PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1A.                Risk Factors

        Statements contained or incorporated by reference in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q that are not based on historical fact are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These forward-looking statements regarding future events and our future results are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections and the beliefs and assumptions of our management including, without limitation, our expectations regarding results of operations, general and administrative expenses, research and development expenses, development and manufacturing efforts, regulatory filings and the sufficiency of our cash for future operations. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “believe”, “may,” “could,” “will,” “expect,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “continue,” or similar terms, variations of such terms or the negative of those terms.

        We cannot assure investors that our assumptions and expectations will prove to have been correct. Important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated or implied by forward-looking statements. Such factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include those factors discussed below. We undertake no intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations would likely suffer.

        The following discussion includes seven revised risk factors (“Patent litigation with Sanofi-Aventis, the innovator of Lovenox may cause delays and additional expense in the commercialization of M-Enoxaparin. If we are not successful in commercializing M-Enoxaparin or are significantly delayed in doing so, we may have to curtail our development programs and our business would be materially harmed. ”; “If other generic versions of Lovenox are approved and successfully commercialized our business would suffer”; “If the FDA is not able to establish specific guidelines or arrive at a consensus regarding the scientific analyses required for characterizing complex protein drugs, and if the U.S. Congress does not take action to create an abbreviated regulatory pathway for follow-on protein products, then the uncertainty about the value of our glycoprotein program will be increased”; “If our preclinical studies and clinical trials for our development candidates, including M-118, are not successful, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for commercial sale of our novel or improved drug candidates”; “ New federal legislation will increase the pressure to reduce prices of pharmaceutical products paid for by Medicare, which could adversely affect our revenues, if any”; “If efforts by manufacturers of branded products to delay or limit the use of generics are successful, our sales of technology-enabled generic products may suffer; and “Our stock price may be volatile, and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses” ), that reflect developments subsequent to the discussion of risk factors included in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, the risk factor entitled “Changes in stock option accounting rules may have a significant adverse affect on our operating results” was deleted.

Risks Relating to Our Business

We have a limited operating history and have incurred a cumulative loss since inception. If we do not generate significant revenues, we will not be profitable.

        We have incurred significant losses since our inception in May 2001. At June 30, 2006, our accumulated deficit was approximately $97.5 million. We have not generated revenues from the sale of any products to date. We expect that our annual operating losses will increase over the next several years as we expand our drug commercialization, development and discovery efforts. To become profitable, we must successfully develop, and obtain regulatory approval for, our existing drug candidates, and effectively manufacture, market and sell any drugs we develop. Accordingly, we may never generate significant revenues and, even if we do generate significant revenues, we may never achieve profitability.

        To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and commercializing drugs with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities: developing drugs; obtaining regulatory approval for them; and manufacturing, marketing and selling them. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenues that are significant or large enough to achieve profitability. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. Our failure to become and remain profitable would

26

cause the market price of our common stock to decrease and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations.

If we fail to obtain approval for and commercialize our most advanced product candidate, M-Enoxaparin, we may have to curtail our product development programs and our business would be materially harmed.

        We have invested a significant portion of our time, financial resources and collaboration efforts in the development of our most advanced product candidate, M-Enoxaparin, a technology-enabled generic version of Lovenox. Our near-term ability to generate revenues and our future success, in large part, depends on the development and commercialization of M-Enoxaparin.

        In accordance with our 2003 Sandoz Collaboration, an ANDA was submitted to the FDA on August 29, 2005, seeking approval to market M-Enoxaparin in the United States. FDA approval of an ANDA is required before marketing of a generic equivalent of a drug previously approved under an NDA. If we are unable to satisfactorily demonstrate therapeutic equivalence, if the FDA disagrees with our characterization approach or does not agree that M-Enoxaparin is equivalent to Lovenox, or if we otherwise fail to meet FDA requirements for our ANDA, including but not limited to manufacturing and bioequivalence requirements, or obtain FDA approval for, and successfully commercialize, M-Enoxaparin, we may never realize revenue from this product and we may have to curtail our other product development programs. As a result, our business would be materially harmed.

Patent litigation with Sanofi-Aventis, the innovator of Lovenox, may cause delays and additional expense in the commercialization of M-Enoxaparin.  If we are not successful in commercializing M-Enoxaparin or are significantly delayed in doing so, we may have to curtail our development programs and our business would be materially harmed.

On August 8, 2006 we learned that in response to Sandoz’ paragraph IV certification contained in the amended ANDA filed by Sandoz seeking approval to market M-Enoxaparin in the United States , Sanofi-Aventis, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sandoz Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey . 

        Companies that produce branded pharmaceutical products for which there are unexpired patents listed in the FDA’s Orange Book often bring patent infringement litigation against applicants seeking FDA approval to manufacture and market generic forms of the branded products before patent expiration.  Litigation against Sandoz, us or others with respect to Lovenox may cause delays and additional expense in the commercialization of M-Enoxaparin. 

        Currently Sanofi-Aventis has two listed patents for Lovenox in the FDA’s listing of approved drug products, the FDA’s Orange Book Orange Book.  These patents are U.S. Patent No. 5,389,618 or the ‘618 Patent, and its counter-part, Reissue Patent No. 38,743, or the ‘743 Reissue Patent.  On June 14, 2005, the’743 Reissue Patent issued and the original ‘618 Patent was surrendered by operation of law.  Aventis has reported that the claims of the ‘618 Patent are identical or substantially identical to the corresponding claims of the ‘743 Reissue Patent.  According to Sanofi-Aventis, by operation of law, the ‘618 Patent ceases to exist and has been replaced by the ‘743 Reissue Patent.  According to the Orange Book, the ‘743 Reissue Patent expires February 14, 2012.

        In June 2003, prior to issuance of the’743 Reissue Patent, Sanofi-Aventis announced that it received individual notices from Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Amphastar, and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., or Teva, indicating that each had submitted with the FDA its own ANDA for enoxaparin.  According to Sanofi-Aventis, each ANDA included a paragraph IV certification, or a patent certification, stating that the ‘618 Patent was either not infringed, unenforceable or invalid.  Amphastar and Teva submitted this patent certification because they were seeking from the FDA authorization to manufacture and market a generic version of Lovenox in the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘618 Patent.  Submitting such certifications allowed Sanofi-Aventis to sue Amphastar and Teva for patent infringement of the ‘618 Patent, even though Amphastar and Teva have neither obtained approval for nor marketed their generic versions of Lovenox in the United States. 

        In response to Sanofi-Aventis’ lawsuit, Amphastar and Teva asserted non-infringement, invalidity and/or unenforceability of the ‘618 Patent and sought related declaratory judgment relief against Sanofi-Aventis, as well as counterclaims for antitrust violations, common law unfair business practices, unjust enrichment and statutory unfair business practices.  The Amphastar and Teva lawsuits were consolidated and brought before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, or District Court.

        In June 2005, Amphastar and Teva each subsequently amended their own ANDA to include a second paragraph IV certification for the ‘743 Reissue Patent.  The ‘743 Reissue Patent was then substituted in the pending action for the ‘618 patent.

        On June 16, 2005, the District Court granted summary judgment to Amphastar finding that the ‘743 Reissue Patent was unenforceable due to Aventis’ inequitable conduct before the United

27

States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO.  Accordingly, in August 2005, the District Court entered final judgment in favor of Teva and Amphastar on their counterclaims of unenforceability.  Thereafter, Sanofi-Aventis filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision and final judgment of unenforceability based on inequitable conduct to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or Court of Appeals.

        On April 10, 2006, the Court of Appeals determined that although there were no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the materiality of certain dosage information withheld from the USPTO, there remained genuine issues of material fact that such omission was made with intent to deceive the USPTO.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s granting of summary judgment of inequitable conduct and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeals’ decision.

        On or about July 28, 2006 the District Court indicated that it will conduct a bench trial focused only on inequitable conduct, consistent with the Court of Appeals Decision.  A final schedule as to the date of the trial on inequitable conduct has not yet been set.  The District Court also indicated that, within a short period upon conclusion and decision of the District Court on inequitable conduct, all other remaining issues will be tried by the District Court.  A final decision by the District Court on the issue of inequitable conduct could be appealed resulting in further delays. 

        The Sandoz, Teva or Amphastar proceedings could delay or prevent the introduction of M-Enoxaparin until expiry of the ‘743 Reissue Patent if, for example, the ‘743 Reissue Patent is found valid and enforceable.  In addition, Sanofi-Aventis could settle the lawsuit with both Teva and Amphastar at any point prior to a final District Court decision and consequently the ‘743 Reissue patent would remain as a barrier to the marketing of other generic versions of enoxaparin, until this patent has expired or is otherwise held invalid, unenforceable or non-infringed by a District Court.

        Under our 2003 Sandoz Collaboration, in most circumstances, the decision as to when to begin marketing M-Enoxaparin will be determined jointly by us and Sandoz.  Sandoz, however, has sole discretion over the decision as to when to begin marketing M-Enoxaparin under certain circumstances.  Sandoz has agreed to indemnify us for patent liability damages, subject to Sandoz’s ability to offset certain of these liabilities against the profit-sharing amounts, the royalties and the milestone payments otherwise due to us from the marketing of M-Enoxaparin. 

        Intellectual property litigation involves many risks and uncertainties, and there is no assurance that Amphastar, Teva, Sandoz or we will prevail in any lawsuit with Sanofi-Aventis.  In addition, Sanofi-Aventis has significant resources and litigation with Sanofi-Aventis could last a number of years, potentially delaying or prohibiting the commercialization of M-Enoxaparin.  If we are not successful in commercializing M-Enoxaparin or are significantly delayed in doing so, we may have to curtail our product development programs and our business would be materially harmed.

We utilize new technologies in the development of some of our products that have not been reviewed or accepted by regulatory authorities.

        Some of our products in current or future development, including M-Enoxaparin, may be based on new technologies that have not previously been formally reviewed or accepted by the FDA or other

28

regulatory authorities. Given the complexity of our technology, we intend to work closely with the FDA and other regulatory authorities to facilitate the requisite scientific analysis and evaluation of our methods in order to obtain regulatory approval for our products. It is possible that the validation process may take time and resources, require independent third-party analysis or not be accepted by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. For some of our products, the regulatory approval path and requirements may not be clear, which could add significant delay and expense. Delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval of any of the products that we develop would adversely affect our business.

If other generic versions of Lovenox are approved and successfully commercialized our business would suffer.

        In mid-2003, Amphastar and Teva each submitted ANDAs for generic versions of Lovenox with the FDA. Each ANDA included a paragraph IV certification. In addition, other third parties, including without limitation Sanofi-Aventis, may seek approval to market generic versions of Lovenox in the United States. It is an increasingly common practice for innovators such as Sanofi-Aventis to launch an authorized generic. If a competitor obtains FDA approval or obtains certain licenses from Sanofi-Aventis, we may not gain any competitive advantage and the price for the product may be lower, we may be delayed or we may not be able to launch our product. Also, we may never achieve significant market share for M-Enoxaparin if either Amphastar or Teva, or another third party, markets generic versions of Lovenox before us. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, any developer of a generic drug that is considered first to have its ANDA accepted for review by the FDA, and whose submission includes a paragraph IV certification, may be eligible to receive a 180-day period of generic market exclusivity. In the event that the eligible 180-day exclusivity period has not begun and/or has not expired at the time we receive tentative approval for M-Enoxaparin, we may be forced to wait until the expiration of the exclusivity period before the FDA could make our approval effective. Less favorable economic terms could be triggered under our collaboration with Sandoz if one or more third parties commercialize a generic version of Lovenox. Consequently, if other generic versions of Lovenox are approved and commercialized, our revenues would be reduced and, as a result, our business, including our future discovery and development programs, would suffer.

If we experience manufacturing difficulties or are unable to obtain sufficient quantities of raw materials or manufacture sufficient quantities of M-Enoxaparin, our development and commercialization efforts may be materially harmed.

        We have limited personnel with experience in, and we do not own facilities for, manufacturing any products. We depend upon third parties to provide raw materials, to manufacture the drug substance, or active pharmaceutical ingredient, for M-Enoxaparin and to provide certain other services relating to M-Enoxaparin. We also depend on additional third parties to produce the final drug product and provide certain analytical services with respect to M-Enoxaparin. Manufacturing requirements, including but not limited to, reproducibility, validation and scale-up, must be addressed in order to satisfy FDA requirements necessary for approval and commercialization of M-Enoxaparin. In addition, if the product is approved, in order to produce M-Enoxaparin in the quantities necessary to meet anticipated market demand, we and any contract manufacturer that we engage may need to increase manufacturing capacity. If we are unable to satisfy the FDA requirements for approval or to produce M-Enoxaparin in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the launch of the product or to meet future demand, our revenues and gross margins could be adversely affected.

Our revenues and profits from any of our generic product candidates may decline if our competitors introduce their own generic equivalents.

        In addition to general competition in the pharmaceutical market, we expect that certain of our generic product candidates may face intense and increasing competition from other manufacturers of generic and/or branded products. Revenues and gross profit derived from the sales of generic pharmaceutical products tend to follow a pattern based on certain regulatory and competitive factors. As patents for

29

branded products and related exclusivity periods expire, manufacturers of generic products may receive regulatory approval for generic equivalents and may be able to achieve significant market penetration. As competing off-patent manufacturers receive regulatory approvals on similar products or as branded manufacturers launch authorized generic versions of such products, market share, revenues and gross profit typically decline, in some cases, dramatically. If any of our generic product offerings, including M-Enoxaparin, enter markets with a number of competitors, we may not achieve significant market share, revenues or gross profit. In addition, as other generic products are introduced to the markets in which we participate, the market share, revenues and gross profit of our generic products could decline.

We will need to develop or acquire additional technologies as part of our efforts to analyze the chemical composition of complex mixtures other than heparins.

        To date, our analytical techniques and methods have been primarily focused on the characterization of complex mixtures comprised of linear sugars, such as those found in the heparin class of drugs. In order to adequately analyze other complex mixtures, such as glycoproteins, we will need to develop or acquire new technologies. Our inability to develop or acquire and apply these new technologies would limit our ability to work with biotechnology companies to help them better understand the chemical composition of their products, impair our ability to assist biotechnology companies in developing improved and next generation versions of existing products, and limit our ability to perform the analysis that we believe may be required to enable follow-on or equivalent versions of these biologics. Our inability to develop or acquire additional technology for the characterization of complex mixtures other than heparins could reduce the likelihood of our success developing other products.

Competition in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries is intense, and if we are unable to compete effectively, our financial results will suffer.

        The markets in which we intend to compete are undergoing, and are expected to continue to undergo, rapid and significant technological change. We expect competition to intensify as technological advances are made or new biotechnology products are introduced. New developments by competitors may render our current or future product candidates and/or technologies non-competitive, obsolete or not economical. Our competitors’ products may be more efficacious or marketed and sold more effectively than any of our products.

        Many of our competitors have:

•                   significantly greater financial, technical and human resources than we have at every stage of the discovery, development,  manufacturing and commercialization process;

•                   more extensive experience in commercializing generic drugs, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, challenging patents and in manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products;

•                   products that have been approved or are in late stages of development; and

•                   collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions.

        If we successfully develop and obtain approval for our drug candidates, we will face competition based on many different factors, including:

        Our competitors may develop or commercialize products with significant advantages in regard to any of these factors. Our competitors may therefore be more successful in commercializing their products than we are, which could adversely affect our competitive position and business.

30

If we are unable to establish and maintain our key customer arrangements, sales of our products and revenues would decline.

        Generic pharmaceutical products are sold through various channels, including retail and mail order, and to hospitals through group purchasing organizations, or GPOs. As M-Enoxaparin is primarily a hospital-based product, we expect to derive a large percentage of our future revenue for M-Enoxaparin through contracts with GPOs. Currently, a relatively small number of GPOs control a substantial portion of generic pharmaceutical sales to hospital customers. In order to establish and maintain contracts with these GPOs, we believe that we, in collaboration with Sandoz, will need to maintain adequate drug supplies, remain price competitive, comply with FDA regulations and provide high-quality products. The GPOs with whom we hope to establish contracts may also have relationships with our competitors and may decide to contract for or otherwise prefer products other than ours, limiting access of M-Enoxaparin to certain hospital segments. Our sales could also be negatively affected by any rebates, discounts, and fees that are required by our customers, including the GPOs, wholesalers, distributors, retail chains or mail order services, to gain and retain market acceptance for our products. If we are unable to establish and maintain arrangements with all of these customers, future sales of our products, revenues and profits would suffer.

Even if we receive approval to market our drug candidates, the market may not be receptive to our drug candidates upon their commercial introduction, which could prevent us from being profitable.

        Even if our drug candidates are successfully developed, our success and growth will also depend upon the acceptance of these drug candidates by physicians and third-party payors. Acceptance of our product development candidates will be a function of our products being clinically useful, being cost effective and demonstrating superior therapeutic effect with an acceptable side effect profile as compared to existing or future treatments. In addition, even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time.

        Factors that we believe will materially affect market acceptance of our drug candidates under development include:

•                   the timing of our receipt of any marketing approvals, the terms of any approval and the countries in which approvals are obtained;

If our products do not achieve market acceptance, we will not be able to generate sufficient revenues from product sales to maintain or grow our business.

We will require substantial additional funds to execute our business plan and, if additional capital is not available, we may need to limit, scale back or cease our operations.

        As of June 30, 2006, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities totaling $139.9 million. For the six months ended June 30, 2006, we had a net loss of $23.9 million and used cash in operating activities of $13.6 million. We will continue to require substantial funds to conduct research and development, process development, manufacturing, preclinical testing and clinical trials of our drug candidates, as well as funds necessary to manufacture and market any products that are approved for commercial sale. Because successful development of our drug candidates is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require to complete research and development and commercialize our products under development.

31

        Our future capital requirements may vary depending on the following:

•                   the advancement of our generic product candidates and other development programs;

•                   the cost of litigation, including potential patent litigation with Sanofi-Aventis relating to Lovenox that is not otherwise covered by our collaboration agreement, or potential patent litigation with others, as well as any damages,

•                   including possibly treble damages, that may be owed to Sanofi-Aventis or others should we be unsuccessful in such litigation;

        We may seek additional funding in the future and intend to do so through collaborative arrangements and public or private equity and debt financings. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. In addition, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders. If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail one or more of our research or development programs. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies, product candidates or products which we would otherwise pursue on our own.

If we are not able to retain our current senior management team or attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and business personnel, our business will suffer.

        We are dependent on the members of our senior management team, for our business success. Our employment arrangements with our executive officers are terminable by either party on short notice or no notice. We do not carry life insurance on the lives of any of our personnel. The loss of any of our executive officers would result in a significant loss in the knowledge and experience that we, as an organization, possess and could cause significant delays, or outright failure, in the development and approval of our product candidates. In addition, our growth will require us to hire a significant number of qualified scientific, commercial and administrative personnel. There is intense competition from numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, universities, governmental entities and other research institutions, for human resources, including management, in the technical fields in which we operate, and we may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel necessary for the successful development and commercialization of our product candidates.

There is a substantial risk of product liability claims in our business. If our existing product liability insurance is insufficient, a product liability claim against us that exceeds the amount of our insurance coverage could adversely affect our business.

        Our business exposes us to significant potential product liability risks that are inherent in the development, manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products. Product liability claims could delay or prevent completion of our development programs, clinical or otherwise. If we succeed in marketing products, such claims could result in a recall of our products or a change in the indications for which they may be used. While we currently maintain product liability insurance coverage that we believe is adequate for our current operations, we cannot be sure that such coverage will be adequate to cover any incident or all incidents. Furthermore, clinical trial and product liability insurance is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to maintain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business. These liabilities could prevent or interfere with our product development and commercialization efforts.

32

As we evolve from a company primarily involved in drug discovery and development into one that is also involved in the commercialization of drug products, we may have difficulty managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

        As we advance our drug candidates through the development process, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, sales and marketing capabilities or contract with other organizations to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with various collaborative partners, suppliers and other organizations. Our ability to manage our operations and growth requires us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures. Such growth could place a strain on our administrative and operational infrastructure. We may not be able to make improvements to our management information and control systems in an efficient or timely manner and may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls.

Acquisitions present many risks, and we may not realize the anticipated financial and strategic goals for any such transactions.

We may in the future acquire complementary companies, products and technologies. Such acquisitions involve a number of risks, including:

•                   we may find that the acquired company or assets do not further our business strategy, or that we overpaid for the company or assets, or that economic conditions change, all of which may generate a future impairment charge;

•                   we may have difficulty integrating the operations and personnel of the acquired business, and may have difficulty retaining the key personnel of the acquired business;

•                   we may have difficulty maintaining uniform standards, internal controls, procedures and policies across locations;

•                   the acquisition may result in litigation from terminated employees or third-parties; and

•                   we may experience significant problems or liabilities associated with product quality, technology and legal contingencies.

        These factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition or cash flows, particularly in the case of a larger acquisition or multiple acquisitions in a short period of time. From time to time, we may enter into negotiations for acquisitions that are not ultimately consummated. Such negotiations could result in significant diversion of management time, as well as out-of-pocket costs.

        The consideration paid in connection with an acquisition also affects our financial results. If we were to proceed with one or more significant acquisitions in which the consideration included cash, we could be required to use a substantial portion of our available cash to consummate any acquisition. To the extent we issue shares of stock or other rights to purchase stock, including options or other rights, existing stockholders may be diluted and earnings per share may decrease. In addition, acquisitions may result in the incurrence of debt, large one-time write-offs (such as acquired in-process research and development costs) and restructuring charges. They may also result in goodwill and other intangible assets that are subject to impairment tests, which could result in future impairment charges.

33

Risks Relating to Development and Regulatory Approval

If we are not able to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence for our generic versions of complex drugs, including M-Enoxaparin, to the satisfaction of the FDA, we will not obtain regulatory approval for commercial sale of our generic product candidates, and our future results of operations will be adversely affected.

        Our future results of operations depend, to a significant degree, on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize generic versions of complex drugs, including M-Enoxaparin. We will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA, among other things, that our generic products contain the same active ingredients, are of the same dosage form, strength and route of administration as the branded products upon which they are based, and meet compendial or other applicable standards for strength, quality, purity and identity, including potency. Our generic versions of complex drugs, including M-Enoxaparin and potentially others, must also be demonstrated through in vivo studies to be bioequivalent, meaning generally that there are no significant differences between the generic drug and its branded counterpart with respect to the rate and extent to which the active ingredients are absorbed and become available at the site of drug action.

        Determination of the same active ingredients for our generic versions of complex drugs will be based on our demonstration of chemical equivalence to the respective reference listed drugs. The FDA may not agree that we have adequately characterized our products or that our products are equivalent to their respective branded drugs. The FDA may require confirmatory information including, for example, animal or human testing, to determine the sameness of active ingredients and that any inactive ingredients or impurities do not compromise the product’s safety and efficacy. Provision of sufficient information for approval may prove difficult, time consuming and expensive. We must also demonstrate the adequacy of our methods, controls and facilities used in the manufacture of the product, including that they meet current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP. We cannot predict whether any of our generic product candidates will meet FDA requirements for approval.

        In the event that the FDA modifies its current standards for therapeutic equivalence with respect to generic versions of Lovenox or other complex drug products, does not establish standards for therapeutic equivalence for generic versions of complex drug products, or requires us to conduct clinical trials or other lengthy processes, the commercialization of our technology-enabled generic product candidates could be delayed or prevented. Delays in any part of the process or our inability to obtain regulatory approval for our products could adversely affect our operating results by restricting or significantly delaying our introduction of new products.

If the FDA is not able to establish specific guidelines or arrive at a consensus regarding the scientific analyses required for characterizing complex protein drugs, and if the U.S. Congress does not take action to create an abbreviated regulatory pathway for follow-on protein products, then the uncertainty about the value of our glycoprotein program will be increased.

        The regulatory climate for generic or follow-on versions of protein products remains very uncertain. Currently, there is no established statutory or regulatory pathway which provides the FDA with the authority to approve follow-on versions of most protein drugs. The FDA has approved the majority of protein products under the Public Health Service Act through the use of Biologics License Applications, or BLAs. Unlike products approved through the submission of new drug applications or NDAs under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, there is no provision in the Public Health Service Act for an abbreviated BLA that would permit approval of a follow-on protein product, and the FDA has stated it does not believe it has the authority to rely on prior BLA approvals or on their underlying data to approve a follow-on product.  Moreover, even for proteins originally approved as NDAs, there is debate as to the data necessary to demonstrate the sameness required for ANDA approval under section 505(j) as well as opposition to the FDA’s use of section 505(b)(2) to approve follow-on versions of protein and other complex drug products approved under section 505.   On May 30, 2006, the FDA approved Sandoz’s recombinant human growth hormone Omnitrope under section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  The FDA interprets section 505(b)(2) to allow an applicant to rely on published data and/or a finding of safety and effectiveness for a pioneer NDA for approval.  With regard to Omnitrope, the FDA stated that human growth hormone is well characterized and understood and Omnitrope was sufficiently similar to the pioneer NDA drug Genotropin to allow Sandoz to rely on the FDA’s finding of safety and effectiveness for Genotropin to support approval of Omnitrope under section 505(b)(2); Sandoz also submitted preclinical and clinical data generated by Sandoz to support approval.  The FDA further stated that the approval of Omnitrope as a follow-on protein did not provide an abbreviated pathway for follow-on products to products licensed under the Public Health Service Act and did not guarantee follow-on approval for more complex and/or less understood drugs under section 505(b)(2), even if such drugs were originally submitted as NDAs.  

        Although the FDA has  stated its intentions to draft guidances applicable to follow-on protein products, the agency has not stated  a timeline for action and to our knowledge, no guidance documents or other publications have been provided by the FDA to date regarding an abbreviated approval pathway for follow-on products to licensed biologics. Failure of the FDA to establish standards or the U.S. Congress to enact legislation establishing such a pathway for regulatory approval could reduce the value of our glycoprotein program.

34

If our preclinical studies and clinical trials for our development candidates, including M118, are not successful, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for commercial sale of our novel or improved drug candidates.

        To obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of our novel or improved drug candidates, we will be required to demonstrate through preclinical studies and clinical trials that our drug development candidates are safe and effective. Preclinical testing and clinical trials of new development candidates are lengthy and expensive and the historical failure rate for development candidates is high. The results from preclinical testing of a development candidate may not predict the results that will be obtained in human clinical trials. Clinical trials including clinical trials for M118, cannot commence until an IND is submitted containing sufficient preclinical data and other information to support use in human subjects and the FDA allows the trials to go forward. Clinical trials must also be reviewed and approved by institutional review boards, or IRBs, for each clinical trial site before a development candidate may be used in a human trial at that site. We, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities or an IRB may prohibit the initiation of, or suspend clinical trials of, a development candidate, including M118, at any time if we or they believe the subjects or patients participating in such trials are being exposed to unacceptable health risks, or for other reasons. Adverse side effects of a development candidate on subjects or patients in a clinical trial could result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities refusing to approve a particular development candidate, including M118, for any or all indications of use.

        Clinical trials of a new development candidate require the enrollment of a sufficient number of patients who are suffering from the disease the development candidate is intended to treat and who meet other eligibility criteria. Rates of patient enrollment are affected by many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the availability of effective treatments for the relevant disease and the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial. Lower than anticipated patient enrollment rates, high drop-out rates or inadequate drug supply or other materials can result in increased costs and longer development times.

        We cannot predict whether any of our development candidates, including M118, will encounter problems during clinical trials which will cause us or regulatory authorities to delay or suspend these trials, or which will delay the analysis of data from these trials. In addition, it is impossible to predict whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes, if any, may be. If we experience any such problems, we may not have the financial resources to continue development of the drug candidate, including M118,  that is affected or the development of any of our other drug candidates.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval in foreign jurisdictions would prevent us from marketing our products abroad.

        Although we have not initiated any marketing efforts in foreign jurisdictions, we intend in the future to market our products outside the United States. In order to market our products in the European Union and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing. The time required to obtain approval abroad may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with

35

obtaining FDA approval, and we may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. We and our collaborators may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products in any market outside the United States. The failure to obtain these approvals could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Even if we obtain regulatory approvals, our marketed drugs will be subject to ongoing regulatory review. If we fail to comply with continuing United States and foreign regulations, we could lose our approvals to market drugs and our business would be seriously harmed.

        Even after approval, any drugs we develop will be subject to ongoing regulatory review, including the review of clinical results which are reported after our drug products are made commercially available. In addition, the manufacturer and manufacturing facilities we use to produce any of our drug candidates will be subject to periodic review and inspection by the FDA. We will be required to report any serious and unexpected adverse experiences and certain quality problems with our products and make other periodic reports to the FDA. The discovery of any previously unknown problems with the product, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the drug or manufacturer or facility, including withdrawal of the drug from the market. Certain changes to an approved product, including in the way it is manufactured or promoted, often require prior FDA approval before the product as modified may be marketed. If we fail to comply with applicable continuing regulatory requirements, we may be subject to warning letters, civil penalties, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls and seizures, injunctions, operating restrictions and/or criminal prosecutions and penalties.

If third-party payors do not adequately reimburse customers for any of our product candidates that are approved for marketing, they might not be purchased or used, and our revenues and profits will not develop or increase.

        Our revenues and profits will depend heavily upon the availability of adequate reimbursement for the use of our approved product candidates from governmental and other third-party payors, both in the United States and in foreign markets. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

        Obtaining reimbursement approval for a product from each government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products to each payor. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to reimbursement. There is substantial uncertainty whether any particular payor will reimburse the use of any drug products incorporating new technology. Even when a payor determines that a product is eligible for reimbursement, the payor may impose coverage limitations that preclude payment for some uses that are approved by the FDA or comparable authority. Moreover, eligibility for coverage does not imply that any product will be reimbursed in all cases or at a rate that allows us to make a profit or even cover our costs. Interim payments for new products, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the product and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on payments allowed for lower-cost products that are already reimbursed, may be incorporated into existing payments for other products or services, and may reflect budgetary constraints and/or imperfections in Medicare,

36

Medicaid or other data used to calculate these rates. Net prices for products may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government health care programs or by any future relaxation of laws that restrict imports of certain medical products from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States.

        There have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, federal and state proposals to constrain expenditures for medical products and services, which may affect payments for our products. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, frequently change product descriptors, coverage policies, product and service codes, payment methodologies and reimbursement values. Third-party payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and both CMS and other third-party payors may have sufficient market power to demand significant price reductions. Due in part to actions by third-party payors, the health care industry is experiencing a trend toward containing or reducing costs through various means, including lowering reimbursement rates, limiting therapeutic class coverage and negotiating reduced payment schedules with service providers for drug products.

        Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable reimbursement rates from government-funded and private payors for our products could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition.

New federal legislation will increase the pressure to reduce prices of pharmaceutical products paid for by Medicare, which could adversely affect our revenues, if any.

        The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, or MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and reimburses for pharmaceutical products. The legislation introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for drugs that are used in hospital settings or under the direct supervision of a physician and, starting in 2006, expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly. In addition, the MMA requires the creation of formularies for self-administered drugs, and provides authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class and provides for plan sponsors to negotiate prices with manufacturers and suppliers of covered drugs. As a result of the MMA and the expansion of federal coverage of drug products, we expect continuing pressure to contain and reduce costs of pharmaceutical products. Cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of this legislation could decrease the coverage and price that we receive for our products and could materially adversely affect our operating results and overall financial condition. While the MMA generally applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies, and any reduction in coverage or payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in coverage or payments from private payors.

        Congress has considered separate legislation, which if enacted, would permit more widespread re-importation of drugs from foreign countries into the United States and which may include re-importation from foreign countries where drugs are frequently sold at lower prices than in the United States; other proposed legislation would remove restrictions on CMS’ ability to negotiate discounts directly with prescription drug manufacturers provided through the Medicare program.  Such legislation, or similar regulatory changes, could decrease the amount of reimbursement we receive for any approved products which, in turn, could materially adversely affect our operating results and our overall financial condition.

If efforts by manufacturers of branded products to delay or limit the use of generics are successful, our sales of technology-enabled generic products may suffer.

        Many manufacturers of branded products have increasingly used legislative, regulatory and other means to delay competition from manufacturers of generic drugs. These efforts have included:

•                   innovator companies settling patent lawsuits with generic companies, resulting in such patents not being held invalid or unenforceable, and as a result, such patents remaining an obstacle for generic approval by others;

37

•                   innovator companies settling paragraph IV patent litigation with generic companies to prevent the expiration of the 180-day generic marketing exclusivity period or to delay the triggering of such exclusivity period;

•                   submitting Citizen Petitions to request the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to take administrative action with respect to prospective and submitted generic drug applications;

•                   seeking changes to the United States Pharmacopeia, an industry recognized compilation of drug standards;

•                   pursuing new patents for existing products or processes which may issue before the expiration of one patent, which could extend patent protection for a number of years or otherwise delay the launch of generic drugs;

•                   attaching special patent extension amendments to unrelated federal legislation.

        Further, some manufacturers of branded products have engaged in state-by-state initiatives to enact legislation that restrict the substitution of some branded drugs with generic drugs. If these efforts to delay or block competition are successful, we may be unable to sell our generic products, which could have a material adverse effect on our sales and profitability.

Foreign governments tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

        In some foreign countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product 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 adversely affected.

If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected.

Our research and development involves, and may in the future involve, the use of hazardous materials and chemicals and certain radioactive materials and related equipment. For the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004, and 2003, we spent approximately $19,000, $25,000, and $17,500, respectively, in order to comply with environmental and waste disposal regulations. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens and the handling of biohazardous materials. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance as prescribed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of these materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. For claims not covered by workers’ compensation insurance, we also maintain an employer’s liability insurance policy in the amount of $3.5 million per occurrence and in the aggregate. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations.

38

Risks Relating to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Our 2003 Sandoz Collaboration is important to our business. If Sandoz fails to adequately perform under our collaboration or terminates our collaboration, the development and commercialization of injectable enoxaparin would be delayed or terminated and our business would be adversely affected.

        Under our 2003 Sandoz Collaboration, we jointly develop and commercialize injectable enoxaparin and certain improved injectable forms of enoxaparin. Under the terms of the agreement, we and Sandoz agree to exclusively work with each other in the development and commercialization of injectable enoxaparin within the United States. We have also granted to Sandoz the right to negotiate additional rights for certain products under certain circumstances. If Sandoz fails to adequately perform under our collaboration and license agreement, we may not successfully commercialize M-Enoxaparin and may be precluded from seeking alternative collaborative opportunities because of our exclusivity commitment.

        Sandoz may terminate our collaboration agreement for material uncured breaches or certain events of bankruptcy or insolvency by us. Sandoz may also terminate the collaboration agreement if the product or the market lacks commercial viability, if new laws or regulations are passed or court decisions rendered that substantially diminish our legal avenues for redress, or, in multiple cases, if certain costs exceed mutually agreed upon limits. If Sandoz terminates the agreement other than due to our uncured breach, we will be granted an exclusive license under certain intellectual property of Sandoz to develop and commercialize injectable enoxaparin in the United States. In that event, we would need to expand our internal capabilities or enter into another collaboration. In such event, significant delays would likely occur that could prevent us from completing the development and commercialization of injectable enoxaparin.

        If Sandoz terminates the agreement due to our uncured breach, Sandoz would retain the exclusive right to develop and commercialize injectable enoxaparin in the United States. In that event, although the profit sharing, royalty and milestone payment obligations of Sandoz would survive, we would no longer have any influence over the development or commercialization strategy. In addition, if Sandoz were to terminate the agreement due to our uncured breach, Sandoz would retain its rights of first negotiation with respect to certain of our other products in certain circumstances and its rights of first refusal outside of the United States. Accordingly, if Sandoz terminates the agreement, our introduction of M-Enoxaparin may be significantly delayed, we may decide to discontinue the M-Enoxaparin project, or our revenues may be reduced, any one of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We depend on third-parties for the manufacture of products. If in the future we encounter difficulties in our supply or manufacturing arrangements, our business may be materially adversely affected.

        We have limited personnel with experience in, and we do not own facilities for, manufacturing any products. In addition, we do not have, and do not intend to develop, the ability to manufacture material for our clinical trials or at commercial scale. To develop our drug candidates, apply for regulatory approvals and commercialize any products, we or our partners need to contract for or otherwise arrange for the necessary manufacturing facilities and capabilities. As a result, we expect generally to rely on contract manufacturers for regulatory compliance. If our contract manufacturers were to breach or terminate their manufacturing arrangements with us, the development or commercialization of the affected products or drug candidates could be delayed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, any change in our manufacturers could be costly because the commercial terms of any new arrangement could be less favorable and because the expenses relating to the transfer of necessary technology and processes could be significant.

        We have relied upon third parties to produce material for preclinical studies and may continue to do so in the future. Although we believe that we will not have any material supply issues, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain long-term supply arrangements of those materials on acceptable

39

terms, if at all. If we are unable to arrange for third-party manufacturing, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to complete development of our products or market them.

        In addition, the FDA and other regulatory authorities require that our products be manufactured according to cGMP regulations. Any failure by us or our third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP, and/or our failure to scale-up our manufacturing processes could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval. In addition, such failure could be the basis for action by the FDA to withdraw approvals for drug candidates previously granted to us and for other regulatory action. To the extent we rely on a third-party manufacturer, the risk of non-compliance with cGMPs may be greater and the ability to effect corrective actions for any such noncompliance may be compromised or delayed.

We may need to enter into alliances with other companies that can provide capabilities and funds for the development and commercialization of our drug candidates. If we are unsuccessful in forming or maintaining these alliances on favorable terms, our business could be adversely affected.

        Because we have limited or no capabilities for drug development, manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution, we may need to enter into alliances with other companies that can assist with the development and commercialization of our drug candidates. We may, for example, form alliances with major pharmaceutical companies to jointly develop specific drug candidates and to jointly commercialize them if they are approved. In such alliances, we would expect our pharmaceutical company partners to provide substantial capabilities in clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, sales and marketing. We may not be successful in entering into any such alliances. Even if we do succeed in securing such alliances, we may not be able to maintain them if, for example, development or approval of a drug candidate is delayed or sales of an approved drug are disappointing. If we are unable to secure or maintain such alliances we may not have the capabilities necessary to continue or complete development of our drug candidates and bring them to market, which may have an adverse effect on our business.

        In addition to relying on a third party for its capabilities, we may depend on our alliances with other companies to provide substantial additional funding for development and potential commercialization of our drug candidates. We may not be able to obtain funding on favorable terms from these alliances, and if we are not successful in doing so, we may not have sufficient funds to develop a particular drug candidate internally, or to bring drug candidates to market. Failure to bring our drug candidates to market will prevent us from generating sales revenues, and this may substantially harm our business. Furthermore, any delay in entering into these alliances could delay the development and commercialization of our drug candidates and reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market. As a result, our business may be adversely affected.

We enter into collaboration agreements and other similar contracts with other companies to supplement and enhance our own capabilities. If we are unable to enter into such agreements with companies or if any collaborative partner terminates or fails to perform its obligations under agreements with us, the development and commercialization of our drug candidates could be delayed or terminated.

Our continued and expected dependence on collaborative partners for their drug development, manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, for their financial support and/or to supplement and enhance our own proprietary technology platform, means that our business would be adversely affected if a partner terminates its collaboration agreement with us or fails to perform its obligations under the agreement. Our current collaborations and future collaborations, if any, may not be scientifically or commercially successful. Factors that may affect the success of our collaborations include the following:

•                   disputes may arise in the future with respect to the ownership of rights to technology developed with collaborators;

40

•                   our collaborators may pursue alternative technologies or develop alternative products, either on their own or in collaboration with others, that may be competitive with the products on which they are collaborating with us or which could affect our collaborators’ commitment to our collaborations;

•                   our collaborators may terminate their collaborations with us, which could make it difficult for us to attract new collaborators or adversely affect how we are perceived in the business and financial communities;

•                   our collaborators may pursue higher-priority programs or change the focus of their development programs, which could affect the collaborators’ commitment to us; and

•                   our collaborators with marketing rights may choose to devote fewer resources to the marketing of our product candidates, if any are approved for marketing, than to products from their own development programs.

If any of these occur, the development and commercialization of one or more drug candidates could be delayed, curtailed or terminated because we may not have sufficient financial resources or capabilities to continue such development and commercialization.

We enter into technology collaboration agreements and other similar contracts with other companies to supplement and enhance our own proprietary technology platform. If we are unsuccessful in forming or maintaining these collaborations on favorable terms or if the arrangements do not yield the intended results, our business could be adversely affected.

        In an effort to continually update and enhance our proprietary technology platform we enter into agreements with other companies to develop, license, acquire and/or collaborate on various technologies. If we are unable to enter into the desired agreements, if the agreements do not yield the intended results or if the agreements terminate, we may need to find alternative approaches to such technology needs. This may result in delays and our business may be adversely affected.

If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate product revenues.

        We do not have a sales organization and have no experience as a company in the sales, marketing and distribution of pharmaceutical products. There are risks involved with establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities, as well as entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, developing a sales force is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. In addition, to the extent that we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, we will have less control over sales of our products, and our future revenues would depend heavily on the success of the efforts of these third parties.

Our collaborations with outside scientists and consultants may be subject to restriction and change.

        We work with chemists, biologists and other scientists at academic and other institutions, and consultants who assist us in our research, development, regulatory and commercial efforts. These scientists and consultants have provided, and we expect that they will continue to provide, valuable advice on our programs. These scientists and consultants are not our employees, may have other commitments that would limit their future availability to us and typically will not enter into non-compete agreements with us. If a conflict of interest arises between their work for us and their work for another entity, we may lose their services. In addition, we will be unable to prevent them from establishing competing businesses or developing competing products.

41

We enter into various contracts in the normal course of our business that periodically incorporate provisions whereby we indemnify the other party to the contract. In the event we would have to perform under these indemnification provisions, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

        In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into academic, commercial and consulting agreements that contain indemnification provisions. With respect to our academic agreements, we typically indemnify the institution and related parties from losses arising from claims relating to the products, processes or services made, used, sold or performed pursuant to the agreements for which we have secured licenses, and from claims arising from our or our sublicensees’ exercise of rights under the agreement. With respect to our commercial agreements, including those with contract manufacturers, we indemnify our vendors from third-party product liability claims which result from the production, use or consumption of the product, as well as for certain alleged infringements of any patent or other intellectual property right by a third party. With respect to consultants, we indemnify them from claims arising from the good faith performance of their services. We do not, however, typically indemnify parties for claims resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the indemnified party.

        We maintain insurance coverage which we believe may limit our obligations under these indemnification provisions. With respect to M-Enoxaparin, we are also protected under certain circumstances through the indemnification provided to us by Sandoz. However, should our obligation under an indemnification provision fall outside the scope of our insurance coverage, exceed applicable insurance coverage or if we were denied insurance coverage, our business, financial position and results of operations could be materially adversely affected and the market value of our common stock could decline. Similarly, if we are relying on a collaborator to indemnify us and the collaborator is denied insurance coverage or the indemnification obligation exceeds the applicable insurance coverage, and if the collaborator does not have other assets available to indemnify us, our business, financial position and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Risks Relating to Patents and Licenses

If we are not able to obtain and enforce patent protection for our discoveries, our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates will be harmed and we may not be able to operate our business profitably.

        Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect proprietary methods and technologies that we develop under the patent and other intellectual property laws of the United States and other countries, so that we can prevent others from using our inventions and proprietary information. However, we may not hold proprietary rights to some patents related to our current or future product candidates. Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in scientific literature lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in our patent applications. As a result, we may be required to obtain licenses under third-party patents to market our proposed products. If licenses are not available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, we will not be able to market the affected products.

        Our strategy depends on our ability to rapidly identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. This 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. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary rights, unauthorized parties may be able to obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary. The issuance of a patent does not guarantee that it is valid or enforceable, so even if we obtain patents, they may not be valid or enforceable against third parties. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not guarantee that we have the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could be used to prevent us from marketing our own patented product and practicing our own patented technology.

        Our pending patent applications may not result in issued patents. The patent position of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, including ours, is generally uncertain and involves complex

42

legal and factual considerations. The standards which the USPTO and its foreign counterparts use to grant patents are not always applied predictably or uniformly and can change. There is also no uniform, worldwide policy regarding the subject matter and scope of claims granted or allowable in pharmaceutical or biotechnology patents. The laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary information to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and many companies have encountered significant problems and costs in protecting their proprietary information in these foreign countries. Accordingly, we do not know the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights or the breadth of claims allowed in any patents issued to us or to others. The allowance of broader claims may increase the incidence and cost of patent interference proceedings and/or opposition proceedings, and the risk of infringement litigation. On the other hand, the allowance of narrower claims may limit the value of our proprietary rights. Our issued patents may not contain claims sufficiently broad to protect us against third parties with similar technologies or products, or provide us with any competitive advantage. Moreover, once they have issued, our patents and any patent for which we have licensed or may license rights may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. If our patents are invalidated or otherwise limited, other companies will be better able to develop products that compete with ours, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

        We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and technology, which are not protected by patents, to maintain our competitive position. If any trade secret, know-how or other technology not protected by a patent were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our business and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Our competitors may allege that we are infringing their intellectual property, forcing us to expend substantial resources in resulting litigation, the outcome of which would be uncertain. Any unfavorable outcome of such litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations .

        If any party successfully asserts that we are infringing their intellectual property or that our creation or use of proprietary technology infringes upon their intellectual property rights, we might be forced to incur expenses to litigate the claims and pay damages, potentially including treble damages, if we are found to have willfully infringed such parties’ patent rights. In addition, if we are unsuccessful in litigation, or pending the outcome of litigation, a court could issue a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction preventing us from marketing and selling the patented drug or other technology for the life of the patent that we have allegedly or been deemed to have infringed. Litigation concerning patents, other forms of intellectual property and proprietary technologies is becoming more widespread and can be protracted and expensive, and can distract management and other key personnel from performing their duties for us.

        Any legal action against us or our collaborators claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to the affected products, and processes could, in addition to subjecting us to potential liability for damages, require us or our collaborators to obtain a license in order to continue to manufacture or market the affected products and processes. Any license required under any patent may not be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, some licenses may be non-exclusive, and therefore, our competitors may have access to the same technology licensed to us. If we fail to obtain a required license or are unable to design around a patent, we may be unable to effectively market some of our technology and products, which could limit our ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability and possibly prevent us from generating revenue sufficient to sustain our operations.

If we become involved in patent litigation or other proceedings to enforce our patent rights, we could incur substantial costs, substantial liability for damages and be required to stop our product commercialization efforts.

        We may need to resort to litigation to enforce a patent issued to us or to determine the scope and validity of third-party proprietary rights. The cost to us of any litigation or other proceeding relating to

43

intellectual property rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and the litigation could divert our management’s efforts. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could limit our ability to continue our operations.

We in-license a significant portion of our proprietary technologies and if we fail to comply with our obligations under any of the related agreements, we could lose license rights that are necessary to develop our product candidates.

        We are a party to and rely on a number of in-license agreements with third parties, such as those with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that give us rights to intellectual property that is necessary for our business. In addition, we expect to enter into additional licenses in the future. Our current in-license arrangements impose various development, royalty and other obligations on us. If we breach these obligations, these exclusive licenses could be converted to non-exclusive licenses or the agreements could be terminated, which would result in our being unable to develop, manufacture and sell products that are covered by the licensed technology.

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

        In order to protect our proprietary technology and processes, we also rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our corporate partners, employees, consultants, outside scientific collaborators and sponsored researchers, advisors and others. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, others may independently discover trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such cases we could not assert any trade secret rights against such party. Costly and time consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and the failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

General Company Related Risks

Our directors, executive officers and major stockholders have substantial control over matters submitted to stockholders for approval that could delay or prevent a change in corporate control.

        Our directors, executive officers and principal stockholders, together with their affiliates and related persons, beneficially owned, in the aggregate, approximately 42% of our outstanding common stock as of June 30, 2006. As a result, these stockholders, if acting together, may have the ability to determine the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election and removal of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, these persons, acting together, may have the ability to control the management and affairs of our company. Accordingly, this concentration of ownership may harm the market price of our common stock by:

44

Anti-takeover provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

        Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our by-laws may delay or prevent an acquisition of us or a change in our management. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions could in turn affect any attempt by our stockholders to replace current members of our management team. These provisions include:

•                   a “poison pill” in accordance with the Company’s Shareholders Rights Plan that would work to dilute the stock ownership of a potential hostile acquirer, effectively preventing acquisitions that have not been approved by our board of directors; and

•                   limitations on the removal of directors.

        Moreover, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Finally, these provisions establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings. These provisions would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders.

Our stock price may be volatile, and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.

        The stock market in general and the market prices for securities of biotechnology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. The trading price of our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. Our stock price could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:

•                   failure to obtain FDA approval for M-Enoxaparin or other adverse FDA decisions relating to M-Enoxaparin including the FDA requiring clinical trials as a condition of M-Enoxaparin approval or the FDA’s approval of other companies’ ANDAs;

•                   litigation involving our company or our general industry or both, including potential litigation or a settlement with Sanofi-Aventis relating to M-Enoxaparin;

•                   failure to obtain HSR or other applicable clearance for the 2006 Sandoz Collaboration;

•                   results or delays in our or our competitors’ clinical trials or regulatory filings;

•                   failure to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence with respect to our technology-enabled generic product candidates and safety and efficacy for our novel development product candidates;

45

If any of these factors causes an adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition, the price of our common stock could fall and investors may not be able to sell their common stock at or above their respective purchase prices.