000273235 per share

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2022 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which the registrant intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after the end of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.

FORM 10-K

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

​

2

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, or Annual Report, contains forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report including statements regarding our products’ commercial sales, future results of anticipated products, future results of operations and financial position, expected timeline for our cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments, business strategy, product development, prospective products and product candidates, their expected properties, performance, market opportunity and competition, supply of drug products at acceptable cost and quality, collaborators, license and other strategic arrangements, the expected timeline for achievement of our clinical milestones, the timing of, and potential results from, clinical and other trials, potential marketing authorization from the FDA or regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions, potential coverage and reimbursement for our products and product candidates, if approved, commercial strategy and pre-commercial activities, research and development costs, timing of regulatory filings and feedback, timing and likelihood of success and plans and objectives of management for future operations and funding requirements are forward-looking statements.

These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “goal,” “design,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described under the sections in this Annual Report entitled “Summary Risk Factors”, “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, the following:

3

Table of Contents

Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties. As a result of these factors, we cannot assure you that the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report will prove to be accurate. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

You should read this Annual Report and the documents that we reference in this Annual Report completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.

SUMMARY RISK FACTORS

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our Class A common shares. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following:

4

Table of Contents

5

Table of Contents

Industry and other data

Unless otherwise indicated, certain industry data and market data included in this Annual Report were obtained from independent third-party surveys, market research, publicly available information, reports of governmental agencies and industry publications and surveys. All of the market data used in this Annual Report involves a number of assumptions and limitations, and you are cautioned not to give undue weight to such estimates. We believe that the information from these industry publications and surveys included in this Annual Report is reliable.

ARCALYST® is a registered trademark of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”).

PART I

ITEM 1.      BUSINESS.

Overview

We are a global biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, acquiring, developing and commercializing therapeutic medicines for patients suffering from debilitating diseases with significant unmet medical need. Our portfolio of assets, ARCALYST® (rilonacept), mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404, are based on strong biologic rationale or validated mechanisms, target underserved conditions, and offer the potential for differentiation. These assets are designed to modulate immunological pathways across a spectrum of diseases.

​

ARCALYST is an interleukin-1alpha, or IL-1α, and interleukin-1beta, or IL-1β, cytokine trap. Cytokines are small proteins that play a role in cell signaling. We licensed ARCALYST from Regeneron, who discovered and initially developed the drug, in 2017. Our exclusive license to ARCALYST from Regeneron includes worldwide rights, excluding the Middle East and North Africa, for all applications other than those in oncology and local administration to the eye or ear.

​

We received U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approval of ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older in March 2021.

6

Table of Contents

Recurrent pericarditis is a painful inflammatory cardiovascular disease with an estimated U.S. prevalent population of approximately 40,000 patients seeking and receiving medical treatment. ARCALYST is commercially available through a distribution network of specialty pharmacies, which provide access across the United States. ARCALYST is also approved in the United States for the treatment of Cryopyrin-Associated Periodic Syndromes, or CAPS, specifically Familial Cold Autoinflammatory Syndrome and Muckle-Wells Syndrome, in adults and children 12 years and older, and the maintenance of remission in Deficiency of Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist, or DIRA, in adults and children weighing 10 kg or more. We are responsible for sales and distribution of ARCALYST in all approved indications in the United States, and evenly split profits on sales with Regeneron. In the fourth quarter of 2021, our ARCALYST franchise achieved profitability after three quarters of commercial availability for recurrent pericarditis.

In February 2022, we granted Hangzhou Zhongmei Huadong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Huadong”) exclusive rights to develop and commercialize ARCALYST in the Asia Pacific region, excluding Japan.

Mavrilimumab is an investigational monoclonal antibody inhibitor targeting granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha, or GM-CSFRα. In 2017, we licensed exclusive worldwide rights in all indications to mavrilimumab from MedImmune Limited, or MedImmune.

​

We plan to focus mavrilimumab development on cardiovascular diseases where the GM-CSF mechanism has been implicated and that have synergies with our existing commercial infrastructure. In parallel, we may also explore the use of mavrilimumab through research collaborations in other development areas.

​

We have also been evaluating mavrilimumab in COVID-19-related acute respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19-related ARDS. In December 2021, we announced that the Phase 3 portion of the global double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint. We subsequently decided to not progress mavrilimumab in the COVID-19-related ARDS indication, although we are continuing the Phase 3 portion of the clinical trial through its completion date.

​

We previously evaluated mavrilimumab in giant cell arteritis, or GCA, a chronic inflammatory disease of the medium-to-large arteries with an estimated U.S. prevalence of approximately 75,000 to 150,000 patients. In October 2020, we announced that our Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for the study of mavrilimumab in GCA achieved both its primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with statistical significance. In September 2020, the FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for mavrilimumab for the treatment of GCA. In February 2022, we announced that we do not plan to initiate a Phase 3 trial of mavrilimumab in GCA.

​

In February 2022, we granted Huadong exclusive rights to develop and commercialize mavrilimumab in the Asia Pacific region, excluding Japan.

​

Vixarelimab is an investigational monoclonal antibody inhibitor of signaling through oncostatin M receptor beta, or OSMRβ. We acquired worldwide rights to vixarelimab in all indications from Biogen MA, Inc., or Biogen, in 2016.

​

We are evaluating vixarelimab for the potential treatment of prurigo nodularis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition with an estimated U.S. prevalence of approximately 300,000 patients. In April 2020, we announced that our Phase 2a trial of vixarelimab in prurigo nodularis achieved its primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. In November 2020, the FDA granted Breakthrough Therapy designation for vixarelimab for the treatment of pruritus associated with prurigo nodularis. We are conducting a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2b dose-ranging clinical trial of vixarelimab in prurigo nodularis. This trial is designed to investigate efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics. We expect to report top-line data from this trial in the second half of 2022.

​

KPL-404 is an investigational monoclonal antibody inhibitor of CD40-CD154 interaction. In 2019, we acquired all of the outstanding securities of Primatope Therapeutics, Inc., or Primatope, the company that owned or controlled the intellectual property related to KPL-404. In connection with our acquisition of Primatope, we acquired an exclusive world-wide license to KPL-404 from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, or BIMDC.

​

7

Table of Contents

The CD40-CD154 interaction is a key T-cell co-stimulatory signal critical for B-cell maturation, immunoglobulin class switching and Type 1 immune response. We believe disrupting the CD40-CD154 interaction is an attractive approach to address multiple autoimmune disease pathologies such as rheumatoid arthritis, or RA, Sjogren’s syndrome, Graves’ disease, systemic lupus erythematosus and solid organ transplant graft rejection.

​

In May 2021, we announced positive final data from our Phase 1 clinical trial of KPL-404 in healthy volunteers, which evaluated safety and pharmacokinetics, as well as receptor occupancy, or RO, and T-cell dependent antibody response, or TDAR.

​

In December 2021, we initiated a Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial of KPL-404 in rheumatoid arthritis, which is designed to enable its potential development in a spectrum of autoimmune diseases believed to be mediated by the CD40-CD154 co-stimulatory interaction. The trial will evaluate pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of KPL-404 with subcutaneous administration.

​

In January 2022, we provided KPL-404 to the University of Maryland School of Medicine, as part of an experimental immunosuppressive regimen in connection with a transplant of a genetically-modified pig heart into an adult human with end-stage heart disease who was not eligible for a standard allogeneic heart transplant.

​

The following table summarizes our current pipeline of products and product candidates:

IL-1α = interleukin-1α ; IL-1β = interleukin-1β; GM-CSFRα = granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha; OSMRβ = oncostatin M receptor beta; MENA = Middle East and North Africa.

​

We evaluate options across our portfolio in an effort to maximize value and improve capital allocation based on data, including analyzing potential additional indications for ARCALYST, mavrilimumab and vixarelimab, conducting proof-of-concept clinical activity in KPL-404, being opportunistic in our business development activities, considering

8

Table of Contents

appropriate opportunities to partner or out-license our programs, as well as conducting internal research to discover and develop molecules to expand our portfolio.

Our Strategy

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, acquiring, developing and commercializing therapeutic medicines for patients suffering from debilitating diseases with significant unmet medical need. Our products and product candidates, ARCALYST, mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404, are based on strong biologic rationale or validated mechanisms, target underserved conditions, and offer the potential for differentiation. These pipeline assets are designed to modulate immunological pathways across a spectrum of diseases.

​

Critical components of our business strategy include the following:

Our Products

ARCALYST

Overview

ARCALYST is an interleukin-1α and interleukin-1β cytokine trap. Cytokines are small proteins that play a role in cell signaling.

We received FDA approval of ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older in March 2021. ARCALYST is also approved in the United States for the treatment of CAPS, specifically Familial Cold Autoinflammatory Syndrome and Muckle-Wells Syndrome in adults and children 12 years and older, and the maintenance of remission in DIRA in adults and children weighing 10 kg or more. ARCALYST was sold by Regeneron in the United States for the treatment of CAPS from 2008 and DIRA from 2020 until we assumed responsibility for sales in such indications in March 2021.

9

Table of Contents

Recurrent pericarditis is a painful autoinflammatory cardiovascular disease with an estimated U.S. prevalent population of approximately 40,000 patients seeking and receiving medical treatment. We received Breakthrough Therapy designation from the FDA for ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis in 2019 and Orphan Drug exclusivity from the FDA for ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older in March 2021. Additionally, in 2020, the European Commission granted Orphan Drug designation to ARCALYST for the treatment of idiopathic pericarditis.

In June 2020, we reported final results from RHAPSODY, our global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal design, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of ARCALYST in subjects with recurrent pericarditis. RHAPSODY met its prescribed primary and all major secondary efficacy endpoints with statistical significance, showing that ARCALYST improved clinically meaningful outcomes associated with unmet medical need in recurrent pericarditis. RHAPSODY data were also published in The New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with a late-breaking scientific presentation at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2020.

Mechanism of Action

ARCALYST is an inhibitor of IL-1α and IL-1β. IL-1α and IL-1β have been demonstrated to play a key role in inflammatory diseases. IL-1α and IL-1β provoke potent, pro-inflammatory events by engaging the IL-1α and IL-1β receptor. Following tissue insult, the release of IL-1α acts as the primary initiating signal to coordinate the mobilization of immune cells to the damaged area, while IL-1β is secreted mostly by macrophages and is a prototypical cytokine of the canonical NLRB-3 inflammasome. IL-1α and IL-1β signaling results in a dramatic increase in the production of cytokines that orchestrate the proliferation and recruitment of phagocytes to the site of damage, resulting in inflammation. Moreover, IL-1α and IL-1β signaling also affect other immune-system cells, such as T-cells and B-cells.

IL-1β’s role in the inflammation process has been extensively studied, while, in comparison, much is still unknown about the independent function of IL-1α in disease pathology. Despite driving similar immunological outcomes, IL-1α and IL-1β differ substantially in their expression and regulation, and non-redundant roles for IL-1α or IL-1β have been demonstrated in multiple inflammatory diseases. There are disease states in which IL-1β inhibition alone does not appear to be sufficient for disease remission in the absence of IL-1α inhibition. Published studies suggest certain autoinflammatory diseases may, in fact, be pathologically driven primarily by IL-1α.

An investigator-initiated study of anakinra successfully demonstrated mechanistic proof-of-concept for inhibiting both IL-1α and IL-1β in the treatment of recurrent pericarditis. In a published case study, a patient with a refractory form of recurrent pericarditis, who was well-controlled on anakinra, was switched from anakinra to canakinumab, which inhibits only IL-1β, for tolerability reasons. The patient’s disease returned despite further dose escalation of canakinumab. When the patient was switched back to anakinra, which inhibits IL-α and IL-β, the disease promptly went back into remission. These data, together with clinical data from our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of ARCALYST, indicate that IL-1α and IL-1β play unique roles in recurrent pericarditis and other autoinflammatory diseases in which the pathology may be driven primarily by IL-1α.

Beyond recurrent pericarditis, we believe there is significant potential for ARCALYST to address additional indications. For example, we believe there are other diseases of the cardiovascular system where tissue inflammation may be driven by IL1α or IL1β. More generally, we believe there may be many diseases characterized by painful serosal inflammation that may be driven by IL1α, and we intend to consider development of ARCALYST in these indications and in others where we believe IL1α or IL1β play a key role in disease pathophysiology.

Background and Market Opportunity for Recurrent Pericarditis

Pericarditis is the most common disorder involving the pericardium, the two-layered sac that surrounds the heart. Pericarditis is an inflammation of this sac and is typically characterized by significant chest pain, shortness of breath, coughing and fatigue and is often misconstrued by patients as a heart attack. In addition, typical signs of pericarditis include pericardial friction rub, electrocardiogram changes or pericardial effusion, which is a build-up of fluid around the heart. Pericarditis is described as recurrent if, following an initial occurrence of pericarditis, it recurs after a symptom-free period of about four to six weeks. Pericarditis is considered chronic if symptoms of any one

10

Table of Contents

episode last longer than three months, typically causing significant pain and frustration. If pericarditis is left untreated, patients can develop thickening and scarring of the pericardium, potentially requiring invasive surgical stripping. Pericardial effusion, if large enough, can compress the heart externally, requiring emergent drainage.

In March 2021, we received FDA approval to market ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older, and we are exploring opportunities for potential expansion into other countries. Claims analysis, cross validated with published estimates, support a prevalent population of patients with recurrent pericarditis seeking and receiving medical treatment to be approximately 40,000 patients in the United States per year. Within this estimated diagnosed and treated recurrent pericarditis patient population, there are certain subgroups of patients totaling approximately 14,000 with particularly high unmet medical needs consisting of:

Current Treatment Landscape for Recurrent Pericarditis and Our Solution

ARCALYST, a weekly, subcutaneously injected, recombinant fusion protein that blocks IL-1α and IL-1β signaling, is the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis. A patient’s initial acute episode of pericarditis is typically treated with over-the-counter or prescription NSAIDs or colchicine, both of which are used off-label. Prior to ARCALYST’s approval, episodes of recurrent pericarditis would usually have been treated in a similar manner or by adding systemic corticosteroids which were also used off-label. Both colchicine and corticosteroids often have deleterious effects when used at high doses or for long periods of time, including, for colchicine, gastrointestinal distress and neutropenia and, for corticosteroids, glaucoma, fluid retention, hypertension, mood changes, memory changes, other psychological effects, weight gain and diabetes.

In June 2020, we reported final results from RHAPSODY, our global, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized-withdrawal design, pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of ARCALYST in subjects with recurrent pericarditis. RHAPSODY met its prescribed primary and all major secondary efficacy endpoints with statistical significance. Median [95% CI] time to pericarditis recurrence for ARCALYST recipients in the randomized withdrawal period could not be estimated due to the low number of recurrences in the ARCALYST treatment arm. The median time-to-recurrence for placebo recipients was 8.6 [4.0-11.7] weeks (Hazard Ratio = 0.04, p<0.0001). ARCALYST recipients experienced a 96% reduction in risk of recurrent pericarditis events. 81% of ARCALYST recipients maintained clinical response at Week 16 of the randomized withdrawal period, compared to 20% of placebo recipients (p=0.0002). Consistent results were observed at Week 8 and Week 24 and were also highly statistically significant (p<0.0001 and p=0.0022, respectively). The proportion of ARCALYST recipients with absent or minimal pericarditis symptoms at Week 16 of the randomized withdrawal period was 81% compared to 25% for placebo recipients (p=0.0006). Finally, consistent results were observed at Week 8 and Week 24 and were also highly statistically significant (p<0.0001 and p=0.0002, respectively).We believe these data show that ARCALYST demonstrates clinically meaningful outcomes associated with unmet medical need in recurrent pericarditis.

Commercial Strategy for ARCALYST

Beginning with our receipt of FDA approval for ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older in March 2021, we have built focused and targeted commercial infrastructure, with a specialty cardiology salesforce of approximately 30 representatives calling on high-volume accounts and specialists. Our salesforce is complemented by our current medical affairs, payor and patient

11

Table of Contents

services teams, as well as an efficient digital marketing effort. Through a data-driven market assessment, we have developed what we believe to be an efficient launch model built around four key strategic imperatives. The first strategic imperative is establishing the unmet need for recurrent pericarditis patients and working to ensure recurrent pericarditis is viewed as a serious, debilitating disease that is driven primarily by IL-1. The second strategic imperative is working to ensure ARCALYST is viewed as the product of choice for the treatment and reduction in risk of recurrent pericarditis in patients over 12 years of age. The third strategic imperative relates to reimbursement and working to ensure broad patient access at a price that reflects ARCALYST’s value as the first and only FDA-approved therapy for recurrent pericarditis. The fourth and final strategic imperative is building robust patient support programs to optimize the patient and customer experience with ARCALYST as well as with Kiniksa. Overall, our efforts are focused on programs and tactics to help with broad uptake and adoption of ARCALYST as well as ensuring a positive patient experience.

​

Our Product Candidates

Mavrilimumab

Overview

Mavrilimumab is a fully-human monoclonal antibody that antagonizes GM-CSF signaling by binding to the alpha subunit of the GM-CSF receptor.

We plan to focus mavrilimumab development on cardiovascular diseases where the GM-CSF mechanism has been implicated and that have synergies with our existing commercial infrastructure. In parallel, we may also explore the use of mavrilimumab through research collaborations in other development areas.

​

We have also been evaluating mavrilimumab in COVID-19-related ARDS. We are conducting a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial. In April 2021, we announced the Phase 2 portion of the clinical trial achieved its primary efficacy endpoint. In December 2021, we announced that the Phase 3 portion of the clinical trial did not meet its primary efficacy endpoint of proportion of patients alive and free of mechanical ventilation at Day 29. We subsequently decided to not progress mavrilimumab in the COVID-19-related ARDS indication, although we are continuing the Phase 3 clinical trial through its completion date.

We previously evaluated mavrilimumab in GCA, a chronic inflammatory disease of the medium-to-large arteries with an estimated U.S. prevalence of approximately 75,000 to 150,000 patients. In October 2020, we announced that our global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial for the study of mavrilimumab in GCA achieved both the primary efficacy endpoint of time-to-first adjudicated GCA flare by Week 26 in all treated patients and the secondary efficacy endpoint of sustained remission at Week 26 in all treated patients with statistical significance. Additionally, while the trial was not powered for individual disease cohorts, there was a consistent trend of efficacy across the new onset and relapsing/refractory cohorts. In September 2020, the FDA granted Orphan Drug designation for mavrilimumab for the treatment of GCA. In February 2022, we announced that we do not plan to initiate a Phase 3 trial of mavrilimumab in GCA.

Before we licensed mavrilimumab in 2017, MedImmune was developing mavrilimumab for the treatment of RA. MedImmune had received authorization to conduct clinical trials for RA in Europe and executed an extensive Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical program in which the company studied mavrilimumab in over 550 patients with RA through Phase 2b. MedImmune’s clinical trials in RA through Phase 2b achieved their prospectively defined endpoints of efficacy or safety.

Mechanism of Action

Literature data implicate GM-CSF as a key player in the immune system: enhancing trafficking of myeloid cells through activated endothelium of blood vessels and contributing to monocyte and macrophage accumulation in blood vessels during inflammation; promoting activation, differentiation, survival and proliferation of monocytes and macrophages, as well as resident tissue macrophages in inflamed tissues; promoting the differentiation of effector T cells at inflamed sites and draining lymph nodes; and regulating the phenotype of antigen presenting cells in inflamed tissues

12

Table of Contents

by promoting the differentiation of infiltrating monocytes into M1 macrophages and monocyte derived dendritic cells, or MoDCs. These studies have demonstrated that with GM-CSF overexpression, pathological changes almost always follow.

Mavrilimumab is designed to inhibit the signaling of GM-CSF, a growth factor that stimulates the production of certain types of white blood cells. In an ex vivo GCA artery culture model, mavrilimumab inhibited inflammatory molecules characteristic of GCA pathophysiology: Inhibition of the GM-CSFR pathway was confirmed by significant decreases in PU.1 mRNA levels; inhibition of related immune pathways was demonstrated by significant decreases in mRNA for TNFα and CXCL10 mRNA as well as decreases in CXCL10 protein and mRNA levels. The observed significant decrease in IL-6 protein levels was consistent with the decrease in IL-6 mRNA levels observed with mavrilimumab treatment in RA patients in Phase 2.

Vixarelimab

Overview

Vixarelimab is a fully-human monoclonal antibody that targets OSMRβ, which mediates signaling of IL-31 and OSM, two key cytokines implicated in inflammation, pruritus and fibrosis. We believe vixarelimab to be the only monoclonal antibody in development that targets both pathways simultaneously.

We are evaluating vixarelimab for the potential treatment of prurigo nodularis, a chronic inflammatory skin condition with an estimated U.S. prevalence of approximately 300,000 patients. We received Breakthrough Therapy designation for vixarelimab for the treatment of pruritus associated with prurigo nodularis in November 2020.

In April 2020, we announced that the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a trial of vixarelimab in prurigo nodularis achieved its primary and secondary efficacy endpoints with statistical significance. The Phase 2a trial met its primary efficacy endpoint, as there was a statistically significant reduction in weekly-average WI-NRS from baseline at Week 8 in vixarelimab recipients compared to placebo recipients. In addition, the majority of vixarelimab recipients showed a clinically meaningful greater-than-or-equal-to 4-point weekly-average WI-NRS reduction at Week 8 and a statistically significant percentage of vixarelimab recipients achieved a prurigo nodularis investigator’s global assessment, or PN-IGA, score of 0/1 at Week 8 compared to placebo recipients. We are enrolling and dosing patients in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2b dose ranging study of vixarelimab in patients with prurigo nodularis designed to investigate efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics.

Mechanism of Action

The OSMRβ subunit is an IL-6-type receptor which combines with one of two other subunits to form two distinct cytokine receptors used for the signaling of two different cytokines: IL-31, and OSM. IL-31 binds to the IL-31 receptor on keratinocytes, epidermal cells, leading to a sensation of pruritus and further inflammatory responses in the skin. In addition to interacting with IL-31 receptors on keratinocytes, IL-31 also stimulates pruritus directly through IL-31 receptors expressed on unmyelinated C-fibers in the skin responsible for the sensation and transmission of pruritic signaling.

OSM is produced primarily under inflammatory conditions and stimulates dermal fibroblast proliferation and migration as well as synthesis of collagen and glycosaminoglycan in the skin, leading to fibrosis. In addition to these functions, OSM signaling through the type II OSM receptor upregulates interleukin-4, or IL-4, interleukin-13 receptor, or IL-13Rα1, and interleukin-4 receptor, or IL-4Rα, in human skin equivalent cultures, upregulates IL-4Rα in primary human keratinocytes and also impairs expression of filaggrin, loricrin and involucrin (classical “differentiation” markers of the epidermal differentiation complex cluster) in human skin equivalent cultures. These data implicate OSM signaling as important in many autoimmune diseases characterized by barrier dysfunction, fibrosis and inflammation.

Vixarelimab inhibits both IL-31 and OSM activities at their respective receptors, potentially disrupting the pruritus, inflammation and fibrosis mediated by these cytokine pathways.

13

Table of Contents

Background and Market Opportunity for Prurigo Nodularis

Prurigo nodularis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects primarily older adults and is characterized by multiple firm and extremely pruritic nodules typically located on the arms and legs. The etiology of prurigo nodularis is largely unknown, however, human biopsy studies have shown that the cytokines IL-31 and OSM and the receptor chains IL-31Rα and OSMRβ are highly expressed in prurigo nodularis lesions. The pruritus is severe and distressing and can be sudden, sporadic or continuous, worsening with heat, sweating or irritation from clothing. The itching sensation in prurigo nodularis is extreme and often leads to scratching to the point of bleeding, infection or pain. Our market research to-date with physicians and patients highlights the severe and debilitating nature of this disease and the significant levels of unmet need. Multiple physicians have reported suicidal tendencies among their prurigo nodularis patients due to an overwhelming inability to control the unrelenting itch. The exact prevalence of prurigo nodularis is unknown, however, we estimate there to be approximately 300,000 prevalent cases in the United States.

Current Treatment Landscape for Prurigo Nodularis and Our Solution

We are not aware of any FDA-approved therapies for treating prurigo nodularis, and the treatment approach ranges from topical corticosteroids and occlusive steroid containing bandages for more mild patients to systemic corticosteroid, ultraviolet phototherapy and systemic therapies such as thalidomide, methotrexate and cyclosporine for those patients who fail initial treatments. Patients have reported using opioid pain medications to attempt to control the disease in its most severe form.

Vixarelimab is a fully-human monoclonal antibody that targets two key pathways for the development of pruritus, inflammation and fibrosis through inhibition of OSMRβ. Chronic pruritic diseases are often characterized by a complex interplay among pruritus, inflammation and fibrosis. The pathogenesis of chronic pruritic diseases involves interlocking positive feedback loops in which pruritus causes scratch, and scratch causes reactive inflammation through mechanical disruption of the skin architecture. The decline in skin barrier function and resulting bacterial colonization or infection ultimately increase extracellular matrix formation and collagen deposition, leading to fibrosis. Fibrosis then begets more pruritus through disruption and dysregulation of sensory nerve fiber expression.

Current therapies target only one or two aspects of this complex pathophysiology and are inevitably limited in their effectiveness. Targeting only one pathway may address a single aspect of the symptomatology, e.g., pruritus, but not the full spectrum of the pathophysiologic components of the disease. This point is particularly relevant since OSM is upregulated in many chronic inflammatory skin diseases and synergistically interacts with pruritic and inflammatory pathways. Of particular relevance is the central role of OSM in inflammation and barrier function and its autocrine effects on type II OSM receptor in IL-31-dependent epidermal proliferation and remodeling as well as inflammation.

There is a relatively large body of literature linking pruritic and inflammatory diseases to both IL-31 and OSM via signaling though OSMRβ. Vixarelimab has been specifically designed to target both pathways simultaneously, and thus vixarelimab may disrupt this pathologic cycle in patients afflicted by prurigo nodularis and atopic dermatitis.

OSMRβ Axis Identified in Prurigo Nodularis

In 2019 at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology, we presented preclinical data identifying the OSMRβ axis in prurigo nodularis subjects. Data from our longitudinal observational study in prurigo nodularis, or LOTUS-PN suggest that the OSMRβ axis (IL-31, OSM, IL-31 receptor alpha (IL-31Rα) and OSMRβ) may play a role in the pathogenesis of prurigo nodularis given its prevalent expression in lesional prurigo nodularis. IL-31 messenger ribonucleic acid was expressed in approximately two-thirds of lesional biopsies from prurigo nodularis patients with WI-NRS ≥ 7 compared to one-tenth in healthy volunteers. Additionally, lesional biopsies from prurigo nodularis patients contained mononuclear cells expressing OSM, OSMRβ, IL-31 and IL-31Rα protein compared with non-lesional biopsies.

14

Table of Contents

Phase 2a Clinical Trial in Prurigo Nodularis

We previously conducted a Phase 2a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerability, PK and immunogenicity of vixarelimab administered SC in subjects with moderate-to-severe prurigo nodularis experiencing moderate-to-severe pruritus. The trial enrolled and treated 49 patients with moderate-to-severe prurigo nodularis (mean PN-IGA of 3.4) experiencing moderate-to-severe pruritus (mean WI-NRS score of 8.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a loading dose of vixarelimab 720 mg (n=23) or placebo (n=26) SC followed by vixarelimab 360 mg or placebo SC weekly. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent change versus baseline in weekly-average WI-NRS at Week 8 (using the last observation carried forward analysis).

In April 2020, we reported that our Phase 2a trial met its primary efficacy endpoint, as there was a statistically significant reduction in weekly-average WI-NRS from baseline at Week 8 in vixarelimab recipients compared to placebo recipients. In addition, the majority of vixarelimab recipients showed a clinically meaningful greater-than-or-equal-to 4-point weekly-average WI-NRS reduction at Week 8 and a statistically significant percentage of vixarelimab recipients achieved a PN-IGA score of 0/1 at Week 8 compared to placebo recipients. Results from the trial included the following:

In this Phase 2a trial, vixarelimab was well-tolerated by all subjects and no dose-limiting adverse experiences were observed. There were no SAEs or atopic dermatitis flares.

Phase 2b Clinical Trial in Prurigo Nodularis

In December 2020, we announced the commencement of dosing in the Phase 2b clinical trial of vixarelimab in prurigo nodularis. The Phase 2b trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of vixarelimab in patients with prurigo nodularis. The trial is expected to enroll approximately 180 patients experiencing severe pruritus. Patients will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive vixarelimab 540 mg, 360 mg, 120 mg, or placebo as a once-monthly SC injection. The primary efficacy endpoint is the percent change from baseline in the weekly-average WI-NRS at Week 16. Key secondary endpoints include the proportion of patients achieving greater-than-or-equal-to 4-point weekly-average WI-NRS reduction at Week 16 and the proportion of patients achieving a 0/1 score (clear/almost clear) on the PN-IGA at Week 16. The study is designed to define the minimum effective dose of vixarelimab and inform pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to support selection of dosing regimen(s) to carry forward into a potential Phase 3 trial. We expect to report top-line data from the Phase 2b clinical trial in the second half of 2022.

​

KPL-404

15

Table of Contents

Overview

KPL-404 is an investigational monoclonal antibody inhibitor of CD40-CD154 interaction. CD40-CD154 interaction is a key T-cell co-stimulatory signal critical for B-cell maturation, immunoglobulin class switching, and Type 1 immune response.

In May 2021, we reported positive final data from our randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose Phase 1 clinical trial of KPL-404 in healthy volunteers which evaluated safety and pharmacokinetics, as well as RO, and TDAR in these subjects. KPL-404 showed dose-dependent increases in concentration across cohorts. All dose escalations occurred as per protocol with no dose-limiting safety findings. KPL-404 was well-tolerated, and there were no serious adverse reactions. Subjects dosed with KPL-404 10 mg/kg IV showed full RO through at least Day 71 and complete suppression of TDAR after keyhole limpet hemocyanin, or KLH, challenge and re-challenge through at least Day 57. Subjects dosed with KPL-404 5 mg/kg SC showed full RO through Day 43 and suppression of TDAR after KLH challenge through at least Day 29.

​

We are enrolling and dosing patients in a Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial of KPL-404 in rheumatoid arthritis, which is designed to enable its potential development in a spectrum of autoimmune diseases believed to be mediated by the CD40-CD154 co-stimulatory interaction. In January 2022, we provided KPL-404 to the University of Maryland School of Medicine, as part of an experimental immunosuppressive regimen in connection with a transplant of a genetically-modified pig heart into an adult human with end-stage heart disease who was not eligible for a standard allogeneic heart transplant.

​

Mechanism of Action

KPL-404 is designed to block CD40-CD154 interaction by binding to and inhibiting signaling through the CD40 receptor. CD40 is a member of the Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor superfamily which is constitutively or inducibly expressed on the surface of a variety of immune and non-immune cell types including B cells, macrophages, dendritic cells, microglia, endothelial cells, epithelial cells, and keratinocytes and can also be upregulated on other cell types in the context of autoimmune disease. Interactions between B cell-expressed CD40 and its binding partner, CD40L, mainly expressed on activated CD4+ T cells, play a critical role in promoting germinal center formation and the production of class-switched antibodies. The role of CD40 in B cells has been extensively characterized and has been shown to be essential for productive primary and secondary humoral immune responses to T dependent antigens. External clinical data that point to the broad potential power of the mechanism has been established in RA, systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjogren’s syndrome, Graves’ disease and prevention of transplant rejection. Ongoing Phase 2 trials from competitors implicate additional indications for potential development, including type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, prevention of liver transplant rejection, hidradenitis suppurativa, lupus nephritis and multiple sclerosis.

Our Solution

KPL-404 inhibits CD40-CD154 interaction with low-single digit nanomolar affinity in vitro. The presentation of KPL-404 is as a high-concentration, liquid formulation, which we believe may allow for a higher delivered dose in one SC injection than all other competitors whose formulations are limited mainly to high dose IV or lower-dose SC administration. We believe some competitor assets do not fully antagonize signaling as evidenced by efficacy failures and the generation of anti-drug antibodies even at maximum delivered and/or attainable dose levels.

​

Preclinical Development

​

In preclinical development, KPL-404 has been observed to have a favorable pharmacokinetic and toxicology profile and has shown activity in multiple non-human primate models of organ transplant rejection, as well as in multiple TDAR models. The data in the graphs below show in a non-human primate TDAR model that KPL-404 had linear pharmacokinetics with low variability which translated into complete suppression of antibody responses to a novel antigen (KLH) at drug levels achieving 100% receptor occupancy.

​

16

Table of Contents

Phase 1 Clinical Trial

We previously conducted a Phase 1 trial of KPL-404, which was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose, first-in-human study that was divided into two parts: a single dose of KPL-404 0.03 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg IV and a single dose of KPL-404 1 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg SC administered to separate cohorts of healthy volunteers. The primary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of KPL-404. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, CD40 RO, the immune response to the novel test antigen KLH in clinically relevant dose cohorts, and the anti-drug antibody response.

In May 2021, we reported final results from this Phase 1 trial of KPL-404, which met both its primary objective and secondary endpoints. Results from the trial included the following:

Phase 2 Proof-of-Concept Trial in Rheumatoid Arthritis

In December 2021, we commenced a Phase 2 proof-of-concept clinical trial of KPL-404 in RA. The Phase 2 trial is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study designed to provide pharmacokinetic data and early signal of efficacy with chronic administration, and optionality to evaluate KPL-404 across a range of other autoimmune diseases. The trial is expected to enroll patients with active RA who have an inadequate response to or are intolerant to a Janus kinase inhibitor (a “JAKi”) or at least one biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (a “bDMARD”). Subjects who have failed both bDMARD and JAKi are excluded from the study. Cohorts 1 through 3 will each

17

Table of Contents

sequentially randomize eight patients in a 6:2 ratio to receive KPL-404 (2mg/kg, 5mg/kg or 10mg/kg, respectively) or placebo as a SC injection every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoints for Cohorts 1 through 3 will be the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and to evaluate pharmacokinetic data across dosing levels. Cohort 4 will randomize up to 60 patients in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive KPL-404 10 mg/kg, 5mg/kg or placebo as a SC injection every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint for Cohort 4 will be the change in baseline in DAS28-CRP at Week 12. Secondary endpoints for Cohort 4 will be the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and to evaluate pharmacokinetic data across dosing.

Discovery Activities

We conduct internal discovery activities directed toward wholly owned molecules for the treatment of debilitating disease targets where we believe there to be a strong mechanistic rationale and potential for clear differentiation from existing approved agents or those in development.

License and Acquisition Agreements

License Agreement with Regeneron

In September 2017, we entered into a license agreement with Regeneron, or the Regeneron Agreement. Pursuant to the Regeneron Agreement, we have an exclusive license under certain intellectual property rights controlled by Regeneron to develop and commercialize ARCALYST worldwide, excluding the Middle East and North Africa, for all indications other than those in oncology and local administration to the eye or ear. Upon receiving positive data in RHAPSODY, our pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial of ARCALYST, Regeneron transferred the biologics license application, or BLA, for ARCALYST to us. In March 2021, when the FDA granted approval of ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older, we assumed the sales and distribution of ARCALYST for CAPS and DIRA in the United States.

Under the Regeneron Agreement, we made an upfront payment of $5.0 million. In addition, we made a $7.5 million payment in the fourth quarter of 2020 in connection with the achievement of a specified regulatory milestone event and a regulatory milestone payment of $20.0 million in the first quarter of 2021. We evenly split profits on sales of ARCALYST with Regeneron, where profits are determined after deducting from net sales of ARCALYST certain costs related to the manufacturing and commercialization of ARCALYST. Such costs include but are not limited to (i) our cost of goods sold for product used, sold or otherwise distributed for patient use by us; (ii) customary commercialization expenses, including the cost of our field force, and (iii) our cost to market, advertise and otherwise promote ARCALYST, with such costs identified in subsection (iii) subject to specified limits. In addition, should there be a transfer of technology related to the manufacture of ARCALYST, then, to the extent permitted in accordance with the Regeneron Agreement, the fully-burdened costs of each of us and Regeneron incurred in performing (or having performed) such technology transfer shall also be deducted from net sales of ARCALYST to determine profit. We also evenly split with Regeneron any proceeds received by us from any licensees, sublicensees and distributors in consideration for the sale, license or other disposition of rights with respect to ARCALYST, including upfront payments, milestone payments and royalties.

Regeneron has a right of first negotiation over our engagement of any third party to support our promotional activities in excess of a specified level and over the assignment or sale of our rights to any product we develop under the Regeneron Agreement to a third party. In addition, we will need Regeneron’s prior written consent for the sublicense of certain rights to a third party, provided that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed with respect to the sublicensing of rights outside of the United States. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, we will need Regeneron’s prior consent to assign our rights under the Regeneron Agreement.

The Regeneron Agreement will expire on the date on which we, our affiliates or sublicensees are no longer developing or commercializing any product containing ARCALYST. We may terminate the agreement for convenience at any time with one year’s written notice. We may also terminate with three months’ written notice if we reasonably determine that ARCALYST is unsafe in the indications we are pursuing. Regeneron may terminate the agreement if there is a consecutive twelve month period during which we do not conduct any material development or

18

Table of Contents

commercialization activities or we do not grant a sublicense to a third party to do so, or if we challenge Regeneron’s patent rights in any country in our territory. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of a material breach by the other party that remains uncured for 90 days (or 30 days for payment-related breaches), or by either party due to the insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party.

We have also entered into a commercial supply agreement with Regeneron, or the Supply Agreement. Pursuant to the Supply Agreement, Regeneron has the exclusive right to manufacture and supply all of our requirements of ARCALYST for development or commercialization activities. The Supply Agreement terminates upon the termination of the Regeneron Agreement or the date of completion of the transfer of technology related to the manufacture of ARCALYST.

License Agreement with MedImmune

In December 2017, we entered into a license agreement with MedImmune, or the MedImmune Agreement. Pursuant to the MedImmune Agreement, MedImmune granted us an exclusive, worldwide license under certain intellectual property rights controlled by MedImmune to make, use, develop and commercialize mavrilimumab and any other product containing an antibody to the GM-CSF receptor alpha that is covered by certain MedImmune patent rights for all indications. We also acquired non-exclusive licenses to other MedImmune technology for use in exploiting licensed products. We may sublicense these rights subject to consent of MedImmune and any applicable licensors of rights under which we are licensed. We also acquired reference rights to relevant manufacturing and regulatory documents, and existing inventory of mavrilimumab drug substance. We must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the licensed products.

Under the MedImmune Agreement, we made an upfront payment of $8.0 million. In addition, we made a $5 million pass-through payment and a $10 million milestone payment in the year ended December 31, 2019 related to the achievement of specified clinical milestone events achieved during the year ended December 31, 2018. We are also obligated to make future clinical, regulatory and initial sales milestone payments of up to $57.5 million in the aggregate for the first two indications. In addition, we are also obligated to make future clinical and regulatory milestone payments of up to $15.0 million in the aggregate for each subsequent indication. In July 2020, we entered into an amendment to the MedImmune Agreement to establish a new coronavirus field and defer the payment of certain development and regulatory milestones as applied to the new coronavirus field. We are obligated to make milestone payments to MedImmune of up to $85.0 million upon the achievement of annual net sales thresholds up to, but excluding, $1.0 billion in annual net sales as well as additional milestone payments aggregating up to $1.1 billion upon the achievement of additional annual net sales thresholds starting at $1.0 billion and higher. Commencing on the first commercial sale of licensed products, we are obligated to pay tiered royalties on escalating tiers of annual net sales of licensed products starting in the low double-digit percentages and ending at twenty percent. We must pay such royalties on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the latest to occur of the expiration of licensed patents, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity or the tenth anniversary of first commercial sale of such product in such country.

The MedImmune Agreement will remain in effect until the expiration of the royalty term in all countries for all licensed products. The MedImmune Agreement may be terminated earlier at any time by us with at least 90 days’ prior notice, by either party in the event of material breach by the other party that remains uncured for 90 days, by either party for insolvency or bankruptcy of the other party, or immediately by MedImmune if we challenge the licensed patents.

Biogen Asset Purchase Agreement

In September 2016, we completed the acquisition of certain assets of Biogen pursuant to an asset purchase agreement, or the Biogen Agreement. Pursuant to the Biogen Agreement, we acquired all of Biogen’s right, title and interest in and to certain assets used in or relating to vixarelimab and other antibodies covered by certain patent rights, including patents and other intellectual property rights, clinical data, certain contracts, know-how and inventory, which we refer to collectively as the acquired assets, or the Acquired Assets. In addition, Biogen granted us a non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to certain background patent rights related the vixarelimab program. Under the Biogen Agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the Acquired Assets.

19

Table of Contents

Under the Biogen Agreement, we made an upfront payment of $11.5 million and a technology transfer payment of $0.5 million to Biogen. In addition, we made a milestone payment of $4.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2017, associated with the achievement of a specified clinical milestone event. We made milestone payments of $10.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2019, primarily associated with the achievement of a specified clinical milestone event. We are also obligated to make future milestone payments for each antibody product that includes the Acquired Assets, or an Antibody Product, of up to $315.0 million in the aggregate upon the achievement of specified milestones. These milestone payments relate to multiple indications for an Antibody Product, and are comprised of up to $165.0 million in the aggregate upon achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestone events and $150.0 million in the aggregate upon the achievement of specified annual net sales thresholds. Commencing on the first commercial sale of an Antibody Product, we are obligated to pay tiered royalties on escalating tiers of annual net sales of licensed products starting in the high single-digit percentages and ending below the teens. We must pay such royalties on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the latest to occur of the expiration of patents that cover an Antibody Product, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity or the tenth anniversary of first commercial sale of such product in such country. We have also agreed to pay certain obligations under third-party contracts retained by Biogen that relate to vixarelimab.

Under the Biogen Agreement, Biogen has a time-limited right of first negotiation to purchase the assets we acquired from Biogen or obtain a license to exploit Antibody Products, in each case, in the event we decide to sell the acquired assets, including through the sale of our company, or out-license the rights to the Antibody Products.

The Biogen Agreement will remain in effect until expiration of all payment obligations in all countries related to the last antibody product subject to the Biogen Agreement. The Biogen Agreement may be terminated by us with 90 days’ prior notice, by either party in the event of a material breach by the other party that remains uncured for 90 days (or 30 days for payment-related breaches) or by both parties upon mutual consent. In the event of a termination, the Acquired Assets, including certain licenses and rights related thereto, will revert to Biogen, and, upon written request by Biogen, we are required to grant to Biogen an exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable license to certain of our intellectual property related to the Acquired Assets, including know-how and patent rights.

Primatope Stock Purchase Option Agreement

In September 2017, we entered into a stock purchase option agreement, or the Primatope Agreement, with Primatope, pursuant to which we were granted a license to certain intellectual property rights owned or controlled by Primatope to research, develop, and manufacture the preclinical antibody, KPL-404, and an exclusive call option through April 2018 to purchase all of the outstanding securities of Primatope with up to three extensions periods through mid-January 2019. Upon execution of the agreement, we made $0.5 million in upfront payments for the initial option period and we made payments totaling $0.8 million for extending option period through mid-January 2019. During the option periods, we conducted research and preclinical work to assess the viability of the program.

In January 2019, we exercised the call option and in March 2019, we acquired all of the outstanding securities of Primatope, or the Primatope Acquisition. The aggregate amount of upfront and contingent payments we paid to the former Primatope shareholders to acquire Primatope was comprised of (i) $15.0 million paid at closing in March 2019, comprised of upfront consideration of $10.0 million and milestone payments of $5.0 million which had been achieved as of the closing date, and (ii) $3.0 million paid in June 2019 for the final milestone payment, which was achieved following the closing during the six months ended June 30, 2019, each paid in a combination of cash and our Class A common shares (inclusive of escrow and holdback share amounts) in accordance with the Primatope Agreement. We released the escrow and issued Class A common shares that were held back at closing in June 2020 and issued the Class A common shares that were held back at the final milestone payment in September 2020.

As a result of the Primatope Acquisition, we acquired the rights to an exclusive license to certain intellectual property rights controlled by BIDMC to make, use, develop and commercialize KPL-404 under the BIDMC license agreement, or the BIDMC Agreement. Under the BIDMC Agreement, we are solely responsible for all development, regulatory and commercial activities and costs. We are also responsible for costs related to filing, prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patent rights. Under the BIDMC Agreement, we are obligated to pay an insignificant annual maintenance fee as well as clinical and regulatory milestone payments of up to an aggregate of $1.2 million to BIDMC.

20

Table of Contents

We are also obligated to pay a low single-digit royalty on annual net sales of products licensed under the agreement, if approved.

Manufacturing

We do not currently own or operate any late-stage manufacturing facilities. Although we have built a development and manufacturing facility to produce drug substance to support certain research, preclinical and other clinical development for our product candidates, we rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our late-stage product candidates and certain of our early-stage product candidates for the majority of our clinical development efforts, as well as for the commercial manufacture of ARCALYST and our future products and product candidates, if approved. We have entered into a Supply Agreement with Regeneron pursuant to which Regeneron has the exclusive right to manufacture and supply all of our requirements of ARCALYST for development and commercial activities. The Supply Agreement terminates upon the termination of the Regeneron Agreement or the date of completion of the transfer of technology related to the manufacture of ARCALYST. Regeneron, in turn, relies upon a third-party CMO to conduct fill/finish operations for ARCALYST. Under certain circumstances, we or Regeneron could initiate a technology transfer to either us or another CMO to manufacture ARCALYST.

We also have engaged with a CMO to produce mavrilimumab beyond our current inventory, have engaged CMOs to manufacture vixarelimab drug substance and drug product currently in use in our on-going clinical trial, and have qualified two CMOs to produce KPL-404 drug product. We currently remain the sole producer of KPL-404 drug substance. We intend to use CMOs for development and scale-up work for any future clinical trials and eventual commercialization of mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404, if approved. We intend to produce our preclinical product candidates for Phase 1 and Phase 2 studies in our own early-stage manufacturing facilities.

We require our CMOs to conduct manufacturing activities in compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements. We have assembled a team of experienced employees and consultants to provide the necessary technical, quality and regulatory oversight of our CMOs. We currently perform most process development internally but are reliant on CMOs for late-stage clinical manufacturing, process qualification and validation and commercial supply. We anticipate that these CMOs will have the capacity to support both clinical supply and commercial-scale production, but we do not have any formal agreements at this time with any of these CMOs to cover commercial production. We also may elect to pursue additional CMOs for manufacturing supplies of drug substance and finished drug product in the future.

Our reliance on third-parties to manufacture certain of our products and product candidates exposes us to risks, see “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Manufacturing and Our Reliance on Third Parties.”

Commercial Operations

Our team is experienced in commercial leadership and we intend to expand our capabilities in parallel with the development path of our product candidates. The FDA approved ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years and older in March 2021. We now market ARCALYST in the United States for recurrent pericarditis and have established our own specialty cardiology salesforce. Our salesforce is complemented by our current medical affairs payor and patient services teams. We have also built an efficient digital marketing effort by targeting a subset of cardiologists currently treating pericarditis. For our other product candidates, we intend to establish commercialization strategies for each as we approach potential marketing approval and, due to the specialization among physicians treating the indications we are targeting, we expect to be able leverage our then-existing medical affairs, payor and patient services teams, and marketing organization.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. We face potential competition from many different sources, including pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Our products and any product candidates that we successfully develop and

21

Table of Contents

commercialize, including ARCALYST, mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404, may compete with existing products and new products that may become available in the future.

Our competitors may have significantly greater financial resources, established presence in the market, expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical and clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals and reimbursement and marketing approved products than we do. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, sales, marketing 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. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of ARCALYST, mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404 and any other product candidates that we develop, if approved, are likely to be our product candidates, including their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity for any of our product candidates could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products.

We are aware of the following products currently marketed or in clinical development for the treatment of the diseases that we are initially targeting:

ARCALYST

Recurrent Pericarditis: We are not aware of any FDA-approved therapies for recurrent pericarditis, but are aware of one program (RPH-104) being developed by R-Pharm International, which inhibits IL-1α/IL-1β-induced signaling and is in Phase 2 development in recurrent pericarditis subjects.

Dual IL-1α and IL-1β Inhibition: Anakinra (KINERET), marketed by Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, is currently approved for use in RA, CAPS and DIRA. We are not aware of any active, industry sponsored development programs using anakinra seeking a label for recurrent pericarditis.

IL-1β Inhibition Alone: Canakinumab (ILARIS), marketed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, is currently approved for use in CAPS, Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor Associated Periodic Syndrome (TRAPS), Hyperimmunoglobulin D Syndrome (HIDS), Mevalonate Kinase Deficiency (MKD) and Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF), Still’s Disease and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (SJIA). We are not aware of any active, industry sponsored development programs using canakinumab seeking a label for recurrent pericarditis. Additionally, Novartis is also developing gevokizumab for use in oncologic indications.

IL-1α Inhibition Alone: There are other therapies which modulate IL-1α in preclinical and clinical development for diseases other than recurrent pericarditis from Johnson & Johnson and XBIOTECH USA, INC. We are not aware of any active, industry sponsored development programs for these programs seeking a label for recurrent pericarditis.

Mavrilimumab

GM-CSF Antagonists: There are five other programs in clinical development in various indications that modulate GM-CSF signaling from GlaxoSmithKline plc, or GSK (otilimab), I-MAB Biopharma (plonmarlimab), Roivant Sciences Ltd. (gimsilumab and namilumab) and Humanigen, Inc. (lenzilumab). All of these competitive programs target the GM-CSF ligand itself versus targeting the GM-CSF receptor like mavrilimumab.

22

Table of Contents

Vixarelimab

We are not aware of any therapies currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of prurigo nodularis and we are also not aware of any programs in preclinical or clinical development targeting OSMRβ antagonism.

Prurigo Nodularis: Trevi Therapeutics, Inc., is conducting a Phase 2/3 study with their k-opioid antagonist, nalbuphine ER; Galderma SA is conducting a Phase 3 study with their IL-31 specific antagonist nemolizumab; Incyte Corporation is conducting a Phase 2 study with INCB054707, a JAK1 inhibitor; and, Regeneron / Sanofi SA have conducted Phase 3 studies with their IL-4 antagonist dupilumab (Dupixent).

KPL-404

There are various programs in clinical development antagonizing the CD-40-CD154 costimulatory pathway that can be distinguished by the potential to be administered subcutaneously and those programs, that due to their high required doses or short plasma half-lives, are currently being studied as intravenous only:

Intravenous Administration Only: Astellas Pharma Inc. is developing bleselumab (anti-CD40R); Horizon Therapeutics plc is developing the Tn3 fusion protein, dazodalibep (anti-CD40L); Biogen, Inc. and UCB S.A. are developing dapirolizumab pegol (anti-CD40L); and, Eledon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly Novus, and also formerly Anelixis) are developing AT-1501 (anti-CD40L).

​

Potential Subcutaneous Administration: Novartis A.G. is developing CFZ-533, or iscalimab (anti-CD40), Sanofi S.A./ImmuNext Inc. are developing SAR441344 (anti-CD40L), Bristol Myers-Squibb is developing BMS-986325 (anti-CD40); and Abbvie, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH are developing ravagalimab (anti-CD40).

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our drug candidates, manufacturing and process discoveries, and other know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others, and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We plan to protect our proprietary position using a variety of methods, which include pursuing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements, including compositions of matter, drug product formulations, methods of use and methods of manufacture, that are important to the development and implementation of our business. For example, we or our licensors have or are pursuing patents covering the composition of matter for each of our product candidates and we generally pursue patent protection covering methods of use for each clinical program. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

​

ARCALYST

​

We have a field-specific exclusive license under the Regeneron Agreement to granted patents and pending applications in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions relating to ARCALYST. As of December 31, 2021, the patent rights in-licensed under the Regeneron Agreement relating to our program include one granted patent in the United States and 25 patents granted in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Australia, Brazil and selected countries in Europe and Asia. In addition, the patent rights in-licensed under the Regeneron Agreement relating to our program include patent applications that are pending in the United States, Canada, Europe and selected countries in Asia. A U.S. patent covering ARCALYST as a composition of matter expired in 2020, and relevant composition of matter patents issued outside of the United States are expected to expire by 2023, not including any patent term extensions. A U.S. patent covering methods of using ARCALYST in the treatment of recurrent pericarditis issued in June 2021 and has a statutory term that expires in 2038, not including any patent term adjustment. In March 2021, the FDA granted approval for ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older, which granted us seven years of marketing exclusivity in the United States. See “—License agreement with Regeneron” above for additional information on our rights under the Regeneron Agreement.

23

Table of Contents

​

Mavrilimumab

​

We have an exclusive license under the MedImmune Agreement to granted patents and pending patent applications in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions relating to mavrilimumab. These patents and patent applications cover mavrilimumab as a composition of matter and its use. As of December 31, 2021, the patent rights in-licensed under the MedImmune Agreement relating to our program include three granted patents in the United States and 106 patents granted in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Australia and selected countries in Europe and Asia. In addition, the patent rights in licensed under the MedImmune Agreement relating to our program include patent applications that are pending in the United States, Australia, Europe, Canada, and selected countries in Asia and Latin America. The composition of matter patents for mavrilimumab generally have statutory expiration dates in 2027, although the term of some U.S. patents may be longer due to patent term adjustment to compensate for delays during the patent prosecution process. Patent term extension could extend the expiration date of one patent in the United States and patents in certain other jurisdictions, each in accordance with applicable law. See “—License agreement with MedImmune” above for additional information on our rights under the MedImmune Agreement.

​

Vixarelimab

​

We own, via our acquisition of certain assets from Biogen, granted patents and pending patent applications in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions relating to vixarelimab. These patents and patent applications cover vixarelimab as a composition of matter and its use. As of December 31, 2021, the patent rights acquired from Biogen include four patents granted in the United States and 81 patents granted in other jurisdictions, including Australia, Mexico, South Africa and selected countries in Europe and Asia. In addition, the patent rights acquired from Biogen include patent applications pending in the United States, Europe, Canada, and selected countries in Asia and Latin America. The issued composition of matter patents for vixarelimab have statutory expiration dates in 2034. Patent term extension could extend the expiration date of one patent in the United States and patents in certain other jurisdictions, each in accordance with applicable law. See “—Biogen asset purchase agreement” above for additional information on our rights under the Biogen Agreement.

​

KPL-404

​

We own, via our acquisition of Primatope, granted patents and pending patent applications in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions relating to KPL-404. We also have an exclusive license with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to granted patents and pending patent applications in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions relating to KPL-404. These patents and patent applications cover KPL-404 as a composition of matter and its use. As of December 31, 2021, the patent rights acquired from Primatope include three patents granted in the United States and 27 patents granted in other jurisdictions, including selected countries in Europe and Asia. In addition, the patent rights acquired from Primatope include patent applications pending in the United States, Australia, Europe, Canada, and selected countries in Asia. The issued composition of matter patents for KPL-404 have statutory expiration dates in 2036. As of December 31, 2021, the patent rights licensed from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center include two patents granted in the United States and 33 patents granted in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Australia and selected countries in Europe and Asia. In addition, the patent rights licensed from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center include patent applications pending in the United States, Europe and Canada. The issued composition of matter patents licensed from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center have statutory expiration dates in 2032, not including any patent term extensions or adjustments. Patent term extension could extend the expiration date of one patent in the United States and patents in certain other jurisdictions, each in accordance with applicable law.

​

There can be no assurances that patents will issue from any pending patent applications or that any existing patents may be extended. See “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property—If we are unable to adequately protect our proprietary technology or obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, or if the terms of our patents are insufficient to protect our product candidates for an adequate amount of time, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be materially impaired.”

24

Table of Contents

​

In the future, if and when our drug candidates receive approval by the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions (as applicable, “regulatory authorities”), provided the legal requirements are met, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on issued patents covering those drugs, depending upon the length of the clinical trials for each drug and other factors. There can be no assurance that any of our pending patent applications will issue or that we will benefit from any patent term extension or favorable adjustment to the term of any of our patents.

​

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug products, such as ARCALYST, mavrilimumab and our other product candidates. Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

U.S. Government Regulation of Biological Products

In the United States, the FDA regulates biologics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Biologics are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with applicable federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

The process required by the FDA before a biologic may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

25

Table of Contents

Preclinical Studies and CMC Evaluations

Before testing any biological product candidate, including our product candidates, in humans, the product candidate must undergo rigorous preclinical testing. The preclinical development stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of the chemistry, formulation and stability of the product candidate, as well as trials to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with chemistry manufacturing and controls, or CMC, information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to CMC issues, preclinical issues, or one or more issues in the proposed clinical trials and places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not necessarily result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence. The FDA also may place the IND on partial clinical hold, and a proposed study may only be partially executable, including due to FDA restrictions.

Clinical Trials

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

Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

26

Table of Contents

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow up. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a BLA.

Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional preclinical studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

BLA Review and Approval

Assuming successful completion of the required clinical testing, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of a BLA requesting approval to market the product for one or more indications. The BLA must contain substantial evidence supporting the safety, purity, potency (or efficacy) of the product candidate and may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product candidate’s use or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety, purity and potency (or efficacy) of the investigational product to the satisfaction of the FDA. FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before a biologic may be marketed in the United States.

In most cases, the submission of a BLA is subject to a substantial application user fee. Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews all BLAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an BLA for filing. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the BLA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in depth substantive review. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things whether the product is safe, pure and potent and the facility in which it is manufactured, processed, packed or held meets standards designed to assure the product’s continued safety, purity and potency. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, for original BLAs, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard application and respond to the applicant, and six months from the 60-day filing date for an application with priority review. This review typically takes twelve months

27

Table of Contents

from the date the BLA is submitted to the FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates, and the review process may be extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether the manufacturing processes and facilities comply with cGMPs. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may inspect the sponsor and one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements and the integrity of the clinical data submitted to the FDA.

Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel biologic candidates which present challenges in interpretation of the safety or efficacy data to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. The FDA also may require submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, plan if it determines that a REMS is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh its risks and to assure the safe use of the biological product. The REMS plan could include medication guides, physician communication plans, assessment plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries or other risk minimization tools. The FDA determines the requirement for a REMS, as well as the specific REMS provisions, on a case-by-case basis. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.

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

After the FDA evaluates a BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical or other data, additional clinical trial(s) or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the re-submitted BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval is limited to the conditions of use (e.g., patient population, indication) described in the label. Further, depending on the specific risk(s) to be addressed, the FDA may require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post-approval

28

Table of Contents

trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a product’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution and use restrictions or other risk management mechanisms under a REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing trials or surveillance programs, or new safety findings after market introduction. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic product intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or more than 200,000 individuals in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the product available in the United States for this type of disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product. Orphan Drug designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After the FDA grants Orphan Drug designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan Drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

Orphan Drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to Orphan Drug exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years from the date of such approval, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity by means of greater effectiveness, greater safety, by providing a major contribution to patient care or in instances of drug supply issues.

However, competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity.

A designated Orphan Drug may not receive Orphan Drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. In addition, exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Expedited Review and Approval

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for the development and FDA review of drugs and biologics that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs. The purpose of these programs is to provide important new drugs and biologics to patients earlier than under standard FDA review procedures.

To be eligible for a Fast Track designation, the FDA must determine, based on the request of a sponsor, that a product is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrates the potential to address an unmet medical need for such disease or condition. Fast Track designation provides opportunities for more frequent interactions with the FDA review team to expedite development and review of the product. The FDA may also review sections of the BLA for a Fast Track product on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor and the FDA agree on a schedule for the submission of the application sections, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

A product candidate intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product candidate can receive

29

Table of Contents

Breakthrough Therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product candidate, including involvement of senior managers.

Any BLA submitted to the FDA for approval, including a BLA for a product candidate with a Fast Track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A BLA is eligible for priority review if the product candidate is designed to treat a serious condition, and if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a biologic designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review original BLAs with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months under its standard review goals.

In addition, a product candidate may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug and biologics intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials to verify the predicted clinical benefit. A product that receives accelerated approval may be subject to expedited withdrawal procedures if the sponsor fails conduct the required post-marketing trials or if such trials fail to verify the predicted clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. Furthermore, Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation, accelerated approval and priority review do not change the standards for approval and may not ultimately expedite the development or approval process.

Post-approval Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, product sampling and distribution restrictions, complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (i.e., “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. If there are any modifications to the product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement, which may require the applicant to develop additional data or conduct additional preclinical studies and clinical trials. The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

30

Table of Contents

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

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

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

An abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product was created by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or the Affordable Care Act.

Biosimilarity, which requires that the biological product be highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, must be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a biological product be biosimilar to the reference product and that the product can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products administered multiple times to an individual, that the product and the reference product may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biological product without such alternation or switch.

31

Table of Contents

Under the BPCIA, a reference biological product is granted 12 years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a supplement for the reference product for a subsequent application filed by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the reference product (or licensor, predecessor in interest or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

Foreign Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we are subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, post-marketing requirements and any commercial sales and distribution of our product candidates.

As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained whether or not product candidates obtain FDA approval for a pharmaceutical product, we would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before we can start clinical trials or marketing of the products in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others. Failure to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Regulations Governing Marketing Authorization of Medicinal Products in the European Union

Non-Clinical Studies and Clinical Trials

​

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union, or the EU, are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of GLP, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements.

Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization, or ICH, guidelines on GCP, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If the sponsor of the clinical trial is not established within the EU, it must appoint an EU entity to act as its legal representative. The sponsor must take out a clinical trial insurance policy, and in most EU countries, the sponsor is liable to provide ‘no fault’ compensation to any study subject injured in the clinical trial.

32

Table of Contents

The regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has been subject to recent changes. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation, or CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. Unlike directives, the CTR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to further implement it into national law. The CTR notably harmonizes the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU via a Clinical Trials Information System, which contains a centralized EU portal and database.

While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate clinical trial application, or CTA, to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB respectively, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The CTA must include, among other things, a copy of the trial protocol and an investigational medicinal product dossier containing information about the manufacture and quality of the medicinal product under investigation. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed.

The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

Medicines used in clinical trials must be manufactured in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice, or GMP. Other national and EU-wide regulatory requirements may also apply.

Marketing Authorization

​

In the EU, medicinal products can only be placed on the market after obtaining a marketing authorization, or MA. To obtain a MA of a product candidate in the EU, we must submit a MA application, or MAA. The process for doing this depends, among other things, on the nature of the medicinal product. There are two types of MAs:

33

Table of Contents

Under the above-described procedures, in order to grant the MA, the competent authorities of the EU make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

MAs have an initial duration of five years. After these five years, the authorization may be renewed on the basis of a reevaluation of the risk-benefit balance.

Under the centralized procedure and in exceptional cases, the CHMP might perform an accelerated review of a MA in no more than 150 days (not including clock stops). Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. In March 2016, the EMA launched an initiative, the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme, a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is not guaranteed. Many benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted. Importantly, a dedicated contact and rapporteur from the CHMP is appointed early in the PRIME scheme facilitating increased understanding of the product at EMA’s committee level. An initial meeting initiates these relationships and includes a team of multidisciplinary experts at the EMA to provide guidance on the overall development and regulatory strategies.

Moreover, in the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and has to be renewed annually until fulfillment of all the conditions. Once the pending studies are provided, it can become a “standard” MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the MA ceases to be renewed. Furthermore, MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. This may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This MA is close to the conditional MA as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, the applicant does not have to provide the missing data and will never have to. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the MA is withdrawn in case the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

​

Data and Marketing Exclusivity

​

The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. New products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon receiving MA. If granted, the data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the pre-clinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar MA in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from

34

Table of Contents

commercializing its product in the EU until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

There is a special regime for biosimilars, or biological medicinal products that are similar to a reference medicinal product but that do not meet the definition of a generic medicinal product, for example, because of differences in raw materials or manufacturing processes. For such products, the results of appropriate preclinical or clinical trials must be provided, and guidelines from the EMA detail the type of quantity of supplementary data to be provided for different types of biological product. There are no such guidelines for complex biological products, such as gene or cell therapy medicinal products, and so it is unlikely that biosimilars of those products will currently be approved in the EU. However, guidance from the EMA states that they will be considered in the future in light of the scientific knowledge and regulatory experience gained at the time.

Orphan Medicinal Products

​

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the EU, are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EU, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition. The application for Orphan Drug designation must be submitted before the application for MA. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a MA, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. During this ten-year orphan market exclusivity period, the competent authorities cannot accept another MAA, or grant an MA, or accept an application to extend a MA for a similar product for the same indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed pediatric investigation plan, or PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan Drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The ten-year market exclusivity in the EU may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, a MA may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if (i) the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior; (ii) the applicant consents to a second orphan medicinal product application; or (iii) the applicant cannot supply enough orphan medicinal product.

Pediatrics Development

​

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

35

Table of Contents

a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of the orphan market exclusivity is granted.

Post-approval Requirements

Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the EU member states. The holder of MA for a medicinal product must also comply with pharmacovigilance legislation and its related regulations and guidelines, which entail many requirements for conducting pharmacovigilance, or the assessment and monitoring of the safety of medicinal products. The holder of a MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk-minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

In addition, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products is also subject to laws concerning promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. All advertising and promotional activities for the product must be consistent with the approved summary of product characteristics, and therefore all off-label promotion is prohibited. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines is also prohibited in the EU. Although general requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products are established under EU directives, the details are governed by regulations in each member state and can differ from one country to another.

Failure to comply with EU and national laws that apply to the conduct of clinical trials, manufacturing approval, MA of medicinal products and marketing of such products, both before and after grant of the MA, manufacturing of medicinal products, statutory health insurance, bribery and anti-corruption or with other applicable regulatory requirements may result in administrative, civil or criminal penalties. These penalties could include delays or refusal to authorize the conduct of clinical trials or to grant MA, product withdrawals and recalls, product seizures, suspension, withdrawal or variation of the marketing authorization, total or partial suspension of production, distribution, manufacturing or clinical trials, operating restrictions, injunctions, suspension of licenses, fines and criminal penalties.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA (comprised of the 27 EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom, or UK, left the EU on January 31, 2020, following which existing EU medicinal product legislation continued to apply in the United Kingdom during the transition period under the terms of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The transition period, which ended on December 31, 2020, maintained access to the EU single market and to the global trade deals negotiated by the EU on behalf of its members. The transition period provided time for the UK and EU to negotiate a framework for partnership for the future, which was then crystallized in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or TCA, and became effective on the January 1, 2021. The TCA includes specific provisions concerning pharmaceuticals, which include the mutual recognition of GMP inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued, but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations.

EU laws which have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation continue to be applicable as “retained EU law”. However, new legislation such as the EU CTR or in relation to orphan medicines will not be applicable. The UK government has passed a new Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which introduces delegated

36

Table of Contents

powers in favor of the Secretary of State or an ‘appropriate authority’ to amend or supplement existing regulations in the area of medicinal products and medical devices. This allows new rules to be introduced in the future by way of secondary legislation, which aims to allow flexibility in addressing regulatory gaps and future changes in the fields of human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices.

As of January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, is the UK’s standalone medicines and medical devices regulator. As a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, different rules will apply in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales, and Scotland, together, Great Britain, or GB; broadly, Northern Ireland will continue to follow the EU regulatory regime, but its national competent authority will remain the MHRA. The MHRA has published a guidance on how various aspects of the UK regulatory regime for medicines will operate in GB and in Northern Ireland following the expiry of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020. The guidance includes clinical trials, importing, exporting, and pharmacovigilance and is relevant to any business involved in the research, development, or commercialization of medicines in the UK. The new guidance was given effect via the Human Medicines Regulations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, or the Exit Regulations.

The MHRA has introduced changes to national licensing procedures, including procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment and a rolling review procedure. All existing EU MAs for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into UK MAs, effective in GB (only), free of charge on January 1, 2021, unless the MA holder chooses to opt-out. In order to use the centralized procedure to obtain a MA that will be valid throughout the EEA, companies must be established in the EEA. Therefore after Brexit, companies established in the UK can no longer use the EU centralized procedure and instead an EEA entity must hold any centralized MAs. In order to obtain a UK MA to commercialize products in the UK, an applicant must be established in the UK and must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures. The MHRA may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new (centralized procedure) MA when determining an application for a GB authorization; or use the MHRA’s decentralized or mutual recognition procedures which enable MAs approved in EU member states (or Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) to be granted in GB.

There will be no pre-MA orphan designation. Instead, the MHRA will review applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding MA application. The criteria are essentially the same, but have been tailored for the market, i.e., the prevalence of the condition in GB, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Should an orphan designation be granted, the period or market exclusivity will be set from the date of first approval of the product in GB.

Rest of the World Regulation

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

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

Other Healthcare Laws

In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical products, other U.S., federal, state and foreign healthcare regulatory laws restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry. These laws include, but are not limited to, federal and state anti-kickback, false claims and transparency laws with respect to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals. Similar laws exists in foreign jurisdictions, including the EU, as well.

37

Table of Contents

The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any good, facility, item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers and beneficiaries on the other hand. Although 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. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not meet the requirements of a statutory or regulatory 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 U.S. federal 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 its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. The majority of states also have anti-kickback laws, which establish similar prohibitions and in some cases may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers, or to self-pay patients.

The federal false claims and civil monetary penalties laws, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, 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, or knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. Actions under the civil False Claims Act may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the civil False Claims Act can result in very significant monetary penalties and treble damages. Several biopharmaceutical, medical device 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 products for unapproved (e.g., off-label), and thus non-covered, uses. In addition, the civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person who 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. Many states also 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.

Violations of fraud and abuse laws, including federal and state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may be punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including fines and civil monetary penalties, the possibility of exclusion from federal healthcare programs (including Medicare and Medicaid), disgorgement of profits and corporate integrity agreements, which impose, among other things, rigorous operational and monitoring requirements on companies. Similar sanctions and penalties, as well as imprisonment, also can be imposed upon executive officers and employees of such companies. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government authorities will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false,

38

Table of Contents

fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and certain other healthcare providers. The Affordable Care Act imposed, among other things, new annual reporting requirements through the Physician Payments Sunshine Act for covered manufacturers for certain payments and “transfers of value” provided to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain non-physician practitioners (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists, anesthesiology assistants and certified nurse midwives), and teaching hospitals as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit timely, accurately and completely the required information for all payments, transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties. Covered manufacturers must submit reports by the 90^th day of each subsequent calendar year and the reported information is publicly made available on a searchable website. In addition, certain states require implementation of compliance programs and compliance with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, impose restrictions on marketing practices or require the tracking and reporting of marketing expenditures and pricing information as well as gifts, compensation and other remuneration or items of value provided to physicians and other healthcare professionals and entities.

Similar laws and regulations in jurisdictions outside of the United States, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs, and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals may apply to us to the extent that any of our product candidates, once approved, are sold in a country other than the United States.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of their exceptions and safe harbors, it is possible that business activities can be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry.

Ensuring that business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations is costly and time consuming. If business operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other applicable governmental regulations a pharmaceutical manufacturer may be subject to penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement of profits, individual imprisonment, exclusion from governmental funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment or restructuring of operations, any of which could adversely affect a pharmaceutical manufacturer’s ability to operate its business and the results of its operations.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any biological products for which we obtain regulatory approval. The United States government, state legislatures and governments outside the United States have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price-controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded drug and biologic products. In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed products generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or a substantial part of the associated healthcare costs. Providers and patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a substantial portion of the cost of our products. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. If approved, sales of our product candidates will depend,

39

Table of Contents

in part, on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government authorities, managed care plans, private health insurers and other organizations.

In the United States, the process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage and the related coverage criteria for a biological product typically is separate from, but related to, the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the level of reimbursement that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. With respect to biologics, 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 FDA-approved products for a particular indication, or place products at certain formulary levels that result in lower reimbursement levels, which results in higher cost-sharing financial obligation imposed on patients. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates, or to impose coverage criteria the limiting situations in which our product candidates are covered, could reduce physician utilization of a product. Moreover, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable a manufacturer to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on its investment in product development. Additionally, coverage, coverage criteria, and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process usually requires manufacturers to provide scientific, clinical and health economic support for the use of their products to each payor separately, which is a time-consuming process.

As noted above, the marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement. The increasing emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement are attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-benefit of pharmaceutical products, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. If third-party payors do not consider a product to offer a favorable cost-benefit compared to other available therapies, they may not cover that product after FDA approval or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow a manufacturer to sell its product at a profit.

In addition, in many countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. In the EU, governments influence the price of products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national healthcare systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers. Member states are free to restrict the range of pharmaceutical products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement, and to control the prices and reimbursement levels of pharmaceutical products for human use. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed to by the government. Member states may approve a specific price or level of reimbursement for the pharmaceutical product, or alternatively adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company responsible for placing the pharmaceutical product on the market, including volume-based arrangements, caps and reference pricing mechanisms. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular product to currently available therapies. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription products, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

40

Table of Contents

Government Price Reporting

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program administered by the states for low-income and disabled beneficiaries. Medicare is a federal program that is administered by the federal government covering individuals aged 65 and over as well as those with certain disabilities. Under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”), as a condition of federal funds being made available for our covered outpatient drugs under Medicaid and for certain drugs or biologicals under Medicare Part B, we pay a rebate to state Medicaid programs for each unit of our covered outpatient drugs dispensed to a Medicaid beneficiary and paid for by the state Medicaid program. Medicaid rebates are based on pricing data that we report on a monthly and quarterly basis to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the federal agency that administers the MDRP and Medicare programs. For the MDRP, these data include the average manufacturer price (“AMP”) for each drug and, in the case of innovator products, best price. In connection with Medicare Part B, a pharmaceutical manufacturer must provide CMS with average sales price (“ASP”) information for certain drugs or biologicals on a quarterly basis. ASP is calculated based on a statutorily defined formula, as well as regulations and interpretations of the statute by CMS. This information is used to compute Medicare Part B payment rates, which consist of ASP plus a specified percentage. If we become aware that our MDRP price reporting submission for a prior period was incorrect or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we must resubmit the revised data for up to three years after those data originally were due. If we fail to provide information timely or are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties and other sanctions, including termination from the MDRP.

Federal law requires that a manufacturer that participates in the MDRP also participate in the Public Health Service’s 340B drug pricing program (the “340B program”) in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) and requires us, as a participating manufacturer, to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for our covered outpatient drugs when used in an outpatient setting. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. A drug that is designated for a rare disease or condition by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is not subject to the 340B ceiling price requirement with regard to the following types of covered entities: rural referral centers, sole community hospitals, critical access hospitals, and free-standing cancer hospitals. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP. In general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. We must report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA publishes them to 340B covered entities. HRSA has finalized regulations regarding the calculation of the 340B ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities for 340B-eligible drugs. HRSA has also finalized an administrative dispute resolution process through which 340B covered entities may pursue claims against participating manufacturers for overcharges, and through which manufacturers may pursue claims against 340B covered entities for engaging in unlawful diversion or duplicate discounting of 340B drugs. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program, such as adding further covered entities or requiring participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

In order to be eligible to have drug products paid for with federal funds under Medicaid and Medicare Part B and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we must also participate in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) pricing program. Under the VA/FSS program, we must report the Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Price (“Non-FAMP”) for our covered drugs to the VA and charge certain federal agencies no more than the Federal Ceiling Price, which is calculated based on Non-FAMP using a statutory formula. These four agencies are the VA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service). We must also pay rebates on products purchased by military personnel and dependents through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. If we fail to provide timely information or are found to have knowingly submitted false information, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties.

Individual states continue to consider and have enacted legislation to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs and combination products. A number of states have either implemented or are

41

Table of Contents

considering implementation of drug price transparency legislation. Requirements under such laws include advance notice of planned price increases, reporting price increase amounts and factors considered in taking such increases, wholesale acquisition cost information disclosure to prescribers, purchasers, and state agencies, and new product notice and reporting. Such legislation could limit the price or payment for certain drugs, and a number of states may impose civil monetary penalties or pursue other enforcement mechanisms against manufacturers who fail to comply with drug price transparency requirements.

Healthcare Reform and Potential Changes to Healthcare Laws

The FDAs and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. For example, in December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act, or Cures Act, was signed into law. The Cures Act, among other things, is intended to modernize the regulation of drugs and devices and to spur innovation, but its ultimate implementation is uncertain. In addition, in August 2017, the FDA Reauthorization Act was signed into law, which reauthorized the FDAs user fee programs and included additional drug and device provisions that build on the Cures Act. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we otherwise may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the level of reimbursement for particular medical products and services, implementing reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and applying new payment methodologies. For example, in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was enacted, which, among other things, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; introduced a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care plans; imposed mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries as a condition for manufacturers’ outpatient drugs coverage under Medicare Part D; subjected drug manufacturers to new annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal healthcare programs; imposed a new federal excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices; created a new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at the CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the Affordable Care Act brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order initiating a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act to reduce healthcare expenditures. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and that will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through July 1, 2022 (with a 1% payment reduction from April 1 to June 30, 2022), unless additional action is taken by Congress; and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More 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

42

Table of Contents

patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical and biologic products. Members of Congress and the Biden Administration have indicated they will continue to pursue legislative or administrative measures to control prescription drug costs, although the likelihood of such measures being adopted remains uncertain. For example, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would introduce substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, and the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D. If the Build Back Better Act is not enacted, similar or other drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation.

Individual states in the United States have become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control biotechnology and pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that governments and third-party payors will pay for healthcare products and services.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws, regulations and standards govern the collection, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related and other personal information, and could apply now or in the future to our operations or the operations of our partners. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including data breach notification laws, health information privacy and security laws and consumer protection laws and regulations govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. In addition, certain foreign laws govern the privacy and security of personal data, including health-related data. For example, the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, establishing a legal basis for processing such as obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, imposing limitations on retention of personal data; maintaining a record of data processing, complying with the principal of accountability and the obligation to demonstrate compliance through policies, procedures, training and audit and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA to countries that the EU does not consider to have in place adequate data protection legislation, including the United States. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the United Kingdom GDPR, or UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, i.e., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to complicate compliance efforts, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant civil and/or criminal penalties and restrictions on data processing.

Human Capital

​

We are intent on cultivating a highly-skilled and passionate team determined to strive to deliver transformative therapies to the patients who need them most. As of December 31, 2021, we had approximately 215 full-time employees, of which approximately 208 were located within the United States and 7 employees were located outside of the United States.

43

Table of Contents

​

We believe that the success and growth of our business depends in large part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel at all levels of our company. To do that, we employ a number of measures, including competitive compensation and benefits, fostering an ethical culture that values diversity and inclusion, and focusing on employee safety and wellness as well as training. These measures help form our human capital management framework and are advanced through the following:

​

Competitive Pay and Benefits. We provide our employees with competitive fixed salaries, cash bonus opportunities designed to incentivize achievement of our goals and individual objectives, equity awards and opportunities for equity ownership through our employee share purchase plan as well as a robust benefit package designed to promote well-being across all aspects of our employees’ lives, including comprehensive health insurance, dental and vision plans, life and other employment related insurance, retirement planning through a 401(k) plan with partial company match, and paid time off.

​

Diversity and Inclusion. We value diversity and inclusion at all levels of our company. We believe that our business benefits from the different perspectives that a diverse workforce brings, and we pride ourselves on having an inclusive culture based on our shared mission and values. In 2021, we launched our diversity statement as a way to formally express our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) and initiated a monthly DEI dashboard for our employees. This initiative is part of our broader effort to establish an in-depth, system orientation towards DEI. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics outlines our dedication to cultivating a diverse and inclusive environment and mandatory, annual trainings for our employees. As an additional demonstration of our commitment to DEI, we also signed the MassBio Pledge to recognize racial inequity in our industry and commit to a more equitable and inclusive life sciences industry.

​

Health and Safety and our Response to COVID-19. Health and safety principles are firmly rooted across our company through the integration of health and safety processes throughout our business and risk management. To foster a safe and healthy culture, we have implemented a comprehensive safety program, driving to understand and mitigate against health and safety incidents. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and measures introduced by state and federal governments in the United States, we implemented workplace protocols at our facilities. In March 2020, we implemented a policy wherein our offices remained open for essential employees and, on a voluntary basis, open for our non-essential employees, in compliance with local, state and federal guidelines. We have since transitioned to a hybrid work schedule for our offices in Lexington, Massachusetts, San Diego, California and London, United Kingdom, and revised our workplace protocols. We have required all employees entering our workplaces in the United States to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to a reasonable accommodation process. We have also established additional safety measures at our facilities, including providing and requiring the use of personal protective equipment, testing prior to returning to the office after an exposure and/or onset of symptoms, enforcing occupancy limits, and implementing enhanced contact tracing tools. These safety measures do not, however, guarantee that COVID-19 does not spread amongst our employees through workplace contact and the sickness of employees may have a significant adverse impact on our business. We continue to monitor the developments, restrictions and requirements in jurisdictions where we have offices, and plan to update the protocols for our offices, as applicable.

​

Our Corporate Information

We are an exempted company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda in July 2015. Our registered office is located in Bermuda at Clarendon House, 2 Church Street, Hamilton HM11, Bermuda. The telephone number for our registered office is +44 808-189-6257. Our website address is www.kiniksa.com. The information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report, and you should not consider any information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website as part of this Annual Report.

Where You Can Find More Information

We are subject to the information requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The SEC maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically, such as ourselves, with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.

44

Table of Contents

We make available free of charge on our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably possible after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our website is located at www.kiniksa.com. The reference to our website address does not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained at or available through our website, and you should not consider it to be a part of this Annual Report.

​

Item 1A.Risk Factors.

​

You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report, including our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. In such an event, the market price of our Class A common shares could decline. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs

We are a biopharmaceutical company and have only started to generate revenue from product sales. We have incurred significant operating losses since our inception and anticipate that we will incur continued losses for the foreseeable future.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. Typically, it takes many years to develop one new product from the time it is discovered to when it is available for treating patients and development may cease for a number of reasons. We have incurred operating losses in each year since our inception in 2015 and anticipate incurring losses for the foreseeable future. Our future success is dependent on our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates. While the FDA approved ARCALYST^® (rilonacept) for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older in March 2021, we may not be able to continue to commercialize ARCALYST or obtain significant and sustained revenue from such commercialization.

We have incurred significant losses related to expenses for research and development and our ongoing operations. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $675.4 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future as a result of many factors, including:

45

Table of Contents

See “Risk Factors — Risks related to product development — The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact on our current or planned preclinical studies and clinical trials, which could be significant.”

Further, the net losses we incur 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. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our shareholders’ equity (deficit) and working capital.

We will require substantial additional financing, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, will force us to delay, limit, reduce or cease one or more of our product development plans, research and development programs for our product candidates, or other operations or commercialization efforts.

The development and commercialization of biopharmaceutical products is capital intensive. In 2021, we gained FDA approval for and commercially launched ARCALYST in the U.S. for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis. In addition, we are advancing our product candidates through research, preclinical and clinical development, including our Phase 2b dose-ranging study of vixarelimab in prurigo nodularis and our Phase 2 clinical trial with KPL-404 in RA.

Our expenses may increase in connection with our ongoing activities as we continue to support our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, continue the research and development of our product candidates and expand our infrastructure and organization to support such activities. We also may incur significant additional commercialization expenses with respect to any future marketing approval of any of our product candidates related to manufacturing, product sales, marketing and distribution. As our product candidates progress through development and towards potential commercialization, we will need to make milestone payments and, if successful, eventually make royalty payments to the applicable licensors and other third parties from whom we have acquired our product candidates. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public company.

Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations. If we are unable to raise capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, we will be forced to delay, limit, reduce or cease one or more of our product development plans, research and development programs for our product

46

Table of Contents

candidates, or commercialization efforts. We also may not be able to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, or may be required to relinquish rights to our product candidates or products.

Our business is highly uncertain, and we cannot estimate with certainty the actual amounts necessary to successfully market and sell products, or complete the development, regulatory approval process and commercialization of our product candidates. Our operating plans may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than expected, through public or private securities offerings, debt financings or other sources, including government funding or grants. Such factors that may significantly impact our funding requirements include:

47

Table of Contents

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to adversely impact the global economy, posing risks to our business and the business of third-parties upon whom we rely. See “Risk Factors — General Risk Factors — The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact that is significant on our business and operations as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers, CROs and other third parties with whom we conduct business or otherwise engage, including the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and has impacted and could continue to impact the global economy, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial position.”

​

Additionally, funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If we are unable to obtain funding when needed, we will be forced to curtail, delay, limit, reduce or cease one or more of our product development plans, research and development programs for our product candidates, or commercialization efforts of any of our products or product candidates for which we obtain approval. We may also be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities or may be required to relinquish rights to our product candidates or products. Any of these occurrences could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

​

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

If and until such time as we can generate substantial and sustained product revenue from ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved in the future, we expect to finance most of our cash needs through private or public securities offerings, debt financings, government funding or grants, or other sources, including licensing, collaboration or other strategic transactions or arrangements with third parties. The terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our shareholders and our issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our Class A common shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute all of our shareholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Obtaining funds through licensing, collaboration or other strategic transactions or arrangements with third parties may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies, product candidates or future revenue streams, or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. If we raise funds

48

Table of Contents

through research grants, we may be subject to certain requirements, which may limit our ability to use the funds or require us to share information from our research and development. Raising additional capital through any of these or other means could adversely affect our business and the holdings or rights of our shareholders, and may cause the market price of our Class A common shares to decline.

Risks Related to Commercialization

​

We have limited experience as a company commercializing a therapeutic product and supporting sales, marketing, distribution and general infrastructure either directly and/or through agreements with third parties. As a result, we may not be able to continue to commercialize ARCALYST or be successful in commercializing any future approved product candidates, potentially impairing commercial potential for ARCALYST and our product candidates to generate any revenue.

The FDA approved ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older in March 2021. Upon approval by the FDA, we assumed the sales and distribution of ARCALYST for the previously approved indications in the United States, announcing the commercial availability of ARCALYST through Kiniksa in April 2021. To achieve commercial success for ARCALYST, we have established and expanded our internal capabilities, including but not limited to, sales, marketing, distribution, access and patient support services as well as contracting with third parties to perform certain services. Each aspect of commercialization on its own can be complex, expensive, and time consuming, and, collectively, the required effort for coordination is intensive. While we have begun the commercialization of ARCALYST and realized revenues from such efforts, there is no guarantee that we will be able to continue our commercialization of the product or be able to maintain significant and sustained revenues in the long-term.

In addition, our continued commercialization of ARCALYST or successful commercialization of any of our current or future product candidates, if approved, is subject to a number of foreseen and unforeseen factors, including:

49

Table of Contents

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties, delays or unforeseen costs. If we experience any such factors that inhibit our efforts to commercialize ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects may be materially adversely affected. See “Risk Factors — General Risk Factors — The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact that is significant on our business and operations as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers, CROs and other third parties with whom we conduct business or otherwise engage, including the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and has impacted and could continue to impact the global economy, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial position.”

Our current products or future approved product candidates may not gain market acceptance by prescribers, patients, or third-party payors (e.g., governments and private health insurers), in which case our ability to generate product revenues will be impaired.

Even with FDA or any other regulatory authority approval of the marketing of ARCALYST or any of our other product candidates in the future (whether developed on our own or with a collaborator), prescribers, healthcare providers, patients, the medical community or third-party payors may not accept or use ARCALYST or any of our future product candidates, or may effectively block or limit their use in the case of third-party payors. While ARCALYST has seen near-term success, it is not certain we will be able to sustain such success over the long-term. If ARCALYST or any of our other product candidates, if approved, do not achieve an adequate level of sustained acceptance, we may not generate a sufficient level of product revenue or profits from operations, if at all. Sustained market acceptance of ARCALYST in the approved recurrent pericarditis indication, or any of our future approved product candidates and continued use of such products by our patients, will depend on a variety of factors, including:

50

Table of Contents

If ARCALYST or any of our future approved products, if any, fail to gain market acceptance, our ability to generate revenue will be adversely affected. Even if ARCALYST or any future approved product candidates achieve market acceptance, the relevant market may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant and sustained revenue.

The successful commercialization of our products and future approved product candidates, if any, will depend in part on the extent to which third-party payors, including governmental authorities and private health insurers, provide funding, establish favorable coverage and pricing policies and set adequate reimbursement levels. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products and future approved product candidates, if any, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

Our ability to continue to commercialize ARCALYST in the approved recurrent pericarditis indication and other approved indications in the United States or any of our future approved product candidates, if any, particularly in orphan or rare disease indications, will depend in part on the availability of favorable coverage, patient affordability and the adequacy of reimbursement for ARCALYST or the product candidate and alternative treatments from third-party payors (e.g., governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations). We continue to seek favorable coverage and reimbursement for ARCALYST in the approved recurrent pericarditis indication from third-party payors, which is contingent on our ability to execute payor value/benefit assessments and effectively negotiate favorable pricing and reimbursement terms.

We cannot be certain we will be able to effectively execute our coverage and reimbursement strategy in the markets we pursue, which could limit the commercial potential of ARCALYST in the approved recurrent pericarditis indication or any of our product candidates, if approved. As a result, our ability to generate projected revenue from ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved, could be negatively impacted.

Governmental authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors have attempted to control costs through a number of efforts, including by delaying the time to reimbursement, by restricting the breadth of coverage, by limiting the amount of reimbursement for particular products in terms of lower pricing and by increasing the proportion of the cost for which the patient is responsible. There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved products or product indications, coverage may be limited to a subset of the patient population for which the treatment is approved by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, and reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used. Coverage and reimbursement barriers by payors may materially impact the demand for, or the price of, ARCALYST and any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, if any. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or available only at limited levels, or if such coverage will require patient out-of-pocket costs that are unacceptably high, we may not be able to successfully commercialize ARCALYST or any of the product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Moreover, any coverage or reimbursement that may be obtained may be decreased or eliminated in the future.

51

Table of Contents

We may also be unable to adequately satisfy a third-party payor’s value/benefit assessment. It is possible that third-party payors will select low-cost clinical comparators that serve as benchmarks for determining relative value, including generics, biosimilars and lower costs brands with or without the same approved indication. The result of such a change would be a more challenging value/benefit assessment caused by a more challenging basis for comparison and the potential for a worse relative outcome. Third-party payors may determine that we have failed to generate sufficient evidence to demonstrate the relative benefits of ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved, and refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement entirely, or many find the evidence not sufficiently compelling to support the desired pricing and reimbursement. Similarly, payors may implement coverage criteria that further restricts the use of ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved, beyond the approved label, which could adversely affect their commercial potential, including, for example, situations where a patient must be proven to not adequately respond to the lower-cost comparator.

Third-party payors are also introducing more challenging price negotiation methodologies, including in re-visiting established coverage and reimbursement parameters when new competitors, including branded drugs, generics and biosimilars enter the market. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our products and product candidates, if approved, as substitutable and only be willing to cover the cost of the alternative product. Even if we show improved efficacy, safety or improved convenience of administration with ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved, pricing of competitive products may limit the amount we will be able to charge for ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved. Third-party payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in our product candidates. In some cases, when new competitor generic and biosimilar products enter the market, there are mandatory price reductions for the innovator compound. In other cases, payors employ “therapeutic category” price referencing and seek to lower the reimbursement levels for all treatment in the respective therapeutic category. Additionally, new competitor brand drugs can trigger therapeutic category reviews in the interest of modifying coverage and/or reimbursement levels. The potential of third-party payors to introduce more challenging price negotiation methodologies could have a negative impact on our ability to continue to commercialize ARCALYST or successfully commercialize any of our product candidates, if approved.

The incidence and prevalence for target patient populations of our products or product candidates have not been established with precision. If the market opportunities for our products and product candidates are smaller than we estimate, or if any approval that we obtain is based on a narrower definition of the patient population, our revenue and ability to achieve profitability may be materially adversely affected.

The precise incidence and prevalence for all the conditions we aim to address with our programs are not known with specificity. Our projections of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our products and product candidates, if approved, are based largely on our extrapolation from available population studies and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, pharmacy claims analyses, large national surveillance databases or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new trials and therapeutic options may lead to changes in the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases, or relevant subpopulations thereof. As a result, the number of patients who may benefit from our products or product candidates, if approved, may turn out to be lower than expected.

The total addressable market for any of our products and approved product candidates in the future, if any, will ultimately depend upon, among other things, the diagnostic criteria and applicable patient population included in the final label for the product or product candidate approved for sale for its indication, the efficacy, safety and tolerability demonstrated by the product candidate in our clinical trials, acceptance by the medical community and patients, pricing, access and reimbursement. The number of addressable patients in the United States and other major markets outside of the United States may turn out to be lower than expected, patients may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products or new patients may become increasingly difficult to identify or gain access to, all of which would adversely affect our results of operations and our business. Further, even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small for many of our approved and targeted indications, we may never achieve profitability despite obtaining significant market share.

52

Table of Contents

Evolving health policy and associated legislative changes related to coverage and reimbursement aimed at lowering healthcare expenditure could impact the commercialization of our product candidates. Pharmaceutical pricing has been, and likely will continue to be, a central component of these efforts.

The regulations that govern regulatory approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new pharmaceutical products vary widely from country to country. In markets of some of the countries we may pursue outside of the United States, our products and product candidates, if approved, may be subject to extensive governmental price control or other price regulations. 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 approval is granted. In some 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 candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price negotiations that delay our commercial launch of the product candidate in that country, possibly for lengthy time periods, which may negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product candidate in that country.

Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or legislated rebates that must be paid in order to participate in government healthcare programs or paid to other third-party payors. Mandatory discounts can be legislated at any time in any market. Similarly, some markets currently have pricing legislation that sets the price of a pharmaceutical product in their market by referencing the price of that product in other markets, known as international reference pricing. International reference pricing has the potential to impact price cut decisions in individual countries and the countries that reference the pricing of certain other individual countries.

Drug importation and cross-border trade, both sanctioned and unsanctioned, occurs when a pharmaceutical product from a market where the official price is set lower is shipped and made commercially available in a market where the official price is set higher. Any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict or limit drug importation or cross-border trade, including in the United States, could have a material negative impact on our ability to commercialize ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved.

As a result of the foregoing, we may not be able to achieve or sustain favorable pricing for ARCALYST or any of our product candidates, if approved, and adequate reimbursement, which may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in such drugs.

Product liability lawsuits against us could cause us to incur substantial liabilities and could limit commercialization of ARCALYST and any product candidates that we may develop, if approved.

We face an inherent risk of product liability exposure related to the commercialization of ARCALYST and the testing of our product candidates in clinical trials and other research activities. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against claims that our products or product candidates caused injuries, we could incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

53

Table of Contents

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur and is subject to deductibles and coverage limitations. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If we are unable to obtain insurance at acceptable cost or otherwise protect against potential product liability claims, we will be exposed to significant liabilities, which may materially and adversely affect our business and financial position. These liabilities could prevent or interfere with our commercialization efforts.

If, in the future, we are unable to maintain our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, infrastructure and organization directly and/or through agreements with third parties to sell and market our products and product candidates, if approved, their commercial potential may be impaired.

There are risks involved with both establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force is expensive and time-consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, 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.

​

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, distribution and other commercial support services, our product revenues or the profitability of these revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any approved product candidates ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to market and sell our approved product candidates, if any, or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. Further, we will likely have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our approved product candidates effectively. However, developing a sales, marketing and access organization requires significant investment, is time consuming and if not completed as planned could delay the launch of our approved product candidates. Furthermore, we may not be able to adequately establish an effective sales, marketing, distribution and access organization in the EU or other key markets in which we may obtain approval for the commercial marketing of our product candidates outside of the United States. If we are unable to maintain or establish sales, as applicable, marketing and distribution capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our approved product candidates, if any, and the approved product candidates’ ability to generate any revenue may be impaired. Furthermore, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects will be materially adversely affected.

​

Our future growth may depend, in part, on our ability to penetrate markets outside of the United States, where we would be subject to additional regulatory burdens and other risks and uncertainties.

Our future profitability may depend, in part, on our ability to commercialize our product candidates in markets outside of the United States for which we may rely on collaborations with third parties.

Although we do not have immediate plans to pursue the regulatory approval and commercialization of ARCALYST for recurrent pericarditis or any other indication outside of the United States, we continue to evaluate the opportunities for the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain markets outside of the United States, including through our Managed Access Program. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the applicable regulatory authority in that market, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. To obtain separate regulatory approval in many other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, manufacturing and commercial sales, pricing and distribution of our product candidates, and we cannot predict success in these jurisdictions. If we obtain approval of our product candidates and ultimately commercialize our product candidates in markets outside of the United States, we would be subject to additional risks and uncertainties, including:

54

Table of Contents

Sales of our product candidates outside of the United States could also be adversely affected by the imposition of governmental controls, political and economic instability, trade restrictions and changes in tariffs.

In some countries, particularly the countries in Europe, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, price negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a drug. To obtain adequate reimbursement or favorable pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares our product candidate 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 business could be harmed, possibly materially.

We may also be subject to burdensome pricing requirements. See “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Commercialization –Evolving health policy and associated legislative changes related to coverage and reimbursement aimed at lowering healthcare expenditure could impact the commercialization of our product candidates. Pharmaceutical pricing has been, and likely will continue to be, a central component of these efforts.”

We are subject to ongoing obligations, regulatory requirements and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our products and future approved product candidates, if any, could be subject to unfavorable changes and other restrictions and market withdrawal, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products.

We are subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for a number of our activities, including manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storage, distribution, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, adverse event reporting, conduct of post-marketing trials and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information for our products in the United States. Such obligations, along with continued regulatory review, may result in significant additional expense. Furthermore, if we seek and receive approval from regulatory authorities outside of the United States for products or any of our product candidates in the future, we will be subject to such authorities’ requirements, which may be over and above our obligations in the United States.

55

Table of Contents

Manufacturers and their facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements of regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP or similar foreign regulations. As such, we and our CMOs will be subject to user fees and continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP or similar foreign regulations and adherence to commitments made in any BLA or MAA. Accordingly, we and our CMOs and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor safety and efficacy. For example, the holder of an approved BLA or MAA must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets.

If our marketing approval would be obtained via the accelerated approval pathway, we could be required to conduct a successful post-marketing clinical trial to confirm clinical benefit for our products. An unsuccessful post-marketing trial or failure to complete such a trial could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval. The FDA or foreign regulatory authority also may place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a REMS or similar risk management measures, to assure the safe use of the product. If the FDA or foreign regulatory authority concludes a REMS or similar risk management measures are needed, the sponsor of the BLA or MAA must submit a proposed REMS or the similar risk management measures before it can obtain approval. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. We also will be required to report certain adverse reactions, production problems, inadequate efficacy and other issues, if any, to applicable regulatory authorities on an ongoing basis. In addition, the identification of new safety issues could lead to new labeling or restrictions on population or use of our products, diminishing the addressable market or sales or both. Such conditions, requirements or events may prove to be expensive and burdensome, and the reporting of such may cause the price of our Class A common shares to decrease.

Further, we must also comply with additional requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products, which are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label.

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

56

Table of Contents

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time, cost and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.

If there are changes in the application of legislation or regulatory policies, or if problems are discovered with a product or the manufacture of a product, or if we or one of our distributors, licensees, co-marketers or other third-parties operating on our behalf fails to comply with regulatory requirements, regulatory authorities could impose fines on us, instate restrictions on our product or its manufacture or require us to recall or remove the product from the market, in addition to withdrawing our marketing authorizations, or requiring us to conduct additional clinical trials, change our product labeling or submit additional applications for marketing authorization. If any of these events occurs, our ability to sell our product may be impaired, and we may incur substantial additional expense to comply with such regulatory requirements.

The policies of the FDA and other regulatory authorities 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 or executive action, either in the United States, Europe or in other jurisdictions. In addition, 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 be subject to enforcement actions and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Our business operations and current and future relationships with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, physician and other healthcare professional payment and price transparency, and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare professionals, physicians and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of ARCALYST and any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our commercial arrangements 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 ARCALYST and our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Restrictions under applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

57

Table of Contents

These laws and regulations, among other things, may constrain our business, marketing and other promotional activities by limiting the kinds of financial arrangements we may have with hospitals, prescribers or other potential purchasers of our products or product candidates, if approved. We have entered into consulting and advisory board agreements with physicians and other healthcare professionals and could be adversely affected if regulatory authorities determine our financial relationships with such prescribers violate applicable laws or create a conflict of interest. For example, investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Regulatory authorities may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator or a clinical trial site has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of a study. Regulatory authorities may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by regulatory authorities and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of our product candidates. Furthermore, investigators for our clinical trials may become debarred by

58

Table of Contents

regulatory authorities, which may impact the integrity of our studies and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available under such laws, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations.

Interactions between biopharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and healthcare professionals’ codes of professional conduct. The provision of any inducements to healthcare professionals to prescribe, recommend, endorse, order, purchase, supply, use or administer a drug product is prohibited. A number of countries have established additional rules requiring pharmaceutical companies to publicly disclose their interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals and to obtain approval from employers, professional organizations or competent authorities before entering into agreements with healthcare professionals.

Ensuring that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do 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, including activities conducted by our sales team, were to be 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 the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time consuming and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

Risks Related to Product Development

We depend heavily on the success of one or more of our products and product candidates, which are in various stages of clinical development. If we are unable to advance our product candidates in clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be significantly harmed.

We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities outside of the United States. Our product candidates are in various stages of clinical development. Our assumptions about why our product candidates are worthy of future development and potential approval in the indications for which we are studying them, or any other indications, are based in part on indirect data collected by other companies and in part from data collected from our preclinical and clinical trials. We may not be able to demonstrate that they are safe or effective in the indications for which we are studying them, and they may not be approved.

We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in their clinical trials or will receive regulatory approval even after completing a successful pivotal clinical trial. We may also determine that the potential product and commercial profile of any of our product candidates may not ultimately be commercially successful, or even if we believe they have the potential to be commercially successful, we may discontinue development of one or more of our product candidates or discontinue development in a specific indication for a particular product candidate, at any time for any reason. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for more than one of our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

While we received FDA approval of ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older, each of our product candidates requires substantial additional preclinical or clinical development and manufacturing support and, if approved, an organization to facilitate a

59

Table of Contents

successful product launch and commercialization before we will be able to generate any revenue from product sales. The success of our product candidates or potential future product candidates depends upon several factors, including the following:

60

Table of Contents

If we do not accomplish one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken in response to the pandemic, we could experience significant delays in, or an inability to, timely or successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for one or more additional product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Failure to generate sufficient revenue from the commercialization of our current and future products, whether as a result of failing to obtain regulatory approvals or unsuccessfully commercializing such products would harm our ability to continue our operations. In such an instance, we may need to seek capital elsewhere. See “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs – We will require substantial additional financing, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, will force us to delay, limit, reduce or cease one or more of our product development plans, research and development programs for our product candidates, or other operations or commercialization efforts” and “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Capital Needs – Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates or products.”

Even though we received FDA approval for ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older, and assumed the sales and distribution of ARCALYST for the previously approved indications in the United States, we will evenly split profits on ARCALYST sales with Regeneron, and the relevant markets for these indications may prove not to be large enough to allow us to generate significant and sustained revenue from these product sales. Moreover, even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to manufacture and market one or more product candidates, our revenues will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights, among other things. If the markets for patient subsets that we are targeting are smaller than we estimate, we may not generate projected revenue levels from sales of such product candidates, if approved.

Clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and outcomes. We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or we may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities. We may therefore be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals and be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis, if at all.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming and uncertain as to outcome.

​

Not all of our clinical trials have been conducted as initially planned or completed on our initial projected schedule, and accordingly, we cannot guarantee that any of our current or potential future clinical trials will be conducted as initially planned or completed on our initial projected schedule, if at all, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken in response to the pandemic. For example, in December 2021, we announced that the primary efficacy endpoint of the Phase 3 clinical trial of mavrilimumab in COVID-19-related ARDS did not reach statistical significance. We subsequently decided to not progress mavrilimumab in the COVID-19-related ARDS indication, although we are continuing the Phase 3 clinical trial through its completion date. Clinical trials are a lengthy process that require the expenditure of significant money and human capital. Failing to achieve desired efficacy or identifying of a novel safety hazard in turn represents an inability to successfully recoup such expense via a potential commercialization of the product candidate, if approved. Sufficient inability to recoup clinical trial expense via successful development could pose material risks to our business. See “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Product Development –We depend heavily on the success of one or more of our products and product candidates, which are in various stages of clinical development. If we are unable to advance our product candidates in clinical development, obtain regulatory approval and ultimately successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be significantly harmed.”

​

61

Table of Contents

Commencing a clinical trial is subject to acceptance by the FDA of an IND or IND amendments, acceptance by competent authorities of the EU member states of a CTA or acceptance by other applicable regulatory authorities, and finalizing the trial design based on discussions with the FDA, competent authorities of the EU member states or other applicable regulatory authorities. We have and may in the future receive feedback or guidance from regulatory authorities on our clinical trial design and protocols and, even after we incorporate such feedback or guidance from these regulatory authorities, such regulatory authorities may impose other requirements for our clinical trials, could disagree that we have satisfied their requirements to commence our clinical trials, disagree with our interpretation of data from the relevant preclinical studies, clinical trials or chemistry, CMC data, or disagree or change their position on the acceptability of our trial designs, including the proposed dosing level or schedule, treatment duration, our definitions of the patient populations or the clinical endpoints selected, which may require us to complete additional preclinical studies, clinical trials, CMC development, other studies or impose stricter approval conditions than we currently expect.

​

Commencing our planned clinical trials is also subject to approval by a central IRB and an IRB or ethics committee at each clinical trial site before a trial may be initiated, which approval could be delayed, rejected or suspended. Further, the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, the Data Safety Monitoring Board for such trial or regulatory authorities may impose a suspension or termination of our clinical trials even after approval and initiation of trial sites due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by regulatory authorities, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects that arise in the trial or failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, any of which could result in the imposition of a clinical hold, as well as changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

​

Successful completion of our clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a BLA or supplemental BLA, or sBLA, to the FDA and an MAA, to the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or competent authorities of the EU member states, or other applicable regulatory authorities in other countries for each product candidate and, consequently, to obtaining approval and initiating commercial marketing of our current and any future product candidates. A failure of one or more of our current or future clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our clinical trials may not be successful. We have experienced and may continue to experience delays in our ongoing clinical trials, and we do not know whether planned clinical trials will begin on time, be allowed by regulatory authorities, need to be redesigned, or if we can activate sites or enroll patients on time, or if they will be completed on schedule, if at all. Events that have and may continue to delay or prevent commencement or successful completion of clinical development of our product candidates as planned and on schedule, if at all, include but are not limited to:

​

62

Table of Contents

63

Table of Contents

Delays in the commencement or completion of our planned and ongoing clinical trials of our product candidates have occurred and may continue to occur. Consequences of delays have increased and may in the future increase our costs of developing our product candidates, slow down the development and approval of our product candidates, delay or jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue, if any, from our product candidates and harm their commercial prospects. Furthermore, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have increased and may continue to increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in commencing or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials or other development. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, difficulties and delays in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates or us deciding to modify or cease development of our product candidates.

Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection or shorten any periods during which we have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to obtain orphan exclusivity for our products that potentially qualify for this designation and to successfully commercialize our product candidates, and may harm our business and results of operations. Any inability to successfully complete preclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue and harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Furthermore, clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with the laws, rules and regulations, guidelines and other requirements of the FDA, EU institutions, the EMA and other applicable regulatory authorities outside of those jurisdictions and are subject to oversight by these regulatory authorities and IRBs or ethics committees at the medical institutions where the clinical trials are conducted. Further, conducting global clinical trials, as we do for certain of our product candidates, may require that we coordinate among the legal requirements and guidelines of regulatory authorities across a number of jurisdictions, including the United States, EU and countries outside of those jurisdictions, which could require that we amend clinical trial protocols or determine not to conduct a trial in one or more jurisdictions or to run separate trials in various jurisdictions due to the inability, cost or delay in harmonizing divergent requests from such regulatory authorities, all of which could increase costs. In addition, clinical trials that are conducted in countries outside the United States and the EU may subject us to risks associated with the engagement of non-United States and non-EU CROs who are unknown to the FDA or the EMA, or the EU member states’ regulatory authorities and may have different standards of diagnosis, screening and medical care, as well as risks associated with further delays and expenses as a result of increased shipment costs (including as a result of local quality release or in-country testing of a product candidate supply produced in a different jurisdiction for our clinical trials) and political and economic risks relevant to such countries outside the United States and the EU.

In addition, the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies with respect to clinical trials may change and additional government regulations may be enacted. For instance, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU recently evolved. The EU CTR, which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. While the Clinical Trials Directive required a separate CTA to be submitted in each member state, to both the competent national health authority and an independent ethics committee, the CTR introduces a centralized process and only requires the submission of a single application to all member states concerned. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each member state, leading to a single decision per member state. The assessment procedure of the CTA has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all member states concerned, and a separate assessment by each member state

64

Table of Contents

with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each member state’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the CTA is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresees a three-year transition period. The extent to which ongoing and new clinical trials will be governed by the CTR varies. For clinical trials whose CTA was made under the Clinical Trials Directive before January 31, 2022, the Clinical Trials Directive will continue to apply on a transitional basis for three years. Additionally, sponsors may still choose to submit a CTA under either the Clinical Trials Directive or the CTR until January 31, 2023 and, if authorized, those will be governed by the Clinical Trials Directive until January 31, 2025. By that date, all ongoing trials will become subject to the provisions of the CTR.

It is currently unclear to what extent the UK will seek to align its regulations with the EU. The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is derived from existing EU legislation (as implemented into UK law, through secondary legislation).

If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies governing clinical trials, our development plans may be impacted.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact on our current or planned preclinical studies and clinical trials, which could be significant.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, have had and could continue to have an impact on our current or planned preclinical studies and clinical trials. If the COVID-19 pandemic and measures undertaken in response to the pandemic are prolonged or reinstated following any easing of such measures, including as a result of the emergence of new variants of the virus, we may experience significant disruptions that could materially impact our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including by:

​

65

Table of Contents

Any one of the foregoing could significantly impede, delay, limit or prevent the clinical development of our product candidates and ultimately lead to the delay or denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. While we continuously look to identify business-critical activities and to develop contingencies and mitigation strategies for those activities to potentially minimize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business and operations, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify all such activities or that any identified contingencies and mitigation strategies will be effective. If the clinical development of our product candidates is significantly impeded, delayed, limited or is prevented, it could ultimately lead to the delay or denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates which would materially adversely affect our business and operations, including our ability to generate revenue.

​

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials in a timely manner given the limited number of patients who have the diseases for which our product candidates are being studied, our particular enrollment criteria or competing clinical studies in the same patient population.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. The timing of our clinical trials depends in part on the speed at which we can recruit a sufficient number of patients to participate in testing our product candidates, particularly given that many of the conditions for which we are evaluating our current product candidates or may evaluate them in the future are in small disease populations. In addition, the eligibility criteria of our clinical trials will further limit the pool of available trial participants, as we will require patients to have specific characteristics that we can evaluate based on the primary and secondary endpoints of the study. Further, our product candidates modulate the immune system and carry risks associated with immunosuppression, including the risk of serious infections, potential interference with vaccines, and other potential serious health risks. Additionally, certain indications for our product candidates may present challenges that may prevent us or third parties from conducting well-controlled studies.

Our clinical trials have competed and may continue to compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates. This competition may further reduce the number and

66

Table of Contents

types of patients available to us because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. For example, the large number of competitive studies for the treatment of conditions associated with COVID-19 and the evolving standard of care with overall improvement in the quality of care for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 initially had an impact on the number of eligible patients for our global placebo-controlled Phase 2/3 clinical trial of mavrilimumab in severe COVID-19-related ARDS. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, we may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which would reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials at such clinical trial site.

Accordingly, when we encounter these or other difficulties in enrollment, we have experienced and may continue to experience delays or we may be prevented from completing our clinical trials. Patient enrollment depends on many factors, including:

The process of finding and enrolling patients may prove costly, especially since we are looking to identify a subset of the patients eligible for our studies from a relatively small patient population for many of the diseases we are studying. If patients are unable or unwilling to participate in our clinical trials for any reason, or we experience difficulties in patient enrollment for any other reasons, such as due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our costs may significantly increase and the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed or prevented, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to commence product sales and generate product revenue from any of these product candidates, if approved, could be delayed or prevented. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, and prospects significantly.

67

Table of Contents

Our products and product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other safety risks that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences, including withdrawal of approval, following any potential marketing approval.

Treatment with our products and product candidates may produce undesirable side effects or adverse reactions or events. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in more restrictive labels or the delay or denial of regulatory approvals by regulatory authorities.

Our products and product candidates modulate the immune system and carry risks associated with immunosuppression, including the risk of serious infections and other potential serious health risks.

For mavrilimumab, there is a theoretical risk for the development of pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, or PAP, with chronic use. PAP is a rare lung disorder in which surfactant-derived lipoproteins accumulate excessively within pulmonary alveoli due to loss of GM-CSF function. The disease can range in severity from a sub-clinical reduction in diffusion capacity to significant dyspnea during mild exertion. In preclinical studies conducted by MedImmune, certain effects were observed in the lungs of non-human primates, which led the FDA to issue a clinical hold with respect to MedImmune’s proposed clinical trial in RA. Preclinical data generated to-date suggest mavrilimumab at clinically relevant doses does not reach the lungs in sufficient quantities to induce PAP, and human trials thus far have not shown a clinical effect on pulmonary function tests attributable to mavrilimumab.

However, if the results of our clinical trials reveal an unacceptable severity and prevalence of certain side effects, the FDA or applicable regulatory authority outside of the United States may suspend or terminate our clinical trials, or not authorize us to initiate further trials. In addition, if other molecules in the same or related class in development by third parties show the same or similar side effects as those we observed in our trials but to a greater degree or reported new previously unreported side effects, it could have an impact on the entire class of molecules in development; the applicable regulatory agency may suspend or terminate our clinical trials, or not authorize us to initiate further trials with our molecule in that class. Regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny or withdraw any approval of, any of our products or product candidates for any or all targeted indications.

In addition, the compassionate use of our product candidates, or evaluation of our product candidates by third parties via scientific collaborations or investigator initiated studies could increase the possibility of generating adverse safety results that impact our development of such product candidates. Such adverse safety results, when reported to regulatory authorities, may negatively impact the safety profile of the drug studied as a class effect and could result in the imposition of clinical holds on all clinical trials involving such product candidate regardless of the indication studied.

Further, clinical trials by their nature utilize a sample of the potential patient population. Certain rare and severe side effects associated with our products or product candidates may only be uncovered with a significantly larger number of patients exposed to the product candidates. If we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by our product or any of our product candidates, if approved, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including but not limited to:

68

Table of Contents

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

Interim, preliminary, and “top-line” data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available following the release of the interim data; preliminary data are subject to audit and verification procedures, and deeper analysis of the data beyond the topline data may provide more color and context to the data, all of which could result in material or other changes that are reflected in the final data.

From time to time, we may disclose interim data from our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which are based on an interim analysis of then-available data from ongoing studies or trials. Interim data from our preclinical studies and clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical observations may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available from the particular study or trial. As a result, interim data should be viewed with caution until final data are available. Adverse differences between interim data and final data could significantly harm the development of our product candidate and our business prospects with respect thereto.

Further, from time to time we may announce or publish topline or preliminary data from our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which are based on a preliminary analysis of data from a completed study. Preliminary and topline data from our clinical trials are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data from the particular clinical trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our preliminary analyses of the data, and we may not have received, or had the opportunity to evaluate fully and carefully, all of the data. As a result, preliminary and topline data remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being different from the preliminary data we previously announced or published.

Third parties, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate and our business prospects. In addition, the information we announce or publish regarding a particular preclinical study or clinical trial may represent only a portion of extensive information generated from that study or trial, and our shareholders or other third parties may not agree with what we determine is material, important or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure.

If the interim, preliminary, or topline data that we report differ materially from final results, or if third parties, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our product candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business prospects, operating results or financial condition. Further, announcement of preliminary, interim or top-line data by us or differences between that data and the final data could result in volatility in the price of our Class A common shares.

69

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Marketing Approval and Regulatory Matters

Regulatory approval processes are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable. If we are not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals for our current or future product candidates or if we fail or otherwise cease to advance their development, we will be delayed in commercializing or will not be able to commercialize, our current or future product candidates and our ability to generate additional revenue will be materially impaired.

Before we can commercialize any of our current or future product candidates, we must obtain marketing approval from regulatory authorities. We may not be able to receive approval to market any of our current or future product candidates from regulatory authorities in our desired indications in any jurisdiction and it is possible that none of our product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval. We may need to rely on third-party CROs and regulatory consultants to assist us in this process. Securing regulatory approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to the various regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy. Securing regulatory approval also requires the submission of information about the biologic manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the relevant regulatory authorities. Our current or future product candidates may not be effective, may be only moderately effective or may prove to have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that may preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. The FDA and other regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process, including determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for a product candidate. Even if we believe the data collected from clinical trials are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or any other regulatory authority. In addition to the United States, we may seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates in other jurisdictions. While the scope of regulatory approval is similar in many countries, to obtain separate regulatory approval in multiple countries will require us to comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of each such country or jurisdiction regarding safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, pricing and distribution, and we cannot predict success in any such jurisdictions.

The process of obtaining regulatory approvals, both in the United States and in other countries, is time consuming, expensive, may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted BLA, or equivalent application types, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. For instance, the EU pharmaceutical legislation is currently undergoing a complete review process, in the context of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe initiative, launched by the European Commission in November 2020. A proposal for revision of several legislative instruments related to medicinal products (potentially revising the duration of regulatory exclusivity, eligibility for expedited pathways, etc.) is expected to be adopted by the European Commission by the end of 2022. The proposed revisions, once they are agreed and adopted by the European Parliament and European Council (not expected before the end of 2024) may have a significant impact on the biopharmaceutical industry in the long term.

Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical studies or clinical or other trials for our current or future product candidates. Our current and future product candidates could be delayed in receiving, or fail to receive, regulatory approval or we may fail or cease to advance their development for many reasons, including the following:

70

Table of Contents

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval for one or more of our current or future product candidates, regulatory authorities may approve any of our current or future product candidates for fewer indications or more limited patient populations than we request. For example, in connection with our vixarelimab program, regulatory authorities may recognize a narrower patient population as having prurigo nodularis, define the disease differently than we do or classify the drug as a different line of therapy. Furthermore, regulatory authorities may not approve the price we intend to charge, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, may impose certain post-marketing requirements that impose limits on our marketing and distribution activities, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful

71

Table of Contents

commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our current or future product candidates.

If we experience delays in obtaining approval or if we fail to obtain approval of or to advance our current or future product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate additional revenue will be materially impaired.

Our products, current product candidates and any of our future product candidates regulated as biologics in the United States may face biosimilar competition sooner than anticipated.

In the United States, the BPCIA created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first approved under a BLA by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product for the same therapeutic indication if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

For example, although ARCALYST was approved as a biological product under a BLA for the treatment of CAPS in February 2008, and we believe it qualified for the 12-year period of exclusivity against any biosimilars, such 12-year period of exclusivity has lapsed. The FDA approved ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older in March 2021. However, the 12-year exclusivity period does not attach to the approval of an sBLA, potentially creating the opportunity for biosimilar competition, subject to any Orphan Drug exclusivity under the U.S. Orphan Drug Act (See “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Marketing Approval and Regulatory Matters — We may seek Orphan Drug designation for our product candidates in the United States, as well as for any of our product candidates in the EU, and we may be unsuccessful, or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with Orphan Drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity, for any product candidate for which we obtain Orphan Drug designation.”). If we obtain FDA approval for any of our other biological product candidates, we expect any such product candidates to qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity under the BPCIA. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to Congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider any such approved product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated.

Even if we obtain marketing authorization of our current or future product candidates in a major pharmaceutical market such as the United States, or the EU, we may not seek or obtain approval or commercialize our current products or product candidates in other markets, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products in a country or territory, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such country or territory regarding safety and efficacy. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country, and clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation, additional administrative review periods, and additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, which would be costly and time consuming and could delay or prevent the introduction of our current or future product candidates, or ARCALYST, in those countries. Satisfying these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries.

We may seek Orphan Drug designation for our product candidates in the United States, as well as for any of our product candidates in the EU, and we may be unsuccessful, or may be unable to maintain the benefits associated with

72

Table of Contents

Orphan Drug designation, including the potential for market exclusivity, for any product candidate for which we obtain Orphan Drug designation.

We have received Orphan Drug designation in the United States for mavrilimumab for the treatment of GCA, and we may seek Orphan Drug designation for certain of our other product candidates in the United States as well as for any of our product candidates in the EU. We may be unsuccessful in obtaining such designation for any of our other product candidates or unable to maintain the associated benefits for any of our other current or future product candidates that are granted Orphan Drug designation, if any. Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs or biologics intended to treat relatively small patient populations as Orphan Drug products. Under the U.S. Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug or biologic as an Orphan Drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States.

In the EU, the European Commission grants Orphan Drug designation after receiving the opinion of the EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products on an Orphan Drug designation application. In the EU, Orphan Drug designation is intended to promote the development of drugs that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions affecting not more than five in 10,000 persons in the EU and for which no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment has been authorized (or the product would be a significant benefit to those affected). Additionally, Orphan Drug designation is granted for drugs intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EU would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug. In the EU, Orphan Drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers, as well as potential marketing exclusivity.

In addition, if a drug or biologic with an Orphan Drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug or biologic is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes a regulatory authority from approving another marketing application for the same drug and indication for that time period, except in limited circumstances. If our competitors are able to obtain Orphan Drug exclusivity prior to us, for products that constitute the “same drug” and treat the same indications as our product candidates, we may not be able to have competing products approved by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and ten years in the EU. The EU exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that a drug no longer meets the criteria for Orphan Drug designation including where it is shown that the drug is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

In connection with the FDA’s approval of ARCALYST in the recurrent pericarditis indication, we received seven years of Orphan Drug exclusivity for ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and pediatric patients 12 years and older. Even if we obtain Orphan Drug exclusivity for any of our product candidates, that exclusivity may not effectively protect those product candidates from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition. Even after an Orphan Drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve a later application for the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer in a substantial portion of the target populations, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, a designated Orphan Drug may not receive Orphan Drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. Moreover, Orphan Drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to manufacture sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Foreign regulatory authorities may also make the same determination. Orphan Drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

73

Table of Contents

We may seek Breakthrough Therapy designation or Fast Track designation by the FDA, for one or more of our product candidates, which we may not receive. Such designation may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval.

We received Breakthrough Therapy designation for vixarelimab for the treatment of pruritis associated with prurigo nodularis, and we may seek Breakthrough Therapy or Fast Track designation for one or more of our other product candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug or biologic that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug or biologic may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. Separately, if a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and clinical or preclinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the sponsor may apply for Fast Track designation. Both Fast Track designation and Breakthrough Therapy designations offer sponsors the potential for rolling review of a BLA, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the BLA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the BLA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the BLA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the BLA.

The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy designations, and even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designations, we cannot be certain that the FDA would decide to grant them. Even if we obtain such designations for one or more of our product candidates, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to non-expedited FDA review procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designations if it believes that such designations are no longer supported. Although product candidates receiving Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy designation are generally eligible for the FDA’s priority review procedures, receiving such designations does not guarantee that the BLA for such product candidates will receive priority review.

We may seek PRIME designation by EMA or other designations, schemes or tools in the EU, including the conditional marketing authorization or marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances, for one or more of our product candidates, which we may not receive. Such designations may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process and do not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing authorization.

We may seek EMA PRIME (Priority Medicines) designation or other designations, schemes or tools for one or more of our product candidates. In the European Union, innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the PRIME scheme, which provides incentives similar to the Breakthrough Therapy designation in the United States. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. The benefits of a PRIME designation include the appointment of a rapporteur before submission of a marketing authorization application, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify products for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

Even if we believe one of our product candidates is eligible for PRIME, the EMA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. The EMA PRIME scheme or other schemes, designations, or tools, even if obtained or used for any of our product candidates may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional procedures and do not assure ultimate approval. In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates is eligible to the PRIME scheme, the EMA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for review or approval will not be shortened.

74

Table of Contents

Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation may be eligible for accelerated assessment (in 150 days instead of 210 days), which may be granted for medicinal products of major interest from a public health perspective or that target an unmet medical need, but this is not guaranteed.

Moreover, in the EU, a “conditional” marketing authorization may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. A conditional marketing authorization is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. A conditional marketing authorization is valid for one year and has to be renewed annually until fulfillment of all relevant conditions. Once the applicable pending studies are provided, a conditional marketing authorization can become a “standard” marketing authorization. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA, the marketing authorization will cease to be renewed. Furthermore, marketing authorizations may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” when the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to the introduction of specific procedures. This may arise when the intended indications are very rare and, in the present state of scientific knowledge, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. This type of marketing authorization is close to a conditional marketing authorization as it is reserved to medicinal products to be approved for severe diseases or unmet medical needs and the applicant does not hold the complete data set legally required for the grant of a marketing authorization. However, unlike a conditional marketing authorization, the applicant does not have to provide the missing data and will never have to. Although a marketing authorization “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually and the marketing authorization may be withdrawn where the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

The competent regulatory authorities in the EU have broad discretion whether to grant such an accelerated assessment, conditional marketing authorization or marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances, and, even if such assessment or authorization is granted, we may not experience a faster development process, review or authorization compared to conventional procedures. Moreover, the removal or threat of removal of such marketing authorizations may create uncertainty or delay in the clinical development of our product candidates and threaten the commercialization prospects of our products and product candidates, if approved. Such an occurrence could materially impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have limited experience obtaining marketing approvals, and we may be unable to successfully do so for any of our current or future product candidates. Failure to successfully complete another pivotal clinical trial or obtain marketing approval in a timely manner for any of our current or future product candidates could have a material adverse impact on our business and financial performance.

Conducting pivotal clinical trials and preparing, and obtaining marketing approval for, a product candidate is a complicated process. As a company, we have only limited experience in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates. As a result, in the future, obtaining marketing approval for any of our current or future product candidates may require more time and expense than we anticipate. Failure to successfully complete, or delays in, any of our eventual other pivotal trials or related regulatory submissions would prevent us from, or delay us in, obtaining regulatory approval for our current or future product candidates. It is possible that regulatory authorities may refuse to accept for substantive review any regulatory submissions that we submit for our product candidates or may conclude after review of our applications for any of our current or future product candidates that the submissions are insufficient to obtain marketing approval for such product candidates. Regulatory authorities may also require that we conduct additional clinical, preclinical or manufacturing validation trials and submit that data before they will reconsider our applications. Depending on the extent of these or any other required trials, approval or receipt of any marketing authorization may be delayed by several years or may require us to expend more resources than we have available. It is also possible that additional trials, if performed and completed, may not be considered sufficient by regulatory authorities to approve or grant marketing authorizations. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, marketing approvals would delay or prevent us from commercializing any of our current or future product candidates, generating additional revenue and achieving and sustaining profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to modify or cease our development efforts for one or more of our product candidates, which could significantly harm our business.

75

Table of Contents

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s or foreign regulatory authorities’ ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies, such as the EMA following its relocation to Amsterdam and resulting staff changes, may also slow the time necessary for new biologics or modifications to approved biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most inspections of foreign manufacturing facilities, and on March 18, 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, in July 2020, the FDA resumed certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA utilized this risk-based assessment system to assist in determining when and where it was safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. Additionally, on April 15, 2021, the FDA issued a guidance document in which the FDA described its plans to conduct voluntary remote interactive evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites, among other facilities. According to the guidance, the FDA may request such remote interactive evaluations where the FDA determines that remote evaluation would be appropriate based on mission needs and travel limitations. In May 2021, the FDA outlined a detailed plan to move toward a more consistent state of inspectional operations, and in July 2021, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities and was continuing to maintain this level of operation as of September 2021. More recently, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.

Regulatory authorities outside the United States have adopted similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of such regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Manufacturing and Our Reliance on Third Parties

We contract with third parties for manufacturing our commercial supply of ARCALYST and clinical supply for our product candidates and for certain research and other preclinical development and expect that we will continue to do so in the future. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we may not have sufficient quantities of ARCALYST or our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our research and development or commercialization efforts.

We do not currently own or operate any late-stage or commercial manufacturing facilities. Although we have built a development and manufacturing facility to produce drug substance to support certain research, preclinical and other clinical development for our product candidates, we rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our late-stage product candidates and certain early-stage product candidates for the majority of our clinical development efforts, as well as for the commercial manufacture of ARCALYST or any of our current or future product candidates, if approved, as well as label and packaging activities. We rely on these third parties to produce

76

Table of Contents

ARCALYST and our product candidates at sufficient quality and quantity to support our commercialization and research and development efforts.

Our reliance increases the risk that we will have insufficient quantities of ARCALYST and our product candidates or that ARCALYST and our product candidates are not produced at an acceptable cost or quality, which could delay, prevent or impair our commercialization or research and development efforts. For example, in July 2021, events were identified in the ARCALYST manufacturing process that prevented distribution of certain ARCALYST material as previously planned. We subsequently identified additional events in the second half of 2021 that prevented the timely distribution of additional ARCALYST material. While we were ultimately able to source sufficient ARCALYST material to cover our current commercial needs, if we encounter events in the future that prevent additional material from being distributed in a timely manner or within specifications and we are unable to source additional commercial supply of ARCALYST, if needed, or should additional manufacturing or supply chain issues arise, we may be unable to adequately meet patient demand for ARCALYST or may be required to effect a recall, any of which would adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we may have difficulty sourcing an adequate supply of ARCALYST to cover our commercial and clinical needs, should we decide to develop ARCALYST in one or more additional indications.

Regeneron and its CMOs are the sole manufacturers of ARCALYST, and we have a contract with Regeneron to produce ARCALYST on an exclusive basis, subject to limited exceptions. However, Regeneron is not obligated to accept our forecasts or purchase orders that are not in line with accepted forecasts and Regeneron may not have sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet our commercial or clinical demand for ARCALYST. Regeneron, in turn, relies upon CMOs or other third parties to conduct fill/finish operations for ARCALYST. In the event that a particular batch of ARCALYST fails to meet specifications, whatever the cause, we are nonetheless obligated to pay for such material pursuant to the terms of the Supply Agreement. As a result of our reliance on Regeneron and its CMOs as our sole manufacturers, we do not have control over their manufacturing operations and scheduling, which may impact our ability to meet commercial or clinical demand for ARCALYST. We may also be subject to unexpected costs arising from any manufacturing or supply chain disruptions, which may materially impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Under certain circumstances, we or Regeneron could initiate a technology transfer to either us or another CMO to manufacture ARCALYST. Finding new CMOs or third-party suppliers to produce ARCALYST would add additional costs and require significant time and focus from our management and technical teams. We may also not be able to identify a suitable CMO that can meet our manufacturing timeline requirements. Even if we were to find a CMO, such CMO would need to produce ARCALYST at a different manufacturing site, potentially using a different or more costly process, or at a different scale. We cannot provide any assurance that the technology transfer from Regeneron to us or to another CMO will be successful in producing ARCALYST in sufficient quantities or of acceptable quality, if at all, or that we or another CMO will produce a comparable product to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities, which could delay, prevent or impair the further development, if any, or commercialization of ARCALYST. Further, we may be unable to establish a new agreement with another CMO on acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, there is typically a transition period when a new CMO commences work. Failure to produce sufficient quantities of ARCALYST could result in supply shortages for our patients, result in lost revenue and impact our ability to hold sufficient quantities of safety stock to be properly positioned to address unexpected disruptions to the ARCALYST supply chain.

We also have CMOs manufacture vixarelimab drug substance and drug product, entered into an agreement with a CMO to produce mavrilimumab beyond our current inventory and have qualified two CMOs to produce KPL-404 drug product. While we have built a manufacturing facility to support early development for our product candidates, we and our CMOs may not be able to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates or produce them at an acceptable quality, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts and increase costs.

Our suppliers may also be negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. See “Risk Factors — General Risk Factors — The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact that is significant on our business and operations as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers, CROs and other third parties with whom we conduct business or otherwise engage, including the FDA and other regulatory

77

Table of Contents

authorities, and has impacted and could continue to impact the global economy, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial position.”

If we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our products or product candidates or change manufacturers or manufacturing processes, we may be unsuccessful in producing products or product candidates comparable to those used in prior clinical trials. Therefore, we may need to conduct additional process development or additional clinical trials to bridge our prior clinical results to those resulting from the new manufacturing process, which could impact the timing and subsequent success of our planned clinical trials. In addition, as we plan to produce clinical trial and commercial material at a CMO, the CMO may be required to adopt different manufacturing protocols or processes. For example, although Regeneron has produced ARCALYST for commercial use for over ten years, regulatory authorities may reevaluate ARCALYST’s current manufacturing processes or route of administration in connection with evaluating whether to approve ARCALYST for any new indication in the future or in connection with a technology transfer from Regeneron to us or another CMO.

The facilities used by our CMOs to manufacture ARCALYST and our current and future product candidates may be inspected by regulatory authorities in connection with the submission of our marketing applications to, and review by, regulatory authorities or based on their work for other clinical trial sponsors. While we provide oversight of manufacturing activities, we do not and will not control the manufacturing process of, and will be completely dependent on, our CMOs for compliance with cGMPs and other regulatory requirements in connection with the manufacture of ARCALYST and our product candidates. If our CMOs cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of regulatory authorities, they will not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. While we review the compliance history and performance of our CMOs and have the ability to audit their compliance and performance, we have no direct control over the ability of our CMOs to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel other than through quality monitoring in accordance with our agreements with the CMOs. If regulatory authorities do not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if they withdraw any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market ARCALYST or our current or future product candidates, if approved. Further, our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products or product candidates, if approved, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect our business and supplies of our products or product candidates.

Our product candidates may also compete with other product candidates and approved products for access to and capacity within manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us. Furthermore, given the limited number of available manufacturing slots and the long lead times needed to reserve them, manufacturers require monetary commitments in connection with such reservations as well as fees for changes or cancellations in the reserved manufacturing slots. As a result, we may wait to reserve manufacturing slots until we can be informed by data from the clinical trials of our product candidates, which may be several months from the time we request manufacturing slots. Any significant delay in the supply of clinical materials for our product candidates could considerably delay conducting our clinical trials and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates. Alternatively, we may project when we may need additional clinical material for our product candidates and reserve manufacturing time-slots “at-risk” prior to our product candidates having generated data from their then current clinical trials.

In addition, given the lead times we must provide to Regeneron with respect to the commercial supply of ARCALYST, we must place purchase orders based on projected demand, in advance of knowing the market acceptance of ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis. Such projections involve risks and uncertainties. For example, we may be unable to swiftly accommodate for unforeseen increases in commercial demand for ARCALYST given the lead times we must provide to Regeneron and limitations on Regeneron’s manufacturing capacity for ARCALYST. These risks may result in additional costs or delays in manufacturing clinical materials for our product candidates when and if we actually need them and commercial materials for ARCALYST and may result in having too little or too much of our product candidates or ARCALYST in inventory to meet actual demand.

78

Table of Contents

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay, as applicable, clinical development or marketing approval or commercialization efforts for ARCALYST and our product candidates, if approved. If our current CMOs cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative manufacturers who could manufacture our product candidates, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement. In addition, we may not be able to establish new agreements on acceptable terms, if at all, with such alternative manufacturers. Further, Regeneron has an exclusive right to produce ARCALYST, subject to limited exceptions, which could impact our ability to find a replacement manufacturer for ARCALYST in a short period of time, if needed. Additionally, establishing a replacement manufacturer for ARCALYST or our product candidates, if required, is unlikely to be accomplished in a timely or cost-effective manner, if at all. Furthermore, despite our efforts, we may be unable to procure a replacement supplier or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business, results of operations and financial condition. If we or our CMOs are able to find a replacement supplier, such replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory approval, which could result in further delay.

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials, and we and our third-party manufacturers and suppliers must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.

​

Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials owned by us, including the components of ARCALYST or our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ and suppliers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that our safety procedures and the safety procedures utilized by our third-party manufacturers and suppliers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources, and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. We do not currently carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage.

Manufacturing or supply issues could cause product shortages, disrupt or delay our clinical trials or regulatory approvals, delay or stop commercialization of our products and product candidates, and adversely affect our business.

The manufacture of ARCALYST and our product candidates is highly regulated, complex and difficult, requiring a multi-step and controlled process, and even minor problems or deviations could result in ARCALYST or our product candidates failing to meet approved specifications, failed batches or other failures, such as defective products or manufacturing failures. We have limited experience overseeing the manufacturing processes of ARCALYST, mavrilimumab, vixarelimab, and KPL-404. Due to the highly technical requirements of manufacturing ARCALYST and our product candidates and the strict quality and control specifications, we and our third-party providers may be unable to manufacture or supply ARCALYST or our product candidates despite our and their efforts. Failure to produce sufficient quantities of our product candidates could delay their development, result in supply shortages for our patients, result in lost revenue, if any, and diminish our potential profitability, as applicable, which may lead to lawsuits or could delay the introduction of our product candidates to the market.

The manufacture of ARCALYST and our product candidates is at high risk of product loss due to contamination, equipment malfunctions, human error or raw material variability or shortages. Deviations from established manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, failed batches and other supply disruptions and increased costs. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in ARCALYST or our product candidates or manufacturing facilities, any related production lot could be lost and the relevant manufacturing facilities

79

Table of Contents

may need to close for an extended period of time to investigate and remediate the contaminant. The involvement of our third-party manufacturers, including Regeneron, may exacerbate such effects, which has required and may in the future require us to reject lots for quality control purposes. See “Risk Factors—We contract with third parties for manufacturing our commercial supply of ARCALYST and clinical supply for our product candidates and for certain research and other preclinical development and expect that we will continue to do so in the future. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we may not have sufficient quantities of ARCALYST or our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.”

Many additional factors could cause production interruptions at our facilities or at the facilities of our third-party providers, as well as disruptions in travel, shipping or delivery capabilities into and within the countries in which we or our manufacturers produce ARCALYST or our product candidates or disruptions to production capabilities, including due to the impact of natural disasters, accidents, boycotts, labor disputes, political and economic instability, including acts of terrorism or war, and an epidemic or pandemic or other outbreak of disease, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The occurrence of any such event could adversely affect our ability to satisfy the required supply for any of ARCALYST or our product candidates or successfully complete preclinical and clinical development, which would result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue and would harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Supply chain issues related to important ancillary products may also adversely affect our business. For example, we contract with a network of specialty pharmacies who distribute ARCALYST as well as peripheral supplies that are required to reconstitute and self-administer ARCALYST, such as sterile water for injection, syringes and needles. A delay or shortage in the supply or the distribution of the peripheral supplies required to administer ARCALYST may impact patient access to ARCALYST and could cause us to lose potential revenue, reduce our potential profitability, and damage our reputation.

We also contract with third parties to source specialized placebo for use in our clinical trials which cannot be easily replaced as it must be nearly indistinguishable from our product candidates to ensure proper clinical trial blinding. If we encounter shortages of such placebo, our clinical trials may be substantially delayed unless and until we can source suitable replacements.

In addition, our third-party providers may fail to comply with cGMP and other stringent regulatory requirements related to the manufacturing process. See “Risk Factors—We contract with third parties for manufacturing our commercial supply of ARCALYST and clinical supply for our product candidates and for certain research and other preclinical development and expect that we will continue to do so in the future. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we may not have sufficient quantities of ARCALYST or our product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.”

We and our third-party providers are required to maintain compliance with cGMP and other stringent requirements and are subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm such compliance. If we or any of our third-party providers are not able to establish and maintain procedures and processes sufficient to satisfy cGMP or similar foreign standards, we could experience a delay, interruption or other issues in our manufacture, fill-finish, packaging, storage or delivery of ARCALYST or our product candidates, and any related failure of the facilities or operations of third parties to pass any regulatory agency inspection could significantly impair our ability to supply our products and product candidates. Significant noncompliance could also result in the imposition of monetary penalties or other civil or criminal sanctions and damage our reputation.

Any adverse developments affecting the operations of our third-party providers, such as any impact due to the COVID-19 pandemic including shortages or reprioritizations of raw materials, reprioritization by third parties or the U.S. government for any products or potential products related to the treatment or prevention of COVID-19, could result in a shortage of commercial products or product candidates, the imposition of additional commercial product requirements by regulatory authorities, the withdrawal of our product candidates or approved products, shipment delays, lot failures or recalls. We may also have to write off inventory and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives. Such

80

Table of Contents

manufacturing issues could increase our cost of goods, cause us to lose potential revenue, reduce our potential profitability or damage our reputation.

The third parties upon whom we rely for the supply of the drug substance and drug product used in ARCALYST and our product candidates are our sole source of supply, and the loss of any of these suppliers could significantly harm our business.

The drug substance and drug product used in ARCALYST, mavrilimumab and vixarelimab are supplied to us from single single-source suppliers and we obtain the drug substance and drug product used in KPL-404 from a limited number of sources. Regeneron has a contractual right to be our sole source manufacturer of ARCALYST unless they have a persistent failure to satisfy our supply needs. Our ability to continue to commercialize ARCALYST, to develop our product candidates, and to ultimately supply our commercial products in quantities sufficient to meet market demand, depends in part on our ability to obtain the drug substance and drug product for ARCALYST and these product candidates in accordance with regulatory requirements and in sufficient quantities for commercialization and clinical testing. With respect to ARCALYST, mavrilimumab and vixarelimab, we do not currently have arrangements in place for a redundant or second-source supply of any such drug substance and drug product in the event any of our current suppliers of such drug substance and drug product cease their operations or stop offering us sufficient quantities of these materials for any reason. With respect to KPL-404, while we anticipate having more than one source for drug substance and drug product, such sources are nonetheless limited and subject to similar risks as our other products and product candidates.

We are not certain that our single-source suppliers will be able to meet our demand for our products, either because of the nature of our agreements with those suppliers, our limited experience with those suppliers or our relative importance as a customer to those suppliers. It may be difficult for us to assess their ability to timely meet our demand in the future based on past performance. While our suppliers have generally met our demand on a timely basis in the past, they may subordinate our needs in the future to their other customers.

In addition to manufacturing our products and product candidates in the quantities that we believe would be required to meet anticipated market demand, our third-party manufacturers may need to increase manufacturing capacity and, in some cases, alternative sources of commercial supply may need to be secured, which could involve significant challenges and may require additional regulatory approvals. In addition, the development of commercial-scale manufacturing capabilities may require us and our third-party manufacturers to invest substantial additional funds and hire and retain the technical personnel who have the necessary manufacturing experience. Neither we nor our third-party manufacturers may successfully complete any required increase to existing manufacturing capacity in a timely manner, or at all.

Moreover, our ability to progress our preclinical and clinical programs or successfully commercialize our products could be materially and adversely impacted if any of the third-party suppliers upon which we rely for raw materials and preclinical and clinical stage product candidate and commercial stage product supply were to experience a significant business challenge, disruption or failure due to issues such as financial difficulties or bankruptcy, issues relating to other customers such as regulatory or quality compliance issues, or other financial, legal, regulatory or reputational issues. Additionally, any damage to or destruction of our manufacturing facilities or equipment or those of our third-party manufacturers’ or suppliers’ facilities or equipment may significantly impair our ability to manufacture our products and product candidates on a timely basis.

Establishing additional or replacement suppliers for the drug substance and drug product used in ARCALYST or our product candidates, if required, is unlikely to be accomplished quickly and can take several years, if at all. Furthermore, despite our efforts, we may be unable to procure a replacement supplier or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business. If we or our CMOs are able to find a replacement supplier, such replacement supplier would need to be qualified and may require additional regulatory approval, which could result in further delay. While we and our CMOs may seek to maintain adequate inventory of the drug substance and drug product used in ARCALYST or our product candidates, any interruption or delay in the supply of components or materials, or our inability to obtain such drug substance and drug product from alternate sources of

81

Table of Contents

comparable quality at acceptable prices in a timely manner could impede, delay, limit or prevent our development or commercialization efforts, which could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Certain of the materials required in the manufacture and the formulation of our products and product candidates are derived from biological sources. Such materials are difficult to procure and may be subject to contamination or recall. Access to and supply of sufficient quantities of raw materials which meet the technical specifications for the production process is challenging, and often limited to single-source suppliers. Finding an alternative supplier could take a significant amount of time and involve significant expense due to the nature of the products and the need to obtain regulatory approvals. If we or our manufacturers are unable to purchase the materials necessary for the manufacture of ARCALYST or our product candidates on acceptable terms, in a timely manner, at sufficient quality levels, or in adequate quantities, if at all, our ability to produce sufficient quantities of our products for clinical or commercial requirements would be negatively impacted. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of certain biologically derived substances or any other material used in the manufacture of our products and product candidates could adversely impact or disrupt manufacturing, which would increase costs and impair our ability to generate revenue from the sale of ARCALYST or our product candidates, if approved.

We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties, including independent investigators and CROs, to activate sites, conduct and otherwise support our research activities, preclinical studies, clinical trials and other trials for our product candidates. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, comply with regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates, and our business could be substantially harmed.

We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to activate sites, conduct or otherwise support our preclinical studies and clinical trials for our product candidates properly and on time. We also rely on third parties to conduct other research related to our product candidates. We expect to rely heavily on these parties for such site activation, execution of and otherwise supporting clinical trials for our product candidates. While we have agreements governing their activities and we review the compliance history and performance of our CMOs as well as have the ability to audit such activities, we have no direct control over their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance other than through quality monitoring in accordance with our agreements with the CMOs. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our preclinical studies and our clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. Except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials in accordance with applicable GLP or GCP requirements, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements and scientific standards, and our reliance on these third parties does not and will not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. For any violations of laws and regulations during the conduct of our preclinical studies or clinical trials, we could be subject to warning letters or enforcement actions that may include civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

We and our CROs are required to comply with regulations, including GCPs, for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate, and that the trial patients are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials and their rights are protected. If we or our CROs fail to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable, and regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates produced under cGMPs or similar foreign regulations. Our failure or the failure of our CROs to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action. We also are required to register certain clinical trials and post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database within certain timeframes. Failure to do so when required can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

Although we have and intend to continue to design the clinical trials for our product candidates, CROs will activate sites and conduct and oversee all of the clinical trials together with the various clinical trial sites that we engage

82

Table of Contents

to conduct the studies. As a result, many important aspects of our development programs for our product candidates, including their conduct and timing, will be outside of our direct control. Our reliance on third parties to activate sites and conduct future clinical trials will also result in less direct control over the management of data developed through clinical trials than would be the case if we were relying entirely upon our own staff. Communicating with outside parties can also be challenging, potentially leading to mistakes as well as difficulties in coordinating activities. Outside parties may:

These factors may materially adversely affect the willingness or ability of third parties to activate sites and conduct and oversee our clinical trials and may subject us to unexpected cost increases that are beyond our control. If the CROs, their subcontractors or the clinical trial sites do not perform clinical trials in a satisfactory manner, breach their obligations to us or fail to comply with regulatory requirements, the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates, or our development program may be materially and irreversibly harmed. If we are unable to rely on clinical data collected by our CROs, their subcontractors or the clinical trial sites, we could be required to repeat, extend the duration of or increase the size of any clinical trials we conduct and this could significantly delay commercialization and require significantly greater expenditures.

Further, if our CROs, their subcontractors or the clinical trial sites fail to devote sufficient resources to the development of our product candidates, or if their performance is substandard, it may delay or compromise the prospects for approval and commercialization of our product candidates. In addition, the use of third-party service providers requires us to disclose our proprietary information to these parties, which could increase the risk that this information is misappropriated.

If the third parties conducting our preclinical studies or our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience significant business challenges, disruptions or failures, such as due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies or clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable product candidate, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

83

Table of Contents

Because we rely on third parties to develop and manufacture our product candidates, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology in part by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, invention assignment agreements, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees, independent contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, such as trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may harm our business. To the extent that we share trade secrets of third parties that are licensed to us, unauthorized use or disclosure could expose us to liability.

See also, “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Intellectual Property – If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position may be harmed.”

Risks Related to Competition, Executing our Strategy and Managing Growth

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

The development and commercialization of new drugs and biologics is highly competitive. We face competition with respect to our current product candidates, and will face competition with respect to any product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future, from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that currently market and sell drugs or biologics or are pursuing the development of therapies in the fields in which we are interested. Some of these competitive products and therapies are based on scientific approaches that are the same as or similar to our approach, and others are based on entirely different approaches. 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.

We are not aware of any FDA-approved therapies for recurrent pericarditis, but are aware of one program (RPH-104) being developed by R-Pharm International, which inhibits IL-1α/IL-1β-induced signaling and is in Phase 2 development in recurrent pericarditis subjects. Anakinra (KINERET), marketed by Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, is currently approved for use in RA, CAPS and DIRA. We are not aware of any active, industry sponsored development programs using anakinra seeking a label for recurrent pericarditis. Canakinumab (ILARIS), marketed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, is currently approved for use in CAPS, Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor Associated Periodic Syndrome (TRAPS), Hyperimmunoglobulin D Syndrome (HIDS), Mevalonate Kinase Deficiency (MKD) and Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF), Still’s Disease and Systemic Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (SJIA). We are not aware of any active, industry sponsored development programs using canakinumab seeking a label for recurrent pericarditis. Additionally, Novartis is also developing gevokizumab for use in oncologic indications. There are other therapies which modulate IL-1α in preclinical and clinical development for diseases other than recurrent pericarditis from Johnson & Johnson and XBIOTECH USA, INC. We are not aware of any active, industry sponsored development programs for these programs seeking a label for recurrent pericarditis.

There are five other programs in clinical development in various indications that modulate GM-CSF signaling from GlaxoSmithKline plc, or GSK (otilimab), I-MAB Biopharma (plonmarlimab), Roivant Sciences Ltd. (gimsilumab and namilumab) and Humanigen, Inc. (lenzilumab). All of these competitive programs target the GM-CSF ligand itself versus targeting the GM-CSF receptor like mavrilimumab.

We are not aware of any therapies currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of prurigo nodularis, however multiple therapies are in development for prurigo nodularis, and any that receive FDA approval for this indication will be likely competitors to vixarelimab. We are also not aware of any programs in preclinical or clinical

84

Table of Contents

development targeting OSMRβ antagonism. Trevi Therapeutics, Inc., is conducting a Phase 2/3 study with their k-opioid antagonist, nalbuphine ER; Galderma SA is conducting a Phase 3 study with their IL-31 specific antagonist nemolizumab; Incyte Corporation is conducting a Phase 2 study with INCB054707, a JAK1 inhibitor; and, Regeneron / Sanofi SA have conducted Phase 3 studies with their IL-4 antagonist dupilumab (Dupixent).

There are various programs in clinical development antagonizing the CD40 / CD154 costimulatory pathway, however KPL-404 is the only program designed to be administered subcutaneously. Certain programs are designed for intravenous administration only. Astellas Pharma Inc. is developing bleselumab (anti-CD40R); Horizon Therapeutics plc is developing the Tn3 fusion protein, dazodalibep (anti-CD40L); Biogen, Inc. and UCB S.A. are developing dapirolizumab pegol (anti-CD40L); and, Eledon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly Novus, and also formerly Anelixis) are developing AT-1501 (anti-CD40L). Certain other programs pose the potential for subcutaneous administration. Novartis A.G. is developing CFZ-533, or iscalimab (anti-CD40), Sanofi S.A./ImmuNext Inc. are developing SAR441344 (anti-CD40L), Bristol Myers-Squibb is developing BMS-986325 (anti-CD40); and Abbvie, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH are developing ravagalimab (anti-CD40).

Further, the results of clinical trials for our product candidates may produce negative, inconclusive or uncompetitive results compared to those produced by any of these or other companies in the indications we are studying, which may result in us deciding, or regulatory authorities requiring us, to conduct additional clinical trials or modify or cease development programs for our product candidates. We may also determine that the potential product and commercial profile of any of our product candidates may not ultimately be commercially successful or even if they have the potential to ultimately be successful, we may not have sufficient recourses, which in either case could lead us to discontinue its development in certain indications, or we may determine to not support further development of any of our product candidates at any time for any reason.

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

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any drugs that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, the effectiveness of companion diagnostics in guiding the use of related products, market acceptance by prescribers and patients, the level of generic competition and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

We may not be successful in executing our growth strategy to identify, discover, develop, in-license or acquire additional product candidates or technologies, and our growth strategy may not deliver the anticipated results or we may refine or otherwise alter our growth strategy. We may seek to acquire businesses or undertake business combinations, collaborations or other strategic transactions which may not be successful or on favorable terms, if at all, and we may not realize the intended benefits of such transactions.

We have acquired or in-licensed our existing product candidates, and as part of our strategy we plan to identify new product candidates or technologies that we believe are complementary to our existing product candidates. We may do this through our internal discovery program, or by acquiring the rights to product candidates and technologies through a variety of transaction types, including in-licensing, strategic transactions, mergers or acquisitions. If we are unable to identify, discover, develop, in-license or otherwise acquire and integrate product candidates, or their related companies,

85

Table of Contents

in accordance with this strategy, our ability to pursue this component of our growth strategy would be limited and we may need to refine or otherwise alter this strategy. We cannot be certain that we will be successful in such efforts, and even if we are successful in such efforts, we cannot be certain that such discovery or transaction will be on favorable terms, or that, following any such discovery or transaction, we will be able to realize the intended benefits of it.

Research programs and business development efforts to identify new product candidates and technologies require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential product candidates, technologies or businesses that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. In-licensing and acquisitions of product candidates, technology or businesses often require significant payments and expenses and consume additional resources. We will need to continue to devote a substantial amount of time and personnel to research, develop and commercialize any such in-licensed or acquired product candidate or technology, or integrate any new business, and we may decide to reprioritize our efforts even after having expended resources on a particular prospect. Our research programs and business development efforts, including businesses or technology acquisitions, collaborations or licensing attempts, may fail to yield additional complementary or successful product candidates for clinical development and commercialization or successful business combinations for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:

If any of these events occurs, we may not be successful in executing our growth strategy to identify, discover, develop, in-license or acquire additional product candidates or technologies or to acquire businesses or undertake business combinations, collaborations, or other strategic transactions, or our growth strategy or strategic transactions may not deliver the anticipated results or we may refine or otherwise alter this strategy.

The consummation or performance of any acquisition, business combination, collaboration or other strategic transaction we may undertake in furtherance of our growth strategy or any refined or otherwise altered strategy, may involve additional risks, such as difficulties in assimilating different workplace cultures, retaining personnel and integrating operations, which may be geographically dispersed, increased costs, exposure to liabilities, incurrence of indebtedness, or use a substantial portion of our available cash for all or a portion of the consideration or cause dilution to our existing shareholders if we issue equity securities for all or a portion of the consideration. If any of these events occurs or we are unable to meet our strategic objectives for any such transaction, we may not be able to achieve the expected benefits from the transaction and our business may be materially harmed.

We may seek to enter into collaboration, licensing or other strategic transactions or arrangements to further develop, commercialize or otherwise attempt to realize value from one or more of our product candidates, and any such transactions or arrangements that we may enter into may not be successful or be on favorable terms, which could adversely affect our ability to develop, commercialize or attempt to realize value from our product candidates.

We may seek to enter into collaboration, licensing or other strategic transactions or arrangements to further develop, commercialize or otherwise attempt to realize value from one or more of our product candidates instead of developing or commercializing ourselves. In addition, we may seek to jointly develop, commercialize or otherwise exploit one or more of our product candidates with a third party. To the extent that we decide to enter into such

86

Table of Contents

transactions or arrangements, we may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators, licensees or other strategic partners. Moreover, these transactions and arrangements are complex and time consuming to negotiate, document, implement and to close or maintain. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish collaborations, licenses or other strategic transactions or arrangements should we choose to do so. The terms of any such transactions or arrangements that we may establish may have unfavorable tax consequences for our shareholders in the United States. Further, granting territory-specific rights for our products and product candidates may reduce their attractiveness for subsequent business development activity. In addition, our right to grant a sublicense of intellectual property licensed to us under certain of our current agreements requires the consent of the applicable licensor.

​

Any current or future collaborations, licenses or other strategic transactions or arrangements that we enter into may not be successful. The success of these potential collaboration, license arrangements and other strategic transactions or arrangements may depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators, sublicensees or other strategic partners. We have experienced collaboration failure in the past and may experience similar failures in the future. Collaborations, licenses or other strategic transactions or arrangements are subject to numerous risks, which may include risks that the collaborator, licensee or other strategic partner, as applicable:

In addition, disputes may arise with respect to the ownership of any intellectual property developed pursuant to these arrangements. These arrangements may also be terminated, and, if terminated, may result in a need for additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates.

We need to continue to develop our company and expand our scope of operations, and we may encounter difficulties in managing this development and expansion, which could disrupt our operations.

We expect to continue to develop our company and expand the scope of our operations. To manage our anticipated development and expansion, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems and infrastructure, expand our facilities over time and continue to recruit and train qualified personnel. Also, our executive and senior management teams have and may continue to divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from their day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these development and expansion activities. For example, in January 2021, we implemented select components of a new ERP system that will enable the organization to manage the complexity of operating a commercial organization more efficiently. As with any implementation, this new system will require specific skills and expertise to setup, maintain and utilize the system.

87

Table of Contents

We may not be able to develop these skills internally or in sufficient time and capacity, which could require us to expend additional resources to acquire them. Due to our limited resources, certain employees have and may continue to perform activities that are beyond their regular scope of work, and we may not be able to effectively manage the development of our company, expansion of our operations or recruit and train qualified personnel. This may result in weaknesses of our systems and infrastructure, give rise to managerial, operational and financial mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. The development of our company and expansion of our operations may lead to significant costs and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of one or more of our product candidates. If our executive and senior management teams are unable to effectively manage our anticipated development and expansion, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy as planned, including with respect to our commercialization of ARCALYST in recurrent pericarditis. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved, and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage the future development of our company and expansion of our operations.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to adequately protect our proprietary technology or obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, or if the terms of our patents are insufficient to protect our product candidates for an adequate amount of time, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be materially impaired.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary or intellectual property protection in the United States and other countries for our products and product candidates, including ARCALYST, mavrilimumab, vixarelimab, and KPL-404. We seek to protect our proprietary and intellectual property position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary and intellectual property position.

We acquire, in-license and file patent applications directed to our products and product candidates in an effort to establish intellectual property positions directed to their compositions of matter and manufacture as well as uses of these products and product candidates in the treatment of diseases. Our intellectual property includes patents and patent applications that we own as well as patents and patent applications that we in-license. For example, we have a field-specific exclusive license under a license agreement with Regeneron to patent applications and patents relating to ARCALYST, an exclusive license under the MedImmune Agreement to patent applications and patents relating to mavrilimumab, and an exclusive license under our license agreement with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to patent applications and patents related to KPL-404.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, either of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We or our licensors have not pursued or maintained, and may not pursue or maintain in the future, patent protection for our products or product candidates in every country or territory in which we may sell our products or product candidates, if approved. In addition, we cannot be sure that any of our pending patent applications or pending trademark applications will issue or that, if issued, they will be in a form that is advantageous to us. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, international patent offices or judicial bodies may deny or significantly narrow claims made under our patent applications and our issued patents may be successfully challenged, may be designed around or may otherwise be of insufficient scope to provide us with protection for our commercial products. Further, the USPTO, international trademark offices or judicial bodies may deny our trademark applications and, even if

88

Table of Contents

published or registered, these trademarks may not effectively protect our brand and goodwill. Like patents, trademarks also may be successfully opposed or challenged.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. The degree of patent protection we require to successfully commercialize our product candidates may be unavailable or severely limited in some cases and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. We cannot provide any assurances that any of our owned or in licensed patents have, or that any of our owned or in-licensed pending patent applications that mature into issued patents will have, claims with a scope sufficient to protect ARCALYST, mavrilimumab, vixarelimab, KPL-404, or any future products and product candidates. A U.S. patent covering ARCALYST as a composition of matter expired in 2020, and relevant composition of matter patents issued outside of the United States are expected to expire by 2023, not including any patent term extensions. A U.S. patent covering methods of using ARCALYST in the treatment of recurrent pericarditis issued in June 2021 and has a statutory term that expires in 2038, not including any patent term adjustment. The composition of matter patents for mavrilimumab generally have statutory expiration dates in 2027, not including any extensions or adjustments. The issued composition of matter patents for vixarelimab have statutory expiration dates in 2034, not including any extensions. The issued composition of matter patents for KPL-404 have statutory expiration dates in 2036, not including any extensions. The issued composition of matter patents licensed from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center related to KPL-404 have statutory expiration dates in 2032, not including any patent term extensions or adjustments. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions and adjustments may be available; however, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. The actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country to country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent. For example, the applicable regulatory exclusivity period is often triggered by the date a product candidate obtains regulatory approval, and we cannot predict with any certainty whether and if so, when, the applicable product would receive regulatory approval in any given jurisdiction. Furthermore, the type, scope and duration of such exclusivities will vary on a country-by-country basis depending on the jurisdictions in which a product candidate is approved and the particular regulatory exclusivity for which the product is eligible as of the time of approval.

Patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension in the United States under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. Similar patent extensions exist in the EU and Japan, subject to the applicable laws in those jurisdictions. In most countries, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest filing date of a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the USPTO, in examining and granting a patent, or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier expiring patent. In certain countries, the term of a patent that covers a drug product may also be eligible for patent term extension when regulatory approval is granted, provided the legal requirements are met. We may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines or fail or are unable to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents. For example, no patent term extension was obtained in the United States following the FDA’s approval of ARCALYST for the treatment of CAPS in 2008, and the deadline for applying for such extension has passed. Accordingly, patent term extension in the United States based on the FDA’s approval of ARCALYST for CAPS, or any other indication for which the FDA may grant approval in the future, is unavailable. Further, while patent term extension was awarded for relevant patents in certain European countries following the EMA’s approval of ARCALYST for the treatment of CAPS, in 2012 the marketing authorization for CAPs was withdrawn. Patent term extensions may no longer be in effect or available, subject to the applicable laws in those countries as well as other factors, such as whether a marketing approval for ARCALYST is reissued and whether such reissuance is prior to the expiration of the patent’s natural 20-year patent term. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. In addition, the laws of other countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner, impacting our revenue.

89

Table of Contents

Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized, thereby limiting protection such patent would afford the respective product and any competitive advantage such patent may provide. In some cases, an in-licensed patent portfolio may have undergone a considerable loss of patent term prior to our initiation of development and commercialization of the product or product candidate. For example, the patents in the United States covering ARCALYST as a composition of matter have expired, and patents covering ARCALYST as a composition of matter in Europe have a term that expires in 2023, not including any patent term extensions, and the patents covering mavrilimumab as a composition of matter have a term that expires in 2027 in the United States, not including any patent term adjustments (an adjustment to the term of a U.S. patent to compensate the patentee for delays caused by the USPTO during the examination process) or patent term extensions, and in 2027 in Europe, not including any patent term extensions. We may not receive any patent term extension for patents covering mavrilimumab as a composition of matter if such patent in an applicable jurisdiction expires before mavrilimumab would be eligible to receive regulatory approval in such jurisdiction. As a result, our owned and in-licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to our product candidates. In such cases, we expect to rely on regulatory exclusivity for our product candidates. The expiration date of regulatory exclusivity is determined on a country-by country-basis if the applicable product is approved in such country and if any applicable regulatory exclusivity applies and is granted. The actual expiration date of any such regulatory exclusivity, however, is subject to significant uncertainty. For instance, the applicable regulatory exclusivity period is often triggered by the date a product candidate obtains regulatory approval, and we cannot predict with any certainty whether and if so, when, the applicable product would receive regulatory approval in any given jurisdiction. Furthermore, the type, scope and duration of such exclusivities will vary on a country-by-country basis depending on the jurisdictions in which a product candidate is approved and the particular regulatory exclusivity for which the product is eligible as of the time of approval.

Other parties may have developed or may develop technologies that may be related or competitive to our own, and such parties may have filed or may file patent applications, or may have received or may receive patents, claiming inventions that may overlap or conflict with those claimed in our patent applications or issued patents, with respect to either the same methods or formulations or the same subject matter, in either case, that we may rely upon to dominate our patent position in the market. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensors were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights cannot be predicted with any certainty.

In addition, the patent prosecution process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. Patent prosecution is a lengthy process, during which the scope of the claims initially submitted for examination by the USPTO is often significantly narrowed by the time they issue, if at all. The claims of our issued patents or patent applications when issued may not cover our product candidates, proposed commercial technologies or the future products that we develop, or even if such patents provide coverage, the coverage obtained may not provide any competitive advantage. Further, it is possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we in-license from, or out-license to, third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prepared, prosecuted, enforced or maintained in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. In the case of our field-limited license from Regeneron, another licensee may have the right to enforce patents covering the product in their field. As a result, we may need to coordinate prosecution, enforcement or maintenance with another party, and the other party could prosecute, enforce or maintain the patents in a manner adverse to our interests or otherwise put the patents at risk of invalidation.

The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or license may fail to result in issued patents in the United States or in other countries. Even if we acquire patent protection that we expect should enable us to maintain a competitive advantage, third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope thereof, which may result in such

90

Table of Contents

patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity, enforceability or term, and our owned and licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. For example, we may be subject to a third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO challenging the priority of an invention claimed within one of our patents, which submissions may also be made prior to a patent’s issuance, precluding the granting of any of our pending patent applications. We may become involved in contested proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others from whom we have obtained licenses to such rights. For example, patents granted by the USPTO may be subject to third-party challenges such as (without limitation) derivation, re-examination, interference, post-grant review or inter partes review proceedings, and patents granted by the European Patent Office may be challenged by any person in an opposition proceeding within nine months from the publication of the grant. Similar proceedings are available in other jurisdictions, and in some jurisdictions third parties can raise questions of validity with a patent office even before a patent has granted. Competitors may claim that they invented the inventions claimed in our issued patents or patent applications prior to us, or may file patent applications before we do. In such case, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO, to determine which party is entitled to a patent on the disputed invention. We may also become involved in similar opposition proceedings in the European Patent Office or similar offices in other jurisdictions regarding our intellectual property rights with respect to our products and technology.

Such proceedings can be expensive, time consuming and may divert the efforts of our technical and managerial personnel, which could in turn harm our business, whether or not we receive a determination favorable to us. We may not be able to correctly estimate or control our future operating expenses in relation to such proceedings, which could affect operating expenses. Our operating expenses may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, including the costs of such proceedings.

Since patent applications are confidential for a period of time after filing, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Competitors may also contest our patents, if issued, by showing the patent examiner that the invention was not original, was not novel or was obvious. In litigation, a competitor could claim that our patents, if issued, are not valid or enforceable for a number of reasons. If a court agrees, rights to those challenged patents may be diminished or lost.

In addition, we may in the future be subject to claims by our or our licensors’ former employees or consultants asserting an ownership right in our patents or patent applications as a result of the work they performed on our or their behalf, respectively. Although we generally require all of our employees and consultants and any other partners or collaborators who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to assign or grant similar rights to their inventions to us, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors have executed such agreements with all parties who may have contributed to our intellectual property, nor can we be certain that our agreements with such parties will be upheld in the face of a potential challenge, or that they will not be breached, for which we may not have an adequate remedy.

An adverse determination in any such submission or proceeding may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, without payment to us, or could limit the duration of the patent protection covering our technology and product candidates. Such challenges may also result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize our product candidates without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

Even if they are unchallenged, our issued patents and our pending patent applications, if issued, may not provide us with any meaningful protection or prevent competitors from designing around our patent claims to circumvent our owned or licensed patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner. For example, a third party may develop a competitive drug that provides benefits similar to one or more of our product candidates but that has a different composition that falls outside the scope of our patent protection. If the patent protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates is not sufficiently broad to impede such competition, or if the breadth, strength or term (including any

91

Table of Contents

extensions or adjustments) of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our product candidates or any future product candidates is successfully challenged, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates could be negatively affected, which would harm our business. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates or any future product candidates under patent protection would be reduced.

Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. If we breach any of the agreements related to our product candidates, we could lose the ability to continue the development and commercialization of the related product. Additionally, our current licensing and acquisition agreements contain limitations and restrictions that could limit or adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize other products in the future.

We entered into agreements to acquire the rights to develop and commercialize ARCALYST and our product candidates, mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404. In September 2017, we entered into a license agreement with Regeneron to obtain an exclusive license under certain intellectual property rights controlled by Regeneron to develop and commercialize ARCALYST. In December 2017, we entered into the MedImmune Agreement to obtain exclusive worldwide rights to research, develop, manufacture, market and sell mavrilimumab and any other products covered by the licensed patent rights. In September 2016, pursuant to the Biogen Agreement, we acquired all of Biogen’s right, title and interest in and to certain assets used in or relating to vixarelimab, including patents and other intellectual property rights, clinical data, know-how and inventory. In connection with our acquisition of Primatope in March 2019, we acquired an exclusive world-wide license with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for certain patent applications and patents related to KPL-404. Each of these agreements requires us to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize the related product candidates, make timely milestone and other payments, provide certain information regarding our activities with respect to such product candidates and indemnify the other party with respect to our development and commercialization activities under the terms of the agreements. These agreements and any future such agreements that we enter into impose a variety of obligations and related consequences.

We are a party to license and acquisition agreements of importance to our business and to our current product candidates, and we expect to be subject to additional such agreements in the future. Disputes may arise between us and any of these counterparties regarding intellectual property subject to and each parties’ obligations under such agreements, including:

92

Table of Contents

These or other disputes over our obligations or intellectual property that we have licensed or acquired may prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current arrangements on acceptable terms, or may impair the value of the arrangement to us. Any such dispute could have an adverse effect on our business.

If we fail to meet our obligations under these agreements in a material respect, the respective licensor/seller would have the right to terminate the respective agreement and upon the effective date of such termination, have the right to re-obtain the related technology as well as aspects of any intellectual property controlled by us and developed during the period the agreement was in force that relate to the applicable technology. This means that the licensor/seller to each of these agreements could effectively take control of the development and commercialization of our product candidates after an uncured, material breach of the agreement by us. This would also be the case if we voluntarily elected to terminate the relevant agreement, which we have the right to do under each of these agreements. While we would expect to exercise our rights and remedies available to us in the event we fail to meet our obligations under these agreements in any material respect, including seeking to cure any breach by us, and otherwise seek to preserve our rights under the technology licensed to or acquired by us, we may not be able to do so in a timely manner, at an acceptable cost or at all. Any uncured, material breach under the license could result in our loss of exclusive rights and may lead to a complete termination of our product development and any commercialization efforts for each of our product candidates. Termination of one of these agreements for any reason, and the related discontinuation of the development or commercialization of a product candidate could impair our ability to raise additional capital, generate revenue and may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects.

The FDA approved ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis and reduction in risk of recurrence in adults and children 12 years of age and older in March 2021. Upon receipt of this approval, we assumed the sales and distribution of ARCALYST for the previously approved indications in the United States. We will evenly split profits on ARCALYST sales with Regeneron. Regeneron retains worldwide rights to develop and commercialize ARCALYST for local administration to the eye and ear and oncology. Additionally, Regeneron retains the right to develop and commercialize ARCALYST for all applications in the Middle East and North Africa. The development of ARCALYST in other fields could increase the possibility of identification of adverse safety results that impact the commercialization of ARCALYST for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis.

Certain of our agreements may limit or delay our ability to consummate certain transactions, may impact the value of those transactions, or may limit our ability to pursue certain activities. For example, under the Regeneron Agreement, Regeneron has a right of first negotiation over the assignment or sale of our rights to any product we develop under the Regeneron Agreement to third parties and we must obtain Regeneron’s prior consent to assign or sublicense our rights under such agreement to a third party. Under the MedImmune Agreement, we cannot sublicense the rights licensed or sublicensed to us without the consent of MedImmune and certain applicable third-party licensors, if required by agreements between MedImmune and such third-party licensors. Under the Biogen Agreement, Biogen has a right of first negotiation under certain circumstances to purchase the assets we acquired from Biogen or to obtain a license to exploit the applicable products. This right of first negotiation remains in effect until the earlier of 12 years from the date of the agreement or the first commercial sale of a product under the agreement, and applies to a variety of transactions, including licensing transactions and the sale of our company. In addition, under the Biogen Agreement, we are subject to an exclusivity obligation, pursuant to which we may not conduct any activity alone or through a third party related to a product that modulates the oncostatin M receptor (other than for the development and commercialization of products that are the subject of the Biogen Agreement). This exclusivity obligation runs from the earlier of the eighth anniversary of the agreement or the first commercial sale of a product that is the subject of the Biogen Agreement.

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

Our commercial success depends upon our ability and the ability of our collaborators to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products and product candidates, if approved, and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights and intellectual property of third parties. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive and frequent litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. We cannot assure you that our products, product candidates or any future product candidates, including methods of making or using these product candidates, will not infringe existing or future third-party patents. We may in the future

93

Table of Contents

become party to, or threatened with, adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our products and product candidates and technology, including contested proceedings before the USPTO. Our competitors or other third parties may assert infringement claims against us, alleging that our products are covered by their patents.

Given the vast number of patents in our field of technology, we cannot be certain that we do not infringe existing patents or that we will not infringe patents that may be granted in the future. Many companies have filed, and continue to file, patent applications related to immunomodulation. Some of these patent applications have already been allowed or issued, and others may issue in the future. For example, we are aware of third-party patents that contain claims potentially relevant to mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404. If the claims of any of these patents are asserted against us, we do not believe our proposed activities related to mavrilimumab, vixarelimab and KPL-404 would be found to infringe any valid claim of these patents. While we may decide to initiate proceedings to challenge the validity of these or other patents in the future, we may be unsuccessful, and courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad could uphold the validity of any such patent. If we were to challenge the validity of any issued U.S. patent in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every U.S. patent. This means that in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the patent’s claims. In order to avoid infringing these or any other third-party patents, we may find it necessary or prudent to obtain licenses to such patents from such third-party intellectual property holders. However, we may be unable to secure such licenses or otherwise acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our current or future product candidates. The licensing or acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and several more established companies may also pursue strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive or necessary. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, capital resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment or at all. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to cease development of the relevant program or product candidate, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Since our product candidates are being developed for use in fields that are competitive and of strong interest to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, we will likely seek to file additional patent applications and may have additional patents granted in the future, based on our future research and development efforts. Furthermore, because patent applications can take many years to issue and may be confidential for 18 months or more after filing, and because pending patent claims can be revised before issuance, there may be applications now pending which may later result in issued patents that may be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of our product candidates. Regardless of when filed, we may fail to identify relevant third-party patents or patent applications, or we may incorrectly conclude that a third-party patent is invalid or not infringed by our product candidates or activities. If a patent holder believes our product candidate infringes its patent, the patent holder may sue us even if we have received patent protection for our technology. Moreover, we may face patent infringement claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant drug revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may thus have no deterrent effect. If a patent infringement suit were threatened or brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product candidate that is the subject of the actual or threatened suit.

If we are found to infringe a third-party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our product candidates and technology. Under any such license, we would most likely be required to pay various types of fees, milestones, royalties or other amounts. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain such a license, it could be granted on non-exclusive terms, thereby providing our competitors and other third parties access to the same technologies licensed to us. Without such a license, we could be forced, including by court order, to cease developing and commercializing the infringing technology or product candidate, or forced to redesign it, or to cease some aspect of our business operations. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed such third-party patent rights. We may be required to indemnify collaborators or contractors against such claims. A finding of infringement could

94

Table of Contents

prevent us from commercializing our product candidates or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation can be expensive and time consuming and would divert management’s attention from our core business. Any of these events could harm our business significantly.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights.

Competitors and other third parties may infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our patents and other intellectual property rights, whether owned or in-licensed. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we or our current or future collaborators may be required to file infringement claims against these infringers. A court may disagree with our allegations, however, and may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the third-party technology in question. Further, such third parties could counterclaim that we infringe their intellectual property or that a patent we have asserted against them is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims challenging the validity, enforceability or scope of asserted patents are commonplace. In addition, third parties may initiate legal proceedings against us to assert such challenges to our intellectual property rights. The outcome of any such proceeding is generally unpredictable. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness, non-enablement, or foreign equivalents thereof. Patents may be unenforceable if someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. It is possible that prior art of which we or our licensors and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution exists, which could render our patents invalid. Moreover, it is also possible that prior art may exist that we are aware of but do not believe is relevant to our current or future patents, but that could nevertheless be determined to render our patents invalid or unenforceable.

Some of our competitors may be able to devote significantly more resources to intellectual property litigation, and may have significantly broader patent portfolios to assert against us if we assert our rights against them. Further, because of the substantial discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be disclosed or otherwise compromised during litigation.

An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents, whether owned or in-licensed, at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability of our patents covering one of our product candidates, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection covering such product candidate. Competing products may also be sold in other countries in which our patent coverage might not exist or be as strong. If we lose a patent lawsuit outside of the United States, alleging our infringement of a competitor’s patents, we could be prevented from marketing our products in one or more such countries. Any of these outcomes would have a materially adverse effect on our business.

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

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

We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to adequately conduct such litigation or proceedings. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Accordingly, despite our efforts, we may not be able to prevent third parties from infringing upon or misappropriating or from

95

Table of Contents

successfully challenging our intellectual property rights. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

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

The USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In addition, periodic maintenance fees on issued patents often must be paid to the USPTO and patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of the patent. While an unintentional lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we, our licensors or our licensees fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products or technologies, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing products that are the same as or similar to our product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, if we or our licensees fail to apply for applicable patent term extensions or adjustments, we will have a more limited time during which we can enforce our granted patents, or receive royalties from a licensee. In addition, if we are responsible for patent prosecution and maintenance of patent rights in-licensed to us, any of the foregoing could expose us to liability to the applicable patent owner.

We may not be able to effectively 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. Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in intellectual property laws outside of the United States. In addition, the patent laws of some such countries do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain jurisdictions outside of the United States. Varying filing dates in international countries may also permit intervening third parties to allege priority to patent applications claiming certain technology. The legal systems of some countries, particularly developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of 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. For example, many countries outside of the United States have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against certain parties, including government agencies or government contractors. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, if our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities is inadequate. These products may compete with our product candidates, 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, whether owned or in-licensed, in jurisdictions outside of the United States, 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 pursue protection for our intellectual property rights in the major markets for our product candidates, 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 product candidates. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate. In addition, changes in the law and legal decisions by courts in the United States and other countries may affect our ability to obtain and enforce adequate intellectual property protection for our technology.

96

Table of Contents

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

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Patent reform legislation in the United States and other countries, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, contribute to those uncertainties and costs. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that have affected the way patent applications are prosecuted, and have redefined prior art and provided more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. In addition, the Leahy-Smith Act has transformed the U.S. patent system into a first-to-file system in which, assuming that other requirements of patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent regardless of whether a third party was first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that has filed a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013 but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This requires us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Furthermore, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (1) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the invention in commerce before our filing date or the other party benefits from a compulsory license.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the Leahy-Smith Act are changes that (i) affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, (ii) redefine prior art, and (iii) provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provide new opportunities for third parties to challenge issued patents in the USPTO. We may be subject to the risk of third-party prior art submissions on pending applications or become a party to opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patents. There is a lower standard of evidence necessary to invalidate a patent claim in a USPTO proceeding relative to the standard in U.S. district or federal court. This could lead third parties to challenge and successfully invalidate our patents that would not otherwise be invalidated if challenged through the court system. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our or our future licensors’ patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition, 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 or maintain 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 USPTO 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; enforce or shorten the term of our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future; shorten the term that has been lengthened by patent term adjustment of our existing patents or patents that we might obtain in the future; or challenge the validity or enforceability of our patents that may be asserted against us by our competitors or other third parties. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business.

97

Table of Contents

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

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we may rely upon unpatented trade secret protection, unpatented know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. Although we seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our collaborators, scientific advisors, contractors, employees, independent contractors and consultants, and invention assignment agreements with our independent contractors, consultants, scientific advisors and employees, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know-how or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements. Moreover, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our confidential information or proprietary technology and processes. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective. If any of the collaborators, scientific advisors, employees, contractors and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation, and we could lose our trade secrets as a result. Moreover, if confidential information that is licensed or disclosed to us by our partners, collaborators or others is inadvertently disclosed or subject to a breach or violation, we may be exposed to liability to the owner of that confidential information. Enforcing a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets, like patent litigation, is expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing to protect trade secrets.

We cannot be certain that the steps we have taken will prevent unauthorized use or unauthorized reverse engineering of our technology. Monitoring unauthorized use of our intellectual property is difficult and costly. We may not be able to detect unauthorized use of, or take appropriate steps to enforce, our intellectual property rights. The steps we have taken to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property.

We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and other confidential information by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached. Detecting the disclosure or misappropriation of confidential information and enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated confidential information is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Further, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our confidential information may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors, in which case we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. We may in the future rely on trade secret protection, which would be subject to the risks identified above with respect to confidential information.

Our trade secrets could otherwise become known or be independently discovered by our competitors. Competitors could purchase our product candidates and attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected so as to protect our market against competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business.

See also “Risk Factors – Risks Related to Manufacturing and Our Reliance on Third Parties – Our reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.”

98

Table of Contents

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

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names in the United States or jurisdictions outside of the United States, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We have not yet registered trademarks for a commercial trade name for our product candidates in the United States or jurisdictions outside of the United States and failure to secure such registrations could adversely affect our business.

We have not yet registered trademarks for a commercial trade name for some of our product candidates in the United States or any jurisdiction outside of the United States. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we are given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, in the USPTO and in comparable agencies in many jurisdictions outside of the United States, third parties are given an opportunity to oppose pending trademark applications and to seek to cancel registered trademarks. Opposition or cancellation proceedings may be filed against our trademarks, and our trademarks may not survive such proceedings. Moreover, any name we propose to use with our product candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA.

General Risk Factors

​

The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact that is significant on our business and operations as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers, CROs and other third parties with whom we conduct business or otherwise engage, including the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and has impacted and could continue to impact the global economy, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial position.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could cause significant disruption in our business and operations and could cause significant disruption the business and operations of our manufacturers, CROs upon whom we rely on to conduct our clinical trials, clinical trial sites, and other third parties with whom we conduct business or otherwise engage, including the FDA and other regulatory authorities.

The federal and state governments in the United States and the governments of other countries around the globe have implemented various measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including significant restrictions on businesses as well as travel into and within the countries in which our manufacturers produce our product candidates or where we conduct our clinical trials or otherwise conduct business or engage with other third parties. And while certain of such restrictive measures have since been loosened or repealed following the widespread distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and the reduction in global cases in mid-2021, the loosening of such restrictions have been and may in the future be subject to abrupt reversal in the presence of new variants of COVID-19, including the Delta and Omicron variants, which may lengthen or exacerbate the pandemic’s effect on our business, financial condition and results of

99

Table of Contents

operations. In addition, government restrictions and policies remain unpredictable and varied across jurisdictions, introducing significant uncertainty and compliance difficulty.

If the COVID-19 pandemic and measures undertaken in response to the pandemic are prolonged, including through the emergence of new variants of the virus, we may experience and our manufacturers, CROs or other third parties with whom we conduct business or otherwise engage, may experience or continue to experience staffing shortages or reprioritizations, production slowdowns or stoppages, and disruptions in delivery systems now or in the future. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken in response to the pandemic, including business and travel restrictions and social distancing to halt the spread of the pandemic, has had an impact on certain aspects of our commercialization strategy, including interacting with third-party payors, prescribers and patient advocacy groups to build disease awareness, and conducting in-person market research as well as recruiting qualified candidates to enhance our commercial operations and support commercialization, which, if prolonged, may impede the effective commercialization of our products and product candidates, if approved, and result in lower than anticipated future revenue.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and measures introduced by state and federal governments in the United States, we implemented workplace protocols at our facilities. We have required all employees entering our workplaces in the United States to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to a reasonable accommodation process. We have also established additional safety measures at our facilities, including providing and requiring the use of personal protective equipment, testing prior to returning to the office after an exposure and/or onset of symptoms, enforcing occupancy limits, and implementing enhanced contact tracing tools. These safety measures do not, however, guarantee that COVID-19 will not spread amongst our employees through workplace contact, and the sickness of employees may have a significant adverse impact on our business. We continue to monitor the developments, restrictions and requirements in jurisdictions where we have offices, and plan to update the protocols for our offices as applicable.

The COVID-19 pandemic may also have a significant adverse impact on our preclinical studies and clinical trials, which could significantly impede, delay, limit or prevent the clinical development of our product candidates and ultimately lead to the delay or denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates, which would materially adversely affect our business and operations, including our ability to generate revenue. See “Risk Factors — Risks related to product development — The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact on our current or planned preclinical studies and clinical trials, which could be significant.”

​

Further, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact our ability to successfully commercialize ARCALYST and our current and future product candidates, if approved. The COVID-19 pandemic and measures taken in response to the pandemic, including business and travel restrictions and social distancing to halt the spread of the pandemic, has had an impact on businesses, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities and other organizations and conferences. These measures may result in limitations on certain aspects of our commercialization strategy, including our specialty cardiology salesforce having limited, or zero, access to prescriber offices and other high-volume accounts in person, which if prolonged, may impede the effective commercialization of ARCALYST and result in lower than anticipated future revenue.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, existing and any new third-party CMOs or suppliers may be unable to produce or supply ARCALYST or our current or future product candidates or obtain certain raw or fill-finish materials, including vials and stoppers, needed to produce or supply ARCALYST or our product candidates, or may experience delays, restrictions or limitations in the production, delivery or release of the supply of them or the raw or fill-finish materials needed to produce them, including due to disruptions at the respective facilities that produce ARCALYST or our product candidates or the raw and fill-finish materials needed to produce them, staffing shortages, production slowdowns, stoppages or reprioritizations, including as a result of reprioritization by third parties or the U.S. government for any products or potential products related to the treatment or prevention of COVID-19, or interruptions in global shipping. Any failure to source sufficient quantities of our products and product candidates could prevent us from successfully commercializing our approved products and/or delay or force us to cancel our clinical activity.

100

Table of Contents

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic is impacting the global economy, and the U.S. economy in particular, with the potential for an economic downturn to be severe and prolonged. A severe or prolonged economic downturn could result in a variety of risks to our business, including disruptions in the financial markets. For example, the trading prices of biopharmaceutical companies have been and continue to be highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on capital markets. These disruptions could adversely impact our ability to raise additional capital when needed or on acceptable terms, if at all.

​

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union may have a negative effect on global economic conditions, financial markets and our business.

Following a national referendum and enactment of legislation by the government of the UK, the UK formally withdrew from the EU and ratified a trade and cooperation agreement governing its future relationship with the EU (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). The agreement, which was being applied provisionally from January 1, 2021 and entered into force on May 1, 2021, addresses trade, economic arrangements, law enforcement, judicial cooperation and a governance framework including procedures for dispute resolution, among other things. Because the agreement merely sets forth a framework in many respects and will require complex additional bilateral negotiations between the UK and the EU as both parties continue to work on the rules for implementation, significant political and economic uncertainty remains about how the precise terms of the relationship between the parties will differ from the terms before withdrawal.

Since January 1, 2021, however the UK operates under a distinct regulatory regime to the EU. EU pharmaceutical laws only apply in respect of the UK to Northern Ireland (as set out in the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland). EU laws which have been transposed into UK law through secondary legislation continue to be applicable as “retained EU law”. While the UK has indicated a general intention that new laws regarding the development, manufacture and commercialization of medicinal products in the UK will align closely with EU law, there are limited detailed proposals for future regulation of medicinal products. The trade and cooperation agreement includes specific provisions concerning medicinal products, which include the mutual recognition of GMP, inspections of manufacturing facilities for medicinal products and GMP documents issued (such mutual recognition can be rejected by either party in certain circumstances), but does not foresee wholesale mutual recognition of UK and EU pharmaceutical regulations. For example, it is not clear to what extent the UK will adopt legislation aligned with, or similar to, the EU CTR which became applicable on January 31, 2022 and which significantly reforms the assessment and supervision processes for clinical trials throughout the EU. On January 17, 2022, the MHRA, launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The consultation closes on 14 March 2022 and aims to streamline clinical trials approvals, enable innovation, enhance clinical trials transparency, enable greater risk proportionality, and promote patient and public involvement in clinical trials. The outcome of the consultation will be closely watched and will determine whether the UK chooses to align with the regulation or diverge from it to maintain regulatory flexibility. A decision by the UK not to closely align its regulations with the new approach that will be adopted in the EU may have an effect on the cost of conducting clinical trials in the UK as opposed to other countries and/or make it harder to seek a marketing authorization in the EU for our product candidates on the basis of clinical trials conducted in the UK.

Therefore, there remains political and economic uncertainty regarding to what extent the regulation of medicinal products will differ between the UK and the EU in the future. Any divergences will increase the cost and complexity of running our business, including with respect to the conduct of clinical trials. Brexit also materially impacted the regulatory regime with respect to the approval of our product candidates. Great Britain is no longer covered by the EU’s procedures for the grant of marketing authorizations (Northern Ireland is covered by the centralized authorization procedure and can be covered under the decentralized or mutual recognition procedures). As of 1 January 2021, all existing centralized marketing authorizations were automatically converted into UK marketing authorizations effective in Great Britain and issued with a United Kingdom marketing authorization number on January 1, 2021 (unless marketing authorization holders opted out of this scheme). A separate marketing authorization is now required to market drugs in Great Britain. It is currently unclear whether the regulator in the UK, the MHRA is sufficiently prepared to handle the increased volume of marketing authorization applications that it is likely to receive. The UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the associated uncertainty has had and may continue to have a significant adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and could significantly reduce global market liquidity and restrict the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. Asset valuations, currency

101

Table of Contents

exchange rates and credit ratings may be especially subject to increased market volatility. Any of these factors could have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Further, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has resulted in the relocation of the EMA from the UK to the Netherlands. This relocation has caused, and may continue to cause, disruption in the administrative and medical scientific links between the EMA and the MHRA, including delays in granting clinical trial authorization or marketing authorization, disruption of importation and export of active substance and other components of new drug formulations, and disruption of the supply chain for clinical trial product and final authorized formulations. The cumulative effects of the disruption to the regulatory framework may add considerably to the development lead time to marketing authorization and commercialization of products in the EU and/or the UK.

Such a situation could hinder our ability to conduct current and planned clinical trials and commercialize our products and product candidates, if approved, including ARCALYST, adversely affecting our business, financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, political instability in the EU as a result of Brexit may result in a material negative effect on credit markets and foreign direct investments in the EU and UK.

These developments, or the perception that any related developments could occur, have had and may continue to have a material adverse effect on global economic conditions and the financial markets, and may significantly reduce global market liquidity, restrict the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets or restrict our access to capital. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and reduce the price of our shares.

If we fail to comply with reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program or other governmental pricing programs, we could be subject to additional reimbursement requirements, penalties, sanctions and fines, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We participate in governmental programs that impose extensive drug price reporting and payment obligations on pharmaceutical manufacturers. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that is administered by the states for low-income and disabled beneficiaries. Under the MDRP, as a condition of federal funds being made available for our covered outpatient drugs under Medicaid and certain drugs or biologicals under Medicare Part B, we pay a rebate to state Medicaid programs for each unit of our covered outpatient drugs dispensed to a Medicaid beneficiary and paid for by the state Medicaid program. Medicaid rebates are based on pricing data that we report on a monthly and quarterly basis to CMS, the federal agency that administers the MDRP and Medicare programs. For the MDRP, these data include the AMP for each drug and, in the case of innovator products, best price. If we become aware that our MDRP price reporting submission for a prior period was incorrect or has changed as a result of recalculation of the pricing data, we must resubmit the corrected data for up to three years after those data originally were due. If we fail to provide information timely or are found to have knowingly submitted false information to the government, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties and other sanctions, including termination from the MDRP, in which case payment would not be available for our covered outpatient drugs under Medicaid or, if applicable, Medicare Part B.

Federal law requires that any company that participates in the MDRP also participate in the 340B program in order for federal funds to be available for the manufacturer’s drugs under Medicaid and Medicare Part B. The 340B program is administered by HRSA and requires us, as a participating manufacturer, to agree to charge statutorily defined covered entities no more than the 340B “ceiling price” for our covered drugs used in an outpatient setting. These 340B covered entities include a variety of community health clinics and other entities that receive health services grants from the Public Health Service, as well as hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. A drug that is designated for a rare disease or condition by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is not subject to the 340B ceiling price requirement with regard to the following types of covered entities: rural referral centers, sole community hospitals, critical access hospitals, and free-standing cancer hospitals. The 340B ceiling price is calculated using a statutory formula, which is based on the AMP and rebate amount for the covered outpatient drug as calculated under the MDRP. In general, products subject to Medicaid price reporting and rebate liability are also subject to the 340B ceiling price calculation and discount requirement. We must report 340B ceiling prices to HRSA on a quarterly basis, and HRSA publishes them to 340B covered entities. HRSA has finalized regulations regarding the calculation of the 340B

102

Table of Contents

ceiling price and the imposition of civil monetary penalties on manufacturers that knowingly and intentionally overcharge covered entities for 340B-eligible drugs. HRSA has also finalized an administrative dispute resolution process through which 340B covered entities may pursue claims against participating manufacturers for overcharges, and through which manufacturers may pursue claims against 340B covered entities for engaging in unlawful diversion or duplicate discounting of 340B drugs. In addition, legislation may be introduced that, if passed, would further expand the 340B program, such as adding further covered entities or requiring participating manufacturers to agree to provide 340B discounted pricing on drugs used in an inpatient setting.

In order to be eligible to have drug products paid for with federal funds under Medicaid and Medicare Part B and purchased by certain federal agencies and grantees, we must also participate in the VA/FSS pricing program. Under the VA/FSS program, we must report the Non-FAMP for our covered drugs to the VA and charge certain federal agencies no more than the Federal Ceiling Price, which is calculated based on Non-FAMP using a statutory formula. These four agencies are the VA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Public Health Service (including the Indian Health Service). We must also pay rebates on products purchased by military personnel and dependents through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program. If we fail to provide timely information or are found to have knowingly submitted false information, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties.

Individual states continue to consider and have enacted legislation to limit the growth of healthcare costs, including the cost of prescription drugs and combination products. A number of states have either implemented or are considering implementation of drug price transparency legislation that may prevent or limit our ability to take price increases at certain rates or frequencies. Requirements under such laws include advance notice of planned price increases, reporting price increase amounts and factors considered in taking such increases, wholesale acquisition cost information disclosure to prescribers, purchasers, and state agencies, and new product notice and reporting. Such legislation could limit the price or payment for certain drugs, and states may impose civil monetary penalties or pursue other enforcement mechanisms against manufacturers who fail to comply with drug price transparency requirements. If we are found to have violated state law requirements, we may become subject to penalties or other enforcement mechanisms, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Pricing and rebate calculations vary across products and programs, are complex, and are often subject to interpretation by us, governmental or regulatory agencies, and the courts, which can change and evolve over time. Such pricing calculations and reporting, along with any necessary restatements and recalculations, could increase our costs for complying with the laws and regulations governing the MDRP and other governmental programs, and under the MDRP could result in an overage or undercharge in Medicaid rebate liability for past quarters. Price recalculations under the MDRP also may affect the ceiling price at which we are required to offer products under the 340B program. Civil monetary penalties can be applied if we are found to have knowingly submitted any false price or product information to the government, if we fail to submit the required price data on a timely basis, or if we are found to have charged 340B covered entities more than the statutorily mandated ceiling price. CMS could also terminate our Medicaid drug rebate agreement, in which case federal payments may not be available under Medicaid or Medicare Part B, if applicable, for our covered outpatient drugs. We cannot assure you that our submissions will not be found to be incomplete or incorrect.

Enacted and future healthcare legislation may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the United States, EU and other jurisdictions, there have been and we expect there will continue to be a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our operations. For example, in the United States, the Affordable Care Act substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs and biologics that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and biologics, and a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts which, through subsequent legislative amendments, was increased to

103

Table of Contents

70%, off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs and biologics to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient products to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the Affordable Care Act brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order initiating a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through July 1, 2022 (with a 1% payment reduction from April 1 to June 30, 2022), unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers.

Additionally, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug and biologic pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs and biologics under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs and biologics. For example, in May 2019, CMS published a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. In addition, in March 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 was signed into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would introduce substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, and the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D. If the Build Back Better Act is not enacted, similar or other drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our products and product candidates, if approved, or additional pricing pressures.

Individual states and municipalities in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access, marketing cost disclosure and other transparency measures, and, in some cases, measures designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our products and product candidates, if approved, or put pressure on our product pricing.

In the EU, 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 EU or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than EU, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and

104

Table of Contents

approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most EU member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing EU 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 EU, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

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, the EU or elsewhere. For example, the new presidential administration may change governmental policies and regulations that affect our operations and business, including our clinical trials, regulatory approval, pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement. If we or any third party we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third party are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Unfavorable global economic or operational conditions could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our results of operations could be adversely affected by general conditions in the global economy and in the global financial markets. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted and continues to impact the global economy, causing or contributing to global supply chain issues, price fluctuations and other significant economic effects. See “Risk Factors — General Risk Factors — The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures taken in response to the pandemic, could have an adverse impact that is significant on our business and operations as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers, CROs and other third parties with whom we conduct business or otherwise engage, including the FDA and other regulatory authorities, and has impacted and could continue to impact the global economy, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial position.” These disruptions could adversely affect our ability to manufacture, market and sell our commercialized products, including ARCALYST, and satisfy the required supply for any of our product candidates or successfully complete preclinical and clinical development of our product candidates, which could require us to incur additional costs, and impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates and generate revenue. Doing business internationally involves a number of other risks, including but not limited to:

105

Table of Contents

Any of the foregoing could harm our business and we cannot anticipate all of the ways in which the current economic climate and financial market conditions could adversely impact our business.

Our internal technology systems, or those of our third-party CMOs, CROs or other contractors, consultants and service providers, may fail or suffer cyber-attacks or security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our or such third-party’s business or operations and our development programs for our product candidates or loss of other assets, including funds.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal technology systems and those of our third-party CMOs, CROs and other contractors, consultants and service providers as well as employees that are working outside of our facilities are vulnerable to damage from viruses, unauthorized access and attacks, theft, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. Attacks upon information technology systems are increasing in their frequency, levels of persistence, sophistication and intensity, and are being conducted by sophisticated and organized groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. Employees may also fail to comply with our cybersecurity protocols, exposing us to vulnerabilities despite our safeguards. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. In addition, a breach at a CMO, CRO, contractor, consultant, service provider or other third party with which we engage may increase our exposure by allowing criminals to exploit our relationship with such persons. Such security breaches may remain undetected for an extended period.

If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our business and operations or those of our third-party CMOs, CROs and other contractors, consultants and service providers as well as employees that are working outside of our facilities, the costs associated with the investigation, remediation and potential notification of a breach to counter-parties and data subjects could be material. A breach could result in a material disruption of our or such third-party’s business or operations and our development programs of our product candidates’ or loss of other assets, including funds. For example, the loss of clinical trial data for our product candidates could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach results in a loss of or damage to our data or applications or other data or applications relating to our technology or product candidates, or inappropriate disclosure or theft of confidential or proprietary information, the further development of our product candidates could be delayed. Although we maintain cybersecurity insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur from cyber-attacks or security breaches and is subject to deductibles and coverage limitations.

Actual or perceived failures to comply with applicable data protection, privacy and security laws, regulations, standards and other requirements could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

​

106

Table of Contents

We are or in the future may be subject to data privacy and protection laws, regulations, policies and contractual obligations that govern the collection, transmission, storage, processing, and use of personal information or personal data. The regulatory framework for data privacy and security worldwide is continuously evolving and developing and, as a result, interpretation and implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. This evolution may affect our ability to operate in certain jurisdictions or to collect, store, transfer use and share personal information, necessitate the acceptance of more onerous obligations in our contracts, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, our internal policies and procedures or our contracts governing our processing of personal information could result in negative publicity, government investigations and enforcement actions, claims by third parties and damage to our reputation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operation, and financial condition.

For example, most healthcare providers, including research institutions from which we obtain patient health information, are subject to privacy and security regulations promulgated under HIPAA, as amended. We do not believe that we are currently acting as a covered entity or business associate under HIPAA and thus are not subject to its requirements or penalties. However, any person may be prosecuted under HIPAA’s criminal provisions either directly or under aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy principles. Consequently, depending on the facts and circumstances, we could face substantial criminal penalties if we knowingly receive individually identifiable health information from a HIPAA-covered healthcare provider or research institution that has not satisfied HIPAA’s requirements for disclosure of individually identifiable health information. In addition, we may maintain sensitive personally identifiable information, including health information, that we receive throughout the clinical trial process, in the course of our research collaborations, and directly from individuals (or their healthcare providers) who enroll in our patient support program. As such, we may be subject to state laws requiring notification of affected individuals and state regulatory authorities in the event of a breach of personal information, which is a broader class of information than the health information protected by HIPAA.

In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Certain states have also adopted comparable privacy and security laws and regulations governing the privacy, processing and protection of personal information. For example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, on June 28, 2018, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access, correct, and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. Further, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, recently passed in California. The CPRA significantly amends the CCPA and will impose additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. Virginia and Colorado have also enacted similar legislation to California increasing complexity of compliance with privacy laws. The majority of the provisions for these laws will go into effect in 2023, and additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required.

Furthermore, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, and many state Attorneys General continue to enforce federal and state consumer protection laws against companies for online collection, use, dissemination and security practices that appear to be unfair or deceptive. For example, according to the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure can constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities.

107

Table of Contents

Our clinical trial programs outside the United States may implicate international data protection laws, including the GDPR and legislation of EU member states and EEA countries implementing it. The GDPR went into effect in May 2018 and imposes strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals within the EEA. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the United States, and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EU and the United States remains uncertain. For example, in 2016, the EU and United States agreed to a transfer framework for data transferred from the EU to the United States called the Privacy Shield, but in July 2020 the Court of Justice of the EU, or the CJEU, limited how organizations could lawfully transfer personal data from the EEA to the United States by invalidating the Privacy Shield for purposes of international transfers and imposing further restrictions on use of the standard contractual clauses, or SCCs. While the CJEU upheld the adequacy of the SCCs, it made clear that reliance on them alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances. Use of the SCCs 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 and additional measures and/or contractual provisions may need to be put in place, however, the nature of these additional measures is currently uncertain. The CJEU went on to state that if a competent supervisory authority believes that the SCCs cannot be complied with in the destination country and the required level of protection cannot be secured by other means, such supervisory authority is under an obligation to suspend or prohibit that transfer. The European Commission issued revised SCCs on June 4, 2021 to account for the decision of the CJEU and recommendations made by the European Data Protection Board. The revised SCCs must be used for relevant new data transfers from September 27, 2021; existing standard contractual clauses arrangements must be migrated to the revised clauses by December 27, 2022. There is some uncertainty around whether the revised clauses can be used for all types of data transfers, particularly whether they can be relied on for data transfers to non-EEA entities subject to the GDPR. The revised SCCs apply only to the transfer of personal data outside of the EEA and not the UK; the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office launched a public consultation on its draft revised data transfers mechanisms in August 2021. As supervisory authorities issue further guidance on personal data export mechanisms, including circumstances where the SCCs cannot be used, and/or start taking enforcement action, we could suffer additional costs, complaints and/or regulatory investigations or fines, and/or if we are otherwise unable to transfer personal data between and among countries and regions in which we operate or intend to operate, it could affect the manner in which we provide our services, the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations, and could adversely affect our financial results.

Further, following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU on January 31, 2020, and the expiration of the transition period, from January 1, 2021, companies have had to comply with the GDPR and also the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, e.g., fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. The relationship between the UK and the EU in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, and it is unclear how UK data protection laws and regulations will develop in the medium to longer term, and how data transfers to and from the UK will be regulated in the medium to longer term. The European Commission has adopted an adequacy decision in favor of the UK, enabling data transfers from EU member states to the United Kingdom without additional safeguards. However, the UK adequacy decision will automatically expire in June 2025 unless the European Commission re-assesses and renews or extends that decision and remains under review by the Commission during this period. In September 2021, the UK government launched a consultation on its proposals for wide-ranging reform of UK data protection laws following Brexit. There is a risk that any material changes which are made to the UK data protection regime could result in the European Commission reviewing the UK adequacy decision, and the UK losing its adequacy decision if the European Commission deems the UK to no longer provide adequate protection for personal data.

Furthermore, certain health privacy laws, data breach notification laws, consumer protection laws and genetic testing laws may apply directly to our operations or those of our collaborators and may impose restrictions on our collection, use and dissemination of individuals’ health information. Moreover, patients about whom we or our collaborators obtain health information, as well as the providers who share this information with us, may have statutory or contractual rights that limit our ability to use and disclose the information. We may be required to expend significant

108

Table of Contents

capital and other resources to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable privacy and data security laws. Claims that we have violated individuals’ privacy rights or breached our contractual obligations, even if we are not found liable, could be expensive and time consuming to defend and could result in adverse publicity that could harm our business.

Although we work to comply with applicable laws, regulations and standards, our contractual obligations and other legal obligations, these requirements are evolving and may be modified, interpreted and applied in an inconsistent manner from one jurisdiction to another, and may conflict with one another or other legal obligations with which we must comply. If we or third-party CMOs, CROs or other contractors or consultants fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, we could be subject to a range of regulatory actions that could affect our or our contractors’ ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates and could harm or prevent sales of any affected products that we are able to commercialize, or could substantially increase the costs and expenses of developing, commercializing and marketing our products. Any threatened or actual government enforcement action could also generate adverse publicity and require that we devote substantial resources that could otherwise be used in other aspects of our business.

Securities class action and derivative lawsuits and other legal proceedings are often brought against companies, which could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention. 

Securities class action and derivative lawsuits and other legal proceedings are often brought against companies following a decline in the market price of their securities. There can be significant fluctuations in market price for the securities of biopharmaceutical companies, such as us. As a result, we may be more susceptible to these types of lawsuits and legal proceedings than other companies with more stable security prices. In connection with any litigation or other legal proceedings, we could incur substantial costs, and such costs and any related settlements or judgments may not be covered by insurance. We could also suffer an adverse impact on our reputation and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Although we maintain director and officer liability insurance coverage, it may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur and is subject to deductibles and coverage limitations. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise. If we are unable to obtain insurance at acceptable cost or otherwise protect against potential class action and derivative lawsuits and other legal proceedings or claims often brought against companies following a decline in the market price of their securities, we will be exposed to significant liabilities, which may materially and adversely affect our business and financial position.

We and our employees and third parties with whom we contract are increasingly utilizing social media tools as a means of communication both internally and externally, and noncompliance with applicable requirements, policies or contracts due to social media use or negative posts or comments could have an adverse effect on our business.

Despite our efforts to monitor evolving social media communication guidelines and comply with applicable rules, there is risk that the use of social media by us or our employees to communicate about our products, product candidates or business may cause us to be found in violation of applicable requirements. In addition, our employees or third parties with whom we contract, such as our CROs or CMOs, may knowingly or inadvertently make use of social media in ways that may not comply with our social media policy or other legal or contractual requirements, which may give rise to liability, lead to the loss of trade secrets or other intellectual property or result in public exposure of personal information of our employees, clinical trial patients, customers and others or information regarding our product candidates or clinical trials. Clinical trial patients may also knowingly or inadvertently make use of social media in ways that may not align with our communication strategies, including with respect to any adverse events they may experience, which may give rise to liability and regulatory risk. Furthermore, negative posts or comments about us or our products or product candidates in social media could seriously damage our reputation, brand image and goodwill. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition and could adversely affect the price of our Class A common shares.

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

109

Table of Contents

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical, medical, regulatory, manufacturing, commercial and business development expertise of members of our executive and senior management teams, as well as the other members of our management, scientific and clinical teams. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers and certain members of senior management, each of them or we may terminate their employment with us at any time. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives, senior management or other employees. 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.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, regulatory, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel is also critical to our success. The failure to recruit, or the loss of the services of our executive officers, senior management or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives, including with respect to our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, infrastructure and organization to commercialize products for which we have obtained marketing approval and maintain proper regulatory oversight functions, any of which would seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy. Furthermore, replacing executive officers, senior management 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. Changes in our senior management may be disruptive to our business, and, if we are unable to manage an orderly transition of responsibilities, our business may be adversely affected. 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. Failure to succeed in clinical trials may make it more challenging to recruit and retain qualified scientific and clinical personnel. If we are not able to continue to attract and retain, on acceptable terms, the qualified personnel necessary for the continued development of our business, we may not be able to sustain our operations or growth.

Our employees, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and other third-party service providers may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and other third-party service providers may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or disclosure of unauthorized activities to us that violate the regulations of the FDA and other regulatory authorities, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such authorities; healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad; or laws that require the reporting of financial information or data accurately.

In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, including off-label promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials or creating fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation.

It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties. The precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. Additionally, we are subject to the risk that a person could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition

110

Table of Contents

of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

The increasing focus on environmental sustainability and social initiatives could increase our costs, harm our reputation and adversely impact our financial results.

There has been increasing public focus by investors, patients, environmental activists, the media and governmental and nongovernmental organizations on a variety of environmental, social and other sustainability matters. We may experience pressure to make commitments relating to sustainability matters that affect us, including the design and implementation of specific risk mitigation strategic initiatives relating to sustainability. If we are not effective in addressing environmental, social and other sustainability matters affecting our business, or setting and meeting relevant sustainability goals, our reputation and financial results may suffer. In addition, even if we are effective at addressing such concerns, we may experience increased costs as a result of executing upon our sustainability goals that may not be offset by any benefit to our reputation, which could have an adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

In addition, this emphasis on environmental, social and other sustainability matters has resulted and may result in the adoption of new laws and regulations, including new reporting requirements. If we fail to comply with new laws, regulations or reporting requirements, our reputation and business could be adversely impacted.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Shares

The concentration of ownership of our Class B common shares, which are held primarily by our executive officers and certain other members of our senior management, and the conversion rights of the holders of our Class A1 common shares, which shares are held primarily by entities affiliated with certain of our directors, and Class B1 common shares, all of which shares are held by entities affiliated with certain of our directors means that such persons are, and such entities may in the future be, able to influence certain matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, which may have an adverse effect on the price of our Class A common shares and may result in our Class A common shares being undervalued.

Each Class A common share is entitled to one vote per Class A common share and each Class B common share is entitled to ten votes per Class B common share. Our Class A1 common shares and Class B1 common shares have no voting rights. As a result, all matters submitted to our shareholders are decided by the vote of holders of our Class A common shares and Class B common shares. As a result of the multi-class voting structure of our common shares, our executive officers and certain other members of our senior management collectively control a substantial amount of the voting power of our common shares and therefore are able to control the outcome of certain matters submitted to our shareholders for approval. As of December 31, 2021, the holders of Class A common shares accounted for approximately 65% of our aggregate voting power and the holders of Class B common shares accounted for approximately 35% of our aggregate voting power. Our executive officers and certain other members of our senior management hold Class A common shares and Class B common shares representing approximately 31% of our aggregate voting power as of December 31, 2021 and may have the ability to influence the outcome of certain matters submitted to our shareholders for approval.

However, this percentage may change depending on any conversion of our Class B common shares, Class A1 common shares or Class B1 common shares. Each holder of our Class B common shares has the ability to convert any portion of its Class B common shares into Class B1 common shares or Class A common shares at any time with advance notice to us. Each holder of our Class B1 common shares has the ability to convert any portion of its Class B1 common shares into Class A common shares or Class B common shares at any time with advance notice to us, and each holder of our Class A1 common shares has the ability to convert any portion of its Class A1 common shares into Class A common shares at any time with advance notice to us. Our Class A1 common shares and Class B1 common shares cannot be converted if, immediately prior to or following such conversion, the holder and its affiliates beneficially own, or would beneficially own, more than 4.99% of our issued and outstanding Class A common shares unless such holder provides us with 61-days’ prior notice that it intends to increase, decrease or waive such threshold upon conversion. For example, as

111

Table of Contents

of December 31, 2021, entities affiliated with certain members of our directors could convert their Class A1 common shares and Class B1 common shares upon 61-days’ prior written notice into Class A common shares and Class B common shares, respectively, which in the aggregate would result in such entities holding approximately 78% of our aggregate voting power and having the ability to control the outcome of certain matters submitted to our shareholders for approval. Due to these conversion rights, holders of our Class A1 common shares and our Class B1 common shares could, at any time with appropriate advance notice to us, significantly increase their voting control of us, which could result in their ability to significantly influence or control matters submitted to our shareholders for approval and significantly decrease the voting power of our currently outstanding Class A common shares.

These conversion rights as well as concentrated control that limit certain shareholders’ ability to influence corporate matters may have an adverse effect on the price of our Class A common shares. Holders of our Class B common shares collectively control our management and affairs and are able to influence or control the outcome of certain matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, including the election of directors. Due to the conversion rights of the holders of our Class A1 and B1 common shares, entities affiliated with certain of our directors could significantly increase their voting control of us. This concentration of control might adversely affect certain corporate actions that some of our shareholders may view as beneficial, for example, by:

The price of our Class A common shares is likely to continue to be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for holders of our Class A common shares.

Our share price is likely to continue to be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility, including as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, our shareholders may not be able to sell their Class A common shares at or above the price they paid for their shares. The market price for our Class A common shares may be influenced by many factors, including:

112

Table of Contents