ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Company Overview

We are a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company specializing in the development of innovative peptide and gene-based immunotherapeutics and vaccines for the treatment of cancer and metastatic disease. We are actively advancing our clinical programs by expanding our Folate Receptor Alpha program (TPIV200) for breast and ovarian cancers and our HER2/neu+ peptide antigen program (TPIV100/110) in Phase II clinical trials. In parallel, we are developing a proprietary DNA expression technology named PolyStart™ to improve the ability of the cellular immune system to recognize and destroy diseased cells. We plan to complete the pre-clinical development of our PolyStart™ vaccine and move it into the clinic as an integral component of a prime-boost vaccine methodology.

Our Cancer Vaccines

In contrast to standard therapies for cancer treatment including surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy that imprecisely target cancer cells and normal cells, we are developing vaccines that precisely target candidate breast cancer(s), colorectal cancer(s), ovarian cancer(s) and non-small cell lung cancer(s). We are currently developing three core technology platforms:

1) an exclusively licensed peptide-based vaccine compositions and methods of use for the treatment of HER2/neu+ breast cancer that overexpresses Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2/neu+) (TPIV100/110),

(2) an exclusively licensed peptide-based vaccine compositions and methods of use for treating breast and ovarian cancers that overexpress Folate Receptor Alpha (TPIV200), and

(3) a wholly-owned DNA nucleic acid-based vaccine compositions and methods of use technology (PolyStart™) for treatment of various cancers or infectious disease.

To enhance stockholder value and taking into account development timelines, we plan to focus on advancing our clinical programs including our Folate Receptor Alpha peptide antigen program for breast and ovarian cancer and our HER2/neu+ peptide antigen program into Phase II clinical trials. In parallel, we plan to complete the preclinical development of our PolyStart™ technology as an integral component of our prime-and-boost vaccine methodology. The use of naturally processed T-cell antigens discovered using samples derived from cancer patients plus our PolyStart™ expression technology to improve antigen presentation to T-cells could not only produce an effective cancer vaccine in its own right but also to enhance the efficacy of other immunotherapy approaches such as CAR-T and PD1 inhibitors for example.

CLINICAL

For perspective, we note that clinical trials to support new drug applications are typically conducted in three sequential phases, although the phases may overlap. During Phase I, there is an initial introduction of the therapeutic candidate into healthy human subjects or patients. For an immunotherapeutic vaccine in particular, Phase I studies are generally conducted in cancer patients that have previously received one or another current standard of care and include the measurement of cellular immune responses. Phase II usually involves studies in a more focused patient population in order to carefully assess clinical activity of the drug in specific targeted indications, dosage tolerance ( i.e ., dose escalation) and optimal dosage, while continuing to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks. If the therapeutic candidate is found to be potentially effective and to have an acceptable safety profile in Phase II evaluations, Phase III trials are undertaken to further demonstrate clinical efficacy and to further test for safety within an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites.

Human Clinical Trials – HER2/neu+ Breast Cancer – Mayo Foundation

On June 1, 2010, we signed an exclusive licensing option agreement with the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (“Mayo Foundation”), Rochester, Minnesota for clinical development of a new HER2/neu+ breast cancer vaccine technology. An Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application for Phase I human clinical trial on the HER2/neu+ cancer vaccine in collaboration with the Mayo Foundation was allowed by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in July 2011 and the Mayo Institutional Review Board approved the trial on May 4, 2012. Patients had histologically confirmed Stage II-III HER2/neu+ breast cancer and had completed systematic therapy at least 90 days prior to treatment and were without evidence of disease. Patient dosing has been completed and final safety analysis on all the patients treated has been completed. The vaccine, comprising four class II peptides, was well tolerated with mild adverse effects. In addition, 19 out of 20 evaluable patients showed robust T-cell immune responses to the antigens in the vaccine composition (Source: The Journal of Immunology: January 1, 2013 190:479-488). These results provided the rationale for advancement into Phase II . An additional secondary endpoint incorporated into this Phase I Trial was a two-year follow on recording time to disease recurrence in the participating breast cancer patients. A second trial is being started in 2018 that uses a novel vaccine strategy in patients with DCIS to eliminate disease and protect from recurrence.

For Phase I(b)/II studies, we plan to add a Class I peptide, licensed from the Mayo Clinic (April 16, 2012), to the four Class II peptides. Management believes that the combination of Class I and Class II HER2/neu+ antigens gives us the leading HER2/neu+ vaccine platform. As the Folate Receptor Alpha vaccine is our lead product, our plans are now initiating formulation studies to progress the HER2/neu+ vaccine towards a Phase II Clinical Trial in 2018.

Human Clinical Trials – Folate Alpha Breast and Ovarian Cancer – Mayo Foundation

Folate Receptor Alpha (“FRa”) is overexpressed in over 80% of breast cancers and in addition, over 90% of ovarian cancers, for which the only treatment options are surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy, leaving a very important and urgent clinical need for a new therapeutic. Time to recurrence is relatively short for this type of cancer and survival prognosis is extremely poor after recurrence. In the United States alone, there are approximately 30,000 ovarian cancer patients and 40,000 triple-negative breast cancer patients newly diagnosed every year.

We have completed a 21-patient Phase I clinical trial for the Folate Receptor Alpha Vaccine. Twenty-one patients with breast or ovarian cancer, who had undergone standard surgery and adjuvant treatment, were treated with one cycle of cyclophosphamide (given days 1-7 and 15-22 of 28). Following this, patients were vaccinated intradermally at three sites with a mixture of the five class II FRa peptides on day one of a 28-day cycle for a maximum of six vaccination cycles. The vaccine was well-tolerated and safe and 20 out of 21 evaluable patients showed positive immune responses, providing a strong rationale for progressing to Phase II trials. Further, the data showed that 16 out of 16 patients in the observation stage still showed immune responses (Source: Data published in Journal of Clinical Oncology at ASCO in Chicago May 2015). We have developed a commercial quality lyophilized formulation of the vaccine in a single vial for reconstitution and injection. Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) manufacturing of initial batch for initial Phase II trials has been completed.

On July 27, 2015, we exercised our option agreement with Mayo Foundation with the signing of a worldwide exclusive license agreement to commercialize a proprietary Folate Receptor Alpha vaccine technology for all cancer indications. As part of this agreement, the IND from the Folate Receptor Alpha Phase I Trial was transferred from Mayo Foundation to us for amendment for Phase II Clinical Trials on our lead product.

On September 15, 2015, we announced that our collaborators at the Mayo Foundation had been awarded a grant of $13.3 million from the U.S. Department of Defense. This grant, commencing September 15, 2015, will cover the costs for a 280-patient Phase II Clinical Trial of Folate Receptor Alpha Vaccine in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. We will work closely with Mayo Foundation on this clinical trial by providing clinical and manufacturing expertise as well as providing GMP vaccine formulations. These vaccine formulations are being developed for multiple Phase II clinical programs in triple-negative breast and ovarian cancer in combination with other immunotherapeutics. This Phase II study of TPIV200 in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer began enrolling patients in late 2017.

On December 9, 2015, we announced that we received Orphan Drug Designation from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s Office of Orphan Products Development (“OOPD”) for our cancer vaccine TPIV200 in the treatment of ovarian cancer. The TPIV200 ovarian cancer clinical program will now receive benefits including tax credits on clinical research and seven-year market exclusivity upon receiving marketing approval. TPIV200 is a multi-epitope peptide vaccine that targets Folate Receptor Alpha which is overexpressed in multiple cancers including over 90% of ovarian cancer cells.

On February 3, 2016, we announced that the U.S. FDA designated the investigation of multiple-epitope Folate Receptor Alpha Peptide Vaccine (TPIV200) with GM-CSF adjuvant for maintenance therapy in subjects with platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer who achieved stable disease or partial response following completion of standard-of-care chemotherapy, as a Fast Track Development Program. We began enrolling a Phase II study in this indication in 2017.

We have opened multiple clinical sites and have completed enrollment of patients in a Phase II trial of our Folate Receptor Alpha cancer vaccine, TPIV200, in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer, one of the most difficult-to-treat cancers representing a clear unmet medical need. The open-label, 80-patient clinical trial is designed to evaluate dosing regimens, efficacy, and immune responses in women with triple-negative breast cancer. Key data from the trial is expected to be included in a future New Drug Application submission to the FDA for marketing clearance. This trial is sponsored and conducted by TapImmune.

On April 21, 2016, we announced our participation in an ovarian cancer study sponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City in collaboration with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in ovarian cancer patients who are not responsive to platinum, a commonly used chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. This study, a Phase II study of TPIV200 is currently enrolling ovarian cancer patients and is designed to look at the effects of combination therapy with AstraZeneca’s checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab. The study will enroll 40 patients and is open-label. Because they are unresponsive to platinum, these patients have no real options left. If the combination therapy proves effective, we believe it would address a critical unmet need. TPIV200 has received Orphan Drug designation for use in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Although we have no business relationship with AstraZeneca, we are paying for one-half of the costs of the clinical study in addition to providing our TPIV200 for the study.

A Company-sponsored Phase II study in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients was initiated in 2017. This study is designed to evaluate TPIV200 with GM-CSF in a randomized, placebo-controlled fashion during the first maintenance period after primary surgery and chemotherapy. Patients at this stage of their treatment have the highest potential for an immunotherapeutic effect and no other approved treatment options. The study will enroll up to 120 patients over the next year and a half, with an interim analysis planned in the first quarter of 2019.

PRECLINICAL

PolyStart™

In parallel with the above completed Phase I clinical trials and upcoming Phase II trials, we plan to complete preclinical development of the PolyStart™ technology as an integral component of our “Prime”-and- “Boost” vaccine methodology. Unlike other vaccine technologies that narrowly address the initiation of an immune response, our “Prime”-and- “Boost” approach broadly stimulates the cellular immune system by enhancing the function of killer T-cells (CD8+) and helper T-cells (CD4+). Our peptide immunotherapeutic approach may be coupled with our developed in-house PolyStart™ nucleic acid-based technology designed to enhance T-cell antigen presentation on the surface of appropriate populations of presenting cells. Our PolyStart™ technology directs the translation and subsequent endogenous processing of antigenic T-cell epitopes contained within a poly-antigen array(s) at four times the level of conventional comparator systems, thereby providing a greater signal/propensity to attract and directly interact with a patient’s T-cells. Accordingly, elevated levels of target specific cell surface presented T-cell antigen(s) are correspondingly expected to more effectively engage, activate and expand antigen specific killer T-cell population(s) that can then seek out and destroy target cells (e.g., cancer cells). Moreover, our versatile PolyStart™ technology is designed to express either Class I CD8+ killer or Class II CD4+ helper T-cell antigenic epitopes. The nucleic acid-based platform may also represent a second stand-alone vaccine technology.

Our PolyStart™ technology was invented in-house and is therefore not subject to any licensing fees or downstream royalty payments. The PolyStart™ technology composition can be administered in the form of a plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) or incorporated into a viral delivery system via ribonucleic acid (“RNA”) or DNA. The PolyStart™ technology comprises two portions, one supporting high level of expression and the other a T-cell peptide antigen array (“PAA”). The antigens making up the PAA are processed inside a patient’s own cells where they are then presented on the cell surface visible for T-cell recognition, activation and expansion. We have confirmed that the PolyStart™/PAA technology works in preclinical studies in context with a smallpox vaccine candidate. However, it is important to understand that this is a platform technology which can be adapted to essentially any T-cell peptide antigen targeted indication, including HER2/neu+. The PolyStart™ technology combined with our peptide-based technology is an ideal opportunity for developing an effective prime-plus-boost vaccination methodology. On February 7, 2017, we announced that we received a Notice of Allowance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of our patent application titled, “Chimeric nucleic acid molecules with non-AUG initiation sequences and uses thereof,” which represents our first patent on our PolyStart™ program. We anticipate additional patent filings in connection with our research and development in this area.

Our Infectious Disease Program

Management believes that PolyStart™ may have broad use for infectious disease vaccines but any development in this area will rely on collaboration with others having specific expertise and the use of non-dilutive funding”. We are actively seeking business development and out-licensing opportunities with this asset.

Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research Relationships

As part of our business strategy, we establish business relationships, including collaborative arrangements with other companies and medical research institutions to assist in the clinical development of certain of our drugs and drug candidates and to provide support for our research programs.

Below is a brief description of our significant business relationships and collaborations and related license agreements with Mayo Foundation that expand our pipeline and provide us with certain rights to existing and potential new products and technologies.

On May 26, 2010, we signed a Technology Option Agreement with the Mayo Foundation in Rochester, Minnesota, for the evaluation of HER2/neu+ peptide epitopes as antigens for a breast cancer vaccine. The agreement grants us an exclusive worldwide option to become the exclusive licensee of the technology after completion of Phase I clinical trials.

Following approval of the IND by the FDA in July 2011, we executed a Sponsored Research Agreement with the Mayo Foundation for the clinical trial.

Mayo Patent & Know-How License

On March 25, 2012, we entered into a Patent & Know-How License Agreement with the Mayo Foundation pursuant to which we acquired certain intellectual property rights from the Mayo Foundation for the development and commercialization of certain products, methods and processes property relating to a proprietary HER2/neu+ technology.

The Mayo Foundation granted us a license (with a right to sublicense) on a worldwide basis to make, sell and use products for prophylactic and therapeutic use. This license is an exclusive license for products that are based on the intellectual property and non-exclusive for products that are based on Mayo Foundation know–how and materials. The intellectual property that is being licensed includes U.S. provisional patent application number 61600480 (titled “Methods and materials for generating CD8+ T-cells having the ability to recognize cancer cells expressing a HER2/neu+ polypeptide”), and provisionals, divisionals, continuations and continuations-in-part.

Under this agreement, and subject to certain exceptions, we are responsible for, among other things, developing the technology under the Patent Rights to bring Licensed Products (as defined in the agreement) to market and costs of filing, prosecution and maintenance of the Patent Rights. Mayo Foundation controls the prosecution and maintenance of the Patent Rights in consultation with us.

The Mayo Foundation granted this license in exchange for an upfront payment of $250,000 that we paid in three installments. In addition to the upfront payment, we are to pay an annual license maintenance fee, milestone fees, royalty fees (which will be subject to a minimum annual royalty fee once royalty fees are due), and a $500,000 diligence fee had a Phase I clinical trial for a Licensed Product not been initiated prior to the fifth anniversary of the agreement and a $2,000,000 diligence fee if we fail to initial a Phase II clinical trial for a Licensed Product prior to the eighth anniversary of the agreement.

We have agreed to indemnify and hold Mayo Foundation harmless from any damages caused as a result of (i) the practice or exercise of any rights and assignments granted by the agreement by or on behalf of us, any affiliate, or any sub-licensee; (ii) research, development, design, manufacture, distribution, use, sale, importation, exportation or other disposition of Licensed Products; (iii) our, any affiliates, or any sub-licensee’s act or omission; and (iv) third party suits for patent infringement involving a Licensed Product

The term of this agreement runs from March 25, 2012 until the date of the last to expire of the Valid Claims (as defined in the agreement), provided that Mayo Foundation may terminate the agreement if, among other matters, (i) 45 days after providing us with notice of a material breach of this agreement, we fail to cure such breach, (ii) we fail to) initiate a Phase III clinical trial for a Licensed Product prior to the tenth anniversary of the agreement, and (iii) we cease to conduct business in the normal event of operations or become insolvent or bankrupt. We may voluntarily terminate the agreement at any time upon written notice to Mayo Foundation.

Mayo HER2/neu+ License

On May 4, 2016, we entered into a License and Assignment Agreement with Mayo Foundation (“Mayo Foundation HER2/neu+ License”) pursuant to which we acquired certain intellectual property rights from the Mayo Foundation for the development and commercialization of certain products, methods and processes property relating to any cancer indication in which the HER2/neu+ antigen is overexpressed. The Mayo Foundation HER2/neu+ License resulted from our exercise of an option that was issued pursuant to a Technology Option Agreement that we entered into with the Mayo Foundation on May 25, 2010.

The Mayo Foundation granted us a license (with a right to sublicense) on a worldwide basis to make, sell and use products for therapeutic use against breast, ovarian, lung and any other cancers that overexpress HER2/neu+ antigens. This license is an exclusive license for products that are based on the intellectual property and non-exclusive for products that are based on Mayo Foundation know–how and materials. The intellectual property that is being licensed includes (i) U.S. patent application numbers 12/740,562 and 14/480,365, divisionals, continuations and continuations in part, and (ii) U.S. provisional application 60/984,646 and PCT/US2008/081799.

Under the Mayo Foundation HER2/neu+ License, and subject to certain exceptions, we are responsible for, among other things, developing the technology under the Patent Rights to bring Licensed Products (both as defined in the Mayo Foundation HER2/neu+ License) to market and costs of filing, prosecution and maintenance of the Patent Rights. Mayo Foundation has sole control over the protection, defense, enforcement, maintenance abandonment and other handling of the Know-How (as defined in the Mayo Foundation HER2/neu+ License) and Materials (as defined in the Mayo Foundation HER2/neu+ License).

The Mayo Foundation granted this license in exchange for an initial payment of $300,000. The Mayo Foundation assigned to us IND # 14749, and we assumed all responsibility and liability for this investigative new drug application. In addition to the initial payment, we are to pay an annual license maintenance fee, milestone fees and royalty fees (which will be subject to a minimum annual royalty fee once royalty fees are due).

We have agreed to indemnify and hold Mayo Foundation harmless from any damages caused as a result of (i) the practice or exercise of any rights and assignments granted by the agreement by or on behalf of us or any sub-licensee; (ii) research, development, design, manufacture, distribution, use, sale, importation, exportation or other disposition of Licensed Products; (iii) our or any sub-licensee’s act or omission, including negligence or willful misconduct; and (iv) third party suits for patent infringement involving a Licensed Product.

The term of this agreement runs from May 4, 2016 until the date of our last obligation to make payments under the agreement, provided that Mayo Foundation may terminate the agreement if, among other matters, (i) 30 days after providing us with notice of a material breach of this agreement, we fail to cure such breach, (ii) 90 days after providing us with written notice, we fail to meet either of the following diligence events (a) initiate a Phase II clinical trial for a Licensed Product prior to the second anniversary of the agreement and, once initiated, keep current on all of our Phase II funding obligations and (b) initiate a Phase IIB or III clinical trial for a Licensed Product prior to the fifth anniversary of the agreement, (iii) we fail to make a sale of a Licensed Product by May 4, 2026, and (iv) we cease to conduct business in the normal event of operations or become insolvent or bankrupt. We may voluntarily terminate the agreement at any time upon written notice to Mayo Foundation.

Mayo Folate Receptor Alpha License

On July 21, 2015, we entered into a License and Assignment Agreement with Mayo Foundation (“Mayo Foundation FRa License”) pursuant to which we acquired certain intellectual property rights from the Mayo Foundation for the development and commercialization of certain products, methods and processes property relating to a Folate Receptor Alpha immunotherapeutic vaccine comprised of a set of unique peptide epitopes targeting breast, lung and ovarian cancer. The Mayo Foundation FRa License resulted from our exercise of an option that we acquired from Ayer Special Situations Fund I, LP (“Ayer”) that was issued pursuant to a Technology Option Agreement that Ayer entered into with the Mayo Foundation on March 18, 2014.

The Mayo Foundation granted us a license (with a right to sublicense) on a worldwide basis to make, sell and use products for therapeutic use against breast, ovarian, lung and other cancers that express Folate Receptor Alpha. This license is an exclusive license for products that are based on the intellectual property and non-exclusive for products that are based on Mayo Foundation know–how and materials. The intellectual property that is being licensed includes (i) U.S. patent application numbers 12/303,054 and 13/202,263, (ii) U.S. patent number 8,486,412 and 8,858,952 and provisionals, (iii) divisionals including 13/917,410 and (iv) continuations including 14/484,057.

Under the Mayo Foundation FRa License, and subject to certain exceptions, we are responsible for, among other things, developing the technology under the Patent Rights to bring Licensed Products (both as defined in the Mayo Foundation FRa License) to market and costs of filing, prosecution and maintenance of the Patent Rights. Mayo Foundation has sole control over the protection, defense, enforcement, maintenance abandonment and other handling of the Know-How (as defined in the Mayo Foundation FRa License) and Materials (as defined in the Mayo Foundation FRa License).

The Mayo Foundation granted this license in exchange for an initial upfront payment of $350,000. The Mayo Foundation assigned to us IND # 14546, and we assumed all responsibility and liability for this investigative new drug application. In addition to the initial upfront payment, we are to pay additional upfront payments, an annual license maintenance fee, milestone fees and royalty fees (which will be subject to a minimum annual royalty fee once royalty fees are due).

We have agreed to indemnify and hold Mayo Foundation harmless from any damages caused as a result of (i) the practice or exercise of any rights and assignments granted by the Mayo Foundation FRa License by or on behalf of us or any sub-licensee; (ii) research, development, design, manufacture, distribution, use, sale, importation, exportation or other disposition of Licensed Products; (iii) our or any sub-licensee’s act or omission, including negligence or willful misconduct; and (iv) third party suits for patent infringement involving a Licensed Product.

The term of this agreement runs from July 21, 2015 until the date of our last obligation to make payments under this agreement, provided that the Mayo Foundation may terminate this agreement if, among other matters, (i) 30 days after providing us with notice of a material breach of this agreement, we fail to cure such breach, (ii) 90 days after providing us with written notice, we fail to meet either of the following diligence events (a) initiate a Phase II clinical trial for a Licensed Product prior to the 2nd anniversary of the Mayo Foundation FRa License and, once initiated, keep current on all of our Phase II funding obligations and (b) initiate a Phase IIB or III clinical trial for a Licensed Product prior to the 5th anniversary of the Mayo Foundation FRa License, (iii) we fail to make a sale of a Licensed Product by July 21, 2025 and (iv) we cease to conduct business in the normal event of operations or become insolvent or bankrupt. We may voluntarily terminate the Mayo Foundation FRa License at any time upon written notice to Mayo Foundation.

General

Company History

We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada in 1991. We have one wholly-owned and dormant subsidiary named GeneMax Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“GeneMax Pharmaceuticals”). Our common stock is currently listed for trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “TPIV.”

In July 2015, we moved our corporate headquarters to Jacksonville, Florida, to be in closer proximity to our collaborators at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida, and our strategic and medical advisors who live in Florida. In July 2017, we moved our corporate headquarters to 5 West Forsyth Street, Jacksonville Florida. We continue to lease a single office at Eastlake Avenue in Seattle, Washington, for the purposes of continuing to develop and patent our PolyStart™ technology.

Over the past three years, we have, in a challenging financing climate, raised sufficient working capital to fund and progress our operations and significantly restructured our balance sheet and capital structure. We believe that we continue to make progress with the resources available to us. With the start of clinical programs and our focus on securing financing from a number of sources, management is confident that our current pathway will secure longer term capital to finance and accelerate our activities. The strength of our science and development approaches is becoming more widely appreciated, particularly as our clinical program generates data and as we embrace additional collaborations with leading institutions and corporations.

While the pathway to successful product development takes time and significant resources, we believe that we have put in place the technical and corporate fundamentals for success. The strength of our product pipeline gives us a unique opportunity to make a major contribution to global health care.

The Immunotherapy Industry for Cancer

Management believes that there is a critical need for more effective cancer therapies. Given the unmet need in the treatment of metastatic cancer combined with our process for harnessing the body’s own immune system to treat certain cancers, we believe that we are positioned to be a leading contributor to solving this problem. The immuno-oncology landscape includes the use of monoclonal antibodies, adoptive T-cell therapies, checkpoint inhibitors and in vivo T-cell vaccines. We believe that our use of peptide antigens that can stimulate both T-killer cells (CD8+) and T-helper cells (CD4+) together with the use of our PolyStart™ expression vector as a “boost” strategy can give us a competitive edge in the in vivo T-cell vaccine sector.

In addition, we continue to pursue the development of an approach, which can allow the cellular immune system to make tumor cells more visible to the immune system. Many cancers are not very “immunogenic”, meaning that the cancers are not able to induce an immune response because they no longer express sufficient levels of key proteins on their cell surface, known as Major Histocompatibility Class (“MHC”) I or MHC Class I proteins. In healthy cells, these proteins provide the information to the immune system that defines whether the cell is healthy or, in the case of cancer or viral infection, abnormal. If the MHC Class I proteins signal that the cells are abnormal, then the immune system’s T-cells are activated to attack and kill the infected or malignant cell.

In many solid tumors and in metastatic cells, antigen presentation is often impaired thus presenting a weakened signal to which the cellular immune system can respond. Management believes that although a number of cancer therapies have been developed that stimulate the immune system, these approaches have often proven ineffective because the cancers remain invisible to the immune system due to this problem. One of our strategic visions is to broadly stimulate the cellular immune system while additionally improving antigen presentation. We believe that the use of our PolyStart™ expression vector for improved expression of antigens and TAP can improve the immune system’s response to a variety of cancers.

In addition to our focus on the cancer vaccines, with adequate funding, we may also pursue the development of prophylactic vaccines against infectious microbes by partnering with other vaccine developers in the infectious disease market.

TapImmune’s Target Market and Strategy

We will focus our product development in oncology, both alone and with corporate partners and/or collaborators, including the Mayo Foundation for HER2/neu+ Breast Cancer, Folate Alpha ovarian and breast cancer. The diversity of cancer types and their overall prevalence create a large need for new and improved treatments. Management believes that there is a significant market opportunity for a cancer treatment that utilizes the highly specific defense mechanisms of the immune system to attack cancers. The goal of our management is to ultimately have the FDA approve our cancer vaccines so that we can secure a portion of this market.

Management also believes that our PolyStart™ expression vector approach will provide a flexible and unique platform for the creation of new vaccines that can rapidly respond to emerging viral threats/bioterrorism in addition to enhancing the efficacy of current vaccines in the treatment of infectious disease. If successful, this platform technology would be a significant advance in vaccine development and it will be a key business development strategy to pursue additional partnerships and joint research and/or development ventures with vaccine manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies to bring new and improved vaccines to market.

Our business strategy in cancer is to take products through Phase II clinical trials and then assess whether to partner with pharmaceutical marketing organizations ahead of Phase III trials or to seek commercialization after Phase II.

The global market for cancer immunotherapy is estimated to grow to more than $80 billion by 2020 according to ResearchandMarkets.com. Management believes that ultimately our combined technology platform(s) have the potential to develop more effective new vaccines, thereby allowing us to participate in this large market through novel new products and in combination with existing vaccines.

Research and Development Efforts

We direct our research and development efforts towards the advancement of immunotherapeutic and prophylactic vaccine products for the treatment of cancer, using our combined proprietary technologies, relevant killer plus helper T-cell peptide antigens, and PolyStart™ nucleic acid-based expression system(s) expressing antigens. We have focused our efforts initially on the development of a therapeutic vaccine for applications in cancer treatment, while concomitantly demonstrating the breadth of our combined technology platform for the development of prophylactic vaccines. Our product development efforts are opportunistically designed to consider combinations with approved and emerging products in both cancer therapeutics and prophylactic vaccines against microbes. This approach allows us to pursue our own internal product development while positioning us to enter into multiple partnerships and licensing agreements. We have made significant progress in the development of a nucleic acid-based (co-linear PolyStart™) technology which directs the enhanced synthesis of a linear peptide antigen array comprising multiple proprietary T-cell epitopes (CD4+ Helper and CD8+ Killer). In addition, the technology also directs the synthesis of the protein TAP1 associated with the transport of MHC Class I epitopes to the surface of cells. The expression or functioning of this protein is often lowered in tumor cells or virally infected cells and its replacement can enhance antigen presentation. Recent work on this novel expression vector platform has demonstrated that T-cells recognize cell surface presented T-cell peptide epitopes confirming that multiple individual peptides are effectively and functional processed from a linear peptide antigen array and that this leads to peptide specific T-cell killing.

Intellectual Property and Patents

Patents and other proprietary rights are vital to our business operations. We protect our technology through various United States and foreign patent filings, and maintain trade secrets that we own. Our policy is to seek appropriate patent protection both in the United States and abroad for our proprietary technologies and products. An enforceable patent with appropriate claim coverage can provide an advantage over competitors who may seek to employ similar approaches to develop therapeutics, and so the future commercial success of products, and therefore our future success, will be in part dependent on our intellectual property strategy. The information provided in this section should be reviewed in the context of Item 1A, “Risk Factors”.

We require each of our employees, consultants and advisors to execute a confidentiality agreement upon the commencement of any employment, consulting or advisory relationship with us. Each agreement provides that all confidential information developed or made known to the individual during the course of the relationship will be kept confidential and not be disclosed to third parties except in specified circumstances. In the case of employees, the agreements provide that all inventions conceived of by an employee shall be our exclusive property.

There can be no assurance that our patents, and any patents that may be issued to us in the future, will afford protection against competitors with similar technology. In addition, no assurances can be given that the patents issued to us will not be infringed upon or designed around by others or that others will not obtain patents that we would need to license or design around. If the courts uphold existing or future patents containing broad claims over technology used by us, the holders of such patents could require us to obtain licenses to use such technology. Patent coverage may also vary from country to country based on the scope of available patent protection. There are also opportunities to obtain an extension of patent coverage for a product in certain countries, which adds further complexity to the determination of patent life.

Intellectual Property

We rely upon a combination of licenses, patents, trade secrets, know-how, and licensing opportunities to develop our business. Our future prospects depend on our ability to protect our intellectual property. We also need to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties.

Patents

Patents and other proprietary rights are vital to our business operations. We protect our technology through various United States and foreign patent filings, and maintain trade secrets that we own. As of December 2017, we held seven U.S. issued patents (two owned, five licensed or option to license), six patent applications pending (two owned, four licensed or option to license), 12 foreign issued/allowed patents, and ten foreign patent applications pending (eight owned, two licensed or option to license). Our policy is to seek appropriate patent protection both in the United States and abroad for our proprietary technologies and product candidates. An enforceable patent with appropriate claim coverage can provide an advantage over competitors who may seek to employ similar approaches to develop therapeutics, and so the future commercial success of products, and therefore our future success, will be in part dependent on our intellectual property strategy. The information provided in this section should be reviewed in the context of the information disclosed elsewhere in this annual report under “Risk Factors”. We reassess the value of each patent at the time maintenance fees are due, and in cases where maintaining the patent is judged to be of no significant strategic value we decline to pay the maintenance fee.

There can be no assurance that our patents, and any patents that may be issued to us in the future, will afford protection against competitors with similar technology. In addition, no assurances can be given that the patents issued to us will not be infringed upon or designed around by others or that others will not obtain patents that we would need to license or design around. If the courts uphold existing or future patents containing broad claims over technology used by us, the holders of such patents could require us to obtain licenses to use such technology. Patent coverage may also vary from country to country based on the scope of available patent protection. There are also opportunities to obtain an extension of patent coverage for a product in certain countries, which adds further complexity to the determination of patent life.

We currently have a number of issued and pending patents covering composition of matter of PolyStart™ and TAP. In addition, a number of issued and pending patents cover the HER2/neu+ and Folate Receptor Alpha peptides in our Option to License or License Agreements from the Mayo Foundation.

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2017 on each issued patent currently held or licensed by us:

On February 7, 2017, we announced that we received a Notice of Allowance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of our patent application titled, “Chimeric nucleic acid molecules with non-AUG initiation sequences and uses thereof.”

We have exclusively licensed the intellectual property for our TPIV100/110 HER2/neu+ breast cancer vaccine and TPIV200 folate receptor alpha vaccine product candidates from Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. See “Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research Relationships.”

The effect of the issued patents is that they provide us with patent protection for the claims covered by the patents. While the expiration of a product patent normally results in a loss of market exclusivity for the covered product or product candidate, commercial benefits may continue to be derived from: (i) later-granted patents on processes and intermediates related to the most economical method of manufacture of the active ingredient of such product; (ii) patents relating to the use of such product; (iii) patents relating to novel compositions and formulations; and (iv) in the United States and certain other countries, market exclusivity that may be available under relevant law. The effect of patent expiration on our product candidates also depends upon many other factors such as the nature of the market and the position of the product in it, the growth of the market, the complexities and economics of the process for manufacture of the active ingredient of the product and the requirements of new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or similar laws and regulations in other countries.

Our pending patent applications cover a range of technologies, including specific embodiments and applications for treatment of various medical indications, improved application methods and adjunctive utilization with other therapeutic modalities. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued. Accordingly, we do not know whether any of the applications we acquire or license will result in the issuance of patents, or, if any patents are issued, whether they will provide significant proprietary protection or will be challenged, circumvented or invalidated. Because unissued U.S. patent applications are maintained in secrecy for a period of eighteen months and U.S. patent applications filed prior to November 29, 2000 are not disclosed until such patents are issued, and since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in opposition proceedings in a foreign patent office, or for United States patent applications filed before March 16, 2013, in interference proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention, or in United States inter partes review or post-grant review procedures, any of which could result in substantial cost to us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. There can be no assurance that the patents, if issued, would be held valid by a court of competent jurisdiction. An adverse outcome could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, require disputed rights to be licensed from third parties or require us to cease using such technology.

We have patents and patent applications in other countries, as well as in the European Patent Office that we believe provide equivalent or comparable protection for our product candidates in jurisdictions internationally that we consider to be key markets. Because of the differences in patent laws and laws concerning proprietary rights, the extent of protection provided by U.S. patents or proprietary rights owned by us may differ from that of their foreign counterparts.

We believe that our patents, the protection of discoveries in connection with our development activities, our proprietary products, technologies, processes and know-how and all of our intellectual property are important to our business. To achieve a competitive position, we rely on trade secrets, non-patented proprietary know-how and continuing technological innovation, where patent protection is not believed to be appropriate or attainable. In addition, as outlined above, we have a number of patent licenses from third parties, some of which important to our business. See “Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research Relationships”. There can be no assurance that any of our patents, licenses or other intellectual property rights will afford us any protection from competition.

Trademarks

Our trademarks are of material importance to our business. We currently have pending with the U.S. PTO, an application for registration of the mark of POLYSTART™. We received notice of the registration of the mark TAPIMMUNE from the U.S. PTO. We also have rights to use other names essential to our business. Federally registered trademarks have a perpetual life, as long as they are maintained and renewed on a timely basis and used properly as trademarks, subject to the rights of third parties to seek cancellation of the trademarks if they claim priority or confusion of usage. We regard our trademarks and other proprietary rights as valuable assets and believe they have significant value to us.

Competition

Our drug discovery, development and ultimate commercialization activities face, and will continue to face, intense competition from organizations such as pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic and research institutions and government agencies. We face significant competition from organizations, particularly fully integrated pharmaceutical companies that are pursuing pharmaceuticals that are competitive with our drug candidates. Management believes that a number of companies, which are developing various types of similar in vivo T-cell immunotherapies and therapeutic cancer vaccines to treat cancer, could be our major competitors including: Advaxis Inc., Genzyme Molecular Oncology, Immune Design, Oncothyreon, Celldex, BN Immunotherapeutics, Immunocellular, Galena BioPharma, Antigen Express, Transgene S. A., and Bavarian Nordic. Other immunotherapy approaches including adoptive T-cell therapies, monoclonal antibodies and checkpoint inhibitors also provide competition in the oncology space. In these areas competitors include, Lion Biotechnology, Juno Therapeutics, (formerly) Kite Pharma, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca plc and Medimmune, LLC. We believe that our in vivo T-cell therapy approaches will be synergistic with these approaches and might even improve them.

Many companies and institutions, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, have substantially greater financial resources, larger drug discovery, development and commercial staffs and significantly greater experience than we do in:

Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection, receiving FDA and other regulatory approval or commercializing products that compete with our drug candidates.

In addition, any drug candidate that we successfully develop may compete with existing therapies that have long histories of safe and effective use. Competition may also arise from:

We face, and will continue to face, intense competition from other companies for collaborative arrangements with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, for establishing relationships with academic and research institutions and for licenses to drug candidates or proprietary technology. These competitors, either alone or with their collaborative partners, may succeed in developing products that are more effective than ours.

Our ability to compete successfully will depend, in part, on our ability to:

In a number of countries, including in particular, developing countries, government officials and other groups have suggested that pharmaceutical companies should make drugs available at a low cost. In some cases, governmental authorities have indicated that where pharmaceutical companies do not do so, their patents might not be enforceable to prevent generic competition. Some major pharmaceutical companies have greatly reduced prices for their drugs in certain developing countries. If certain countries do not permit enforcement of any of our patents, sales of our products in those countries, and in other countries by importation from low-price countries, could be reduced by generic competition or by parallel importation of our product. Alternatively, governments in those countries could require that we grant compulsory licenses to allow competitors to manufacture and sell their own versions of our products in those countries, thereby reducing our product sales, or we could respond to governmental concerns by reducing prices for our products. In all of these situations, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

Government Regulation

Our ongoing research and development activities and any manufacturing and marketing of our drug candidates are subject to extensive regulation by numerous governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. Before marketing in the United States, any drug developed by us must undergo rigorous preclinical testing, clinical trials, and an extensive regulatory clearance process implemented by the FDA under the United States Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and its implementing regulations and, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act. The FDA regulates, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, record-keeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution and import and export, of these products.

FDA Review and Approval Process

The regulatory review and approval process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain. The steps generally required before a drug may be marketed in the United States include:

Similar requirements exist within foreign agencies as well. The time required to satisfy FDA requirements or similar requirements of foreign regulatory agencies may vary substantially based on the type, complexity and novelty of the product or the targeted disease.

Preclinical testing includes laboratory evaluation of product pharmacology, drug metabolism, and toxicity which includes animal studies, to assess potential safety and efficacy as well as product chemistry, stability, formulation, development, and testing. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. An IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time, the FDA raises safety concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial(s) included in the IND. In the latter case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding FDA concerns or questions before clinical trials can proceed. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators and in accordance with good clinical practices regulations covering the protection of human subjects. These regulations require all research subjects to provide informed consent. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND and each trial must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) before it can begin.

Clinical trials typically are conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Phase I usually involves the initial introduction of the investigational drug into healthy volunteers to evaluate its safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism, distribution and excretion. Phase II usually involves clinical trials in a limited patient population to evaluate dosage tolerance and optimal dosage, identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, and evaluate and gain preliminary evidence of the efficacy of the drug for specific indications. Phase III clinical trials usually further evaluate clinical efficacy and safety by testing the drug in its final form in an expanded patient population, providing statistical evidence of efficacy and safety, and providing an adequate basis for labeling. We cannot guarantee that Phase I, Phase II or Phase III testing will be completed successfully within any specified period of time, if at all. Furthermore, we, the IRB, or the FDA may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

As a separate amendment to an IND, a clinical trial sponsor may submit to the FDA a request for a Special Protocol Assessment (“SPA”). Under the SPA procedure, a sponsor may seek the FDA’s agreement on the design and size of a clinical trial intended to form the primary basis of an effectiveness claim. If the FDA agrees in writing, its agreement may not be changed after the trial begins, except when agreed by FDA or in limited circumstances, such as when a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety and effectiveness of a drug candidate is identified after a Phase III clinical trial is commenced and agreement is obtained with the FDA. If the outcome of the trial is successful, the sponsor will ordinarily be able to rely on it as the primary basis for approval with respect to effectiveness. However, additional trials could also be requested by the FDA to support approval, and the FDA may make an approval decision based on a number of factors, including the degree of clinical benefit as well as safety. The FDA is not obligated to approve an NDA or BLA as a result of an SPA agreement, even if the clinical outcome is positive.

Even after initial FDA approval has been obtained, post-approval trials, or Phase IV studies, may be required to provide additional data, and will be required to obtain approval for the sale of a product as a treatment for a clinical indication other than that for which the product was initially tested and approved. Also, the FDA will require post-approval safety reporting to monitor the side effects of the drug. Results of post-approval programs may limit or expand the indication or indications for which the drug product may be marketed. Further, if there are any requests for modifications to the initial FDA approval for the drug, including changes in indication, manufacturing process, manufacturing facilities, or labeling, a supplemental NDA or BLA may be required to be submitted to the FDA.

The length of time and related costs necessary to complete clinical trials varies significantly and may be difficult to predict. Clinical results are frequently susceptible to varying interpretations that may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approvals. Additional factors that can cause delay or termination of our clinical trials, or cause the costs of these clinical trials to increase, include:

Any drug is likely to produce some toxicities or undesirable side effects in animals and in humans when administered at sufficiently high doses and/or for sufficiently long periods of time. Unacceptable toxicities or side effects may occur at any dose level, and at any time in the course of animal studies designed to identify unacceptable effects of a drug candidate, known as toxicological studies, or in clinical trials of our drug candidates. The appearance of any unacceptable toxicity or side effect could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, limit, delay or abort the development of any of our drug candidates, and could ultimately prevent their marketing approval by the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for any or all targeted indications.

The FDA’s fast track and breakthrough therapy designation programs are intended to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drug candidates intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening conditions and that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for these conditions. Under these programs, FDA can, for example, review portions of an NDA or BLA for a drug candidate before the entire application is complete, thus potentially beginning the review process at an earlier time.

We cannot guarantee that the FDA will grant any of our requests for fast track or breakthrough therapy designations, that any such designations would affect the time of review or that the FDA will approve the NDA or BLA submitted for any of our drug candidates, whether or not these designations are granted. Additionally, FDA approval of a fast track/breakthrough product can include restrictions on the product’s use or distribution (such as permitting use only for specified medical conditions or limiting distribution to physicians or facilities with special training or experience). Approval of such designated products can be conditioned on additional clinical trials after approval.

Sponsors submit the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA. NDAs and BLAs must also contain extensive product manufacturing information and proposed labeling. Upon receipt, the FDA initially reviews the NDA or BLA to determine whether it is sufficiently complete to initiate a substantive review. If the FDA identifies deficiencies that would preclude substantive review, the FDA will refuse to accept the NDA or BLA and will inform the sponsor of the deficiencies that must be corrected prior to resubmission. If the FDA accepts the submission for review (then deemed a “filing”), the FDA typically completes the NDA or BLA review within a pre-determined time frame. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA agrees to review NDAs and BLAs under either a standard review or priority review. FDA procedures provide for priority review of NDAs and BLAs submitted for drugs that, compared to currently marketed products, if any, offer a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease. The FDA seeks to review NDAs and BLAs that are granted priority status more quickly than NDAs and BLAs given standard review status. The FDA’s stated policy is to act on 90% of priority NDAs and BLAs within eight months of receipt (or six months after filing, which occurs 60 days after NDA or BLA submission). Although the FDA historically has not met these goals, the agency has made significant improvements in the timeliness of the review process. NDA and BLA review often extends beyond anticipated completion dates due to FDA requests for additional data or clarification, the FDA’s decision to have an advisory committee review, and difficulties in scheduling an advisory committee meeting. The recommendations of an advisory committee are not binding on the FDA.

To obtain FDA approval to market a product, we must demonstrate that the product is safe and effective for the patient population that will be treated. If regulatory approval of a product is granted, the approval will be limited to those disease states and conditions for which the product is safe and effective, as demonstrated through clinical trials. Marketing or promoting a drug for an unapproved indication is prohibited. Furthermore, approval may entail requirements for post-marketing studies or risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, including the need for patient and/or physician education, patient registries, medication or similar guides, or other restrictions on the distribution of the product. If an NDA or BLA does not satisfy applicable regulatory criteria, the FDA may deny approval of an NDA or BLA or may issue a complete response, and require, among other things, additional clinical data or analyses.

In Canada, the Therapeutic Products Directorate and the Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate of HC ensure that clinical trials are properly designed and undertaken and that subjects are not exposed to undue risk. Regulations define specific Investigational New Drug submission (or IND) application requirements, which must be complied with before a new drug can be distributed for trial purposes. The directorates currently review the safety, efficacy and quality data submitted by the sponsor and approve the distribution of the drug to the investigator. The sponsor of the trial is required to maintain accurate records, report adverse drug reactions, and ensure that the investigator adheres to the approved protocol. Trials in humans should be conducted according to generally accepted principles of good clinical practice. Management believes that these standards provide assurance that the data and reported results are credible and accurate, and that the rights, integrity, and privacy of clinical trial subjects are protected.

Sponsors wishing to conduct clinical trials in Phases I through III of development must apply under a 30-day default system. Applications must contain the information described in the regulations, including: a clinical trial attestation; a protocol; statements to be contained in each informed consent form, that set out the risks posed to the health of clinical trial subjects as a result of their participation in the clinical trial; an investigator’s brochure; applicable information on excipients (delivery vehicles); and chemistry and manufacturing information.

The sponsor can proceed with the clinical trial if the directorates have not objected to the sale or importation of the drug within 30 days after the date of receipt of the clinical trial application and Research Ethics Board approval for the conduct of the trial at the site has been obtained. Additional information is available on Health Canada’s website - www.hc-sc.gc.ca .

Outside the United States and Canada, our ability to market a product is contingent upon receiving a marketing authorization from the appropriate regulatory authorities. The requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, marketing authorization, pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. At present, foreign marketing authorizations are applied for at a national level, although within the European Union (“EU”) registration procedures are available to companies wishing to market a product in more than one EU member state. If the regulatory authority is satisfied that adequate evidence of safety, quality and efficacy has been presented, a marketing authorization may be granted. This foreign regulatory approval process involves all of the risks associated with FDA approval discussed above and may also include additional risks.

The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to manufacturers to develop and market drugs for rare diseases and conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States at the time of application for orphan drug designation. The first developer to receive FDA marketing approval for an orphan drug is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for the orphan drug indication. However, a drug that the FDA considers to be clinically superior to, or different from, another approved orphan drug, even though for the same indication, may also obtain approval in the United States during the seven-year exclusive marketing period.

Under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, designation as a Fast Track product for a new drug or biological product means that the FDA will take such actions as are appropriate to expedite the development and review of the application for approval of such product.

Legislation similar to the Orphan Drug Act has been enacted in other countries outside of the United States, including the EU. The orphan legislation in the EU is available for therapies addressing conditions that affect five or fewer out of 10,000 persons, are life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions and for which no satisfactory treatment is authorized. The market exclusivity period is for ten years, although that period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, available evidence establishes that the product does not justify maintenance of market exclusivity.

Regulation of Manufacturing Process

Even when NDA or BLA approval is obtained, a marketed product, its manufacturer and its manufacturing facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA. The manufacturing process for pharmaceutical products is highly regulated and regulators may shut down manufacturing facilities that they believe do not comply with regulations. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, manufacturer or facility may result in restrictions on the product, manufacturer or facility, including costly recalls or withdrawal of the product from the market. Manufacturing facilities are always subject to inspection by the applicable regulatory authorities.

We and our third-party manufacturers are subject to current Good Manufacturing Practices (“GMP”), which are extensive regulations governing manufacturing processes, including but not limited to stability testing, record keeping and quality standards as defined by the FDA and the European Medicines Agency. Similar regulations are in effect in other countries. Manufacturing facilities are subject to inspection by the applicable regulatory authorities. These facilities, whether our own or our contract manufacturers, must be inspected before we can use them in commercial manufacturing of our related products. We or our contract manufacturers may not be able to comply with applicable GMP and FDA or other regulatory requirements. If we or our contract manufacturers fail to comply, we or our contract manufacturers may be subject to legal or regulatory action, such as suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, or voluntary recall of product. Furthermore, continued compliance with applicable Good Manufacturing Practices will require continual expenditure of time, money and effort on the part of us or our contract manufacturers in the areas of production and quality control and record keeping and reporting, in order to ensure full compliance.

Post-Approval Regulation

Any products manufactured or distributed by us pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the drug and other reporting, advertising and promotion restrictions. The FDA’s rules for advertising and promotion require, among other things, that our promotion be fairly balanced and adequately substantiated by clinical studies, and that we not promote our products for unapproved uses. We must also submit appropriate new and supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. On its own initiative, the FDA may require changes to the labeling of an approved drug if it becomes aware of new safety information that the agency believes should be included in the approved drug’s labeling. The FDA also enforces the requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act (“PDMA”) which, among other things, imposes various requirements in connection with the distribution of product samples to physicians.

In addition to inspections related to manufacturing, we may be subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and other regulatory bodies related to the other regulatory requirements that apply to marketed drugs manufactured or distributed by us. The FDA also may conduct periodic inspections regarding our review and reporting of adverse events, or related to compliance with the requirements of the PDMA concerning the handling of drug samples. When the FDA conducts an inspection, the inspectors will identify any deficiencies they believe exist in the form of a notice of inspectional observations. The observations may be more or less significant. If we receive a notice of inspectional observations, we likely will be required to respond in writing, and may be required to undertake corrective and preventive actions in order to address the FDA’s concerns.

There are a variety of state laws and regulations that apply in the states or localities where our drug candidates may be marketed. For example, we must comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of pharmaceutical products in that state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Any applicable state or local regulations may hinder our ability to market, or increase the cost of marketing, our products in those states or localities.

The FDA’s policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted which could impose additional burdens or limitations on our ability to market products after approval. Moreover, increased attention to the containment of health care costs in the United States and in foreign markets could result in new government regulations which could have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse governmental regulation which might arise from future legislative or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad.

Marketing Exclusivity

The FDA may grant five years of exclusivity in the United States for the approval of NDAs for new chemical entities, and three years of exclusivity for supplemental NDAs, for among other things, new indications, dosages or dosage forms of an existing drug if new clinical investigations that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are essential to the approval of the supplemental application. Additionally, six months of marketing exclusivity in the United States is available if, in response to a written request from the FDA, a sponsor submits and the agency accepts requested information relating to the use of the approved drug in the pediatric population. The six-month pediatric exclusivity is added to any existing patent or non-patent exclusivity period for which the drug is eligible. Orphan drug products are also eligible for pediatric exclusivity if the FDA requests and the company completes pediatric clinical trials. Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, the FDA may grant 12 years of data exclusivity for innovative biological products.

Health Law Compliance

In addition to FDA laws and regulations, we must also comply with various federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to healthcare “fraud and abuse” laws which govern, among other things, our relationships with healthcare providers, and organizations such as specialty pharmacies, wholesalers and group purchasing organizations relating to the marketing and pricing of prescription drug products. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, and physician payment sunshine laws.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf) to knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, lease of any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. 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 Anti-Kickback Statute has been violated.

Federal false claims and false statement laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Entities can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers, promoting a product off-label, or for providing medically unnecessary services or items.

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, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, require certain types of individuals and entities to protect the privacy, security, and electronic exchange of certain patient data.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to CMS ownership and investment interests held by the physicians and their immediate family members.

Analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers. Additionally, we may be subject to state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government. Further, we may be subject to state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures, as well as state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these federal, state or foreign laws or regulations, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, administrative or civil penalties, imprisonment, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, or the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

There are also an increasing number of state laws that require manufacturers to make reports to those states on certain pricing and marketing information. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. Given the lack of clarity in laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the state authorities.

Healthcare Reform and Reimbursement and Pricing Controls

There has been an increased focus on drug pricing in recent years in the United States. Although there are no direct government price controls over private sector purchases in the United States, there are rebates and other financial requirements for federal and state health care programs. The Medicare Modernization Act, enacted in December 2003, established the Medicare Part D outpatient prescription drug benefit, which is provided primarily through private entities that attempt to negotiate price concessions from pharmaceutical manufacturers. The health care reform legislation enacted in 2010, known as the Affordable Care Act, requires drug manufacturers to pay 50% of the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the “donut hole,” on prescriptions for branded products filled when the beneficiary reaches this coverage. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 resulted in changes to the way drug prices are reported to the government and the formula using such information to calculate the required Medicaid rebates. The Affordable Care Act increased the minimum basic Medicaid rebate for branded prescription drugs from 15.1% to 23.1% and requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay states rebates on prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid managed care enrollees. In addition, the Affordable Care Act increased the additional Medicaid rebate on “line extensions” (such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, revised the definition of average manufacturer price by changing the classes of purchasers included in the calculation, and expanded the entities eligible for discounted pricing under the federal 340B drug pricing program. Current orphan drugs are excluded from the expanded 340B hospitals eligible for discounts.

The Affordable Care Act imposes a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products. The fee (which is not deductible for federal income tax purposes) is based on the manufacturer’s market share of sales of branded drugs and biologics (excluding orphan drugs) to, or pursuant to coverage under, specified U.S. government programs. The Affordable Care Act also contains a number of provisions, including provisions governing the way that health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, enrollment in federal health care programs, reimbursement changes, the increased use of comparative effectiveness research in health care decision-making, and enhancements to fraud and abuse requirements and enforcement, that are affecting existing government health care programs and will result in the development of new programs. The Affordable Care Act also contains requirements for manufacturers to publicly report certain payments or other transfers of value made to physicians and teaching hospitals. We are unable to predict the future course of federal or state health care legislation and regulations, including regulations that will be issued to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act and further changes in the law or regulatory framework that reduce our revenues or increase our costs could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows.

Public and private health care payors control costs and influence drug pricing through a variety of mechanisms, including through negotiating discounts with the manufacturers and through the use of tiered formularies and other mechanisms that provide preferential access to certain drugs over others within a therapeutic class. Payors also set other criteria to govern the uses of a drug that will be deemed medically appropriate and therefore reimbursed or otherwise covered. Payors may require physicians to seek approval from them before a product will be reimbursed or covered, commonly referred to as prior authorization. In particular, many public and private health care payors limit reimbursement and coverage to the uses of a drug that are either approved by the FDA or appear in a recognized drug compendium. Drug compendia are publications that summarize the available medical evidence for particular drug products and identify which uses of a drug are supported or not supported by the available evidence, whether or not such uses have been approved by the FDA. For example, in the case of Medicare Part D coverage for oncology drugs, the Medicare Modernization Act, with certain exceptions, provides for Medicare coverage of unapproved uses of an FDA-approved drug if the unapproved use is reasonable and necessary and is supported by one or more citations in CMS-approved compendia, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Drugs and Biologics Compendium. Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. For example, in the European Union, governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of such products to consumers. The approach taken varies from member state to member state. Some jurisdictions operate positive or negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits and may limit or restrict reimbursement. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, and prescription drugs in particular, has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products, as exemplified by the actions of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom, which evaluates the data supporting new medicines and passes reimbursement recommendations to the government. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets (parallel imports) exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

Manufacturing

Our manufacturing strategy is to contract with third parties to manufacture the raw materials, our active pharmaceutical ingredients (“API”) and finished solid dose products for clinical and ultimately commercial uses. We currently do not operate manufacturing facilities for clinical or commercial production our drug candidates. In addition, we expect for the foreseeable future to continue to rely on third parties for the manufacture of commercial supplies of the raw materials, API and finished drug product for any drugs that we successfully develop and are approved for commercial sale. In this manner, we expect to continue to build and maintain our supply chain and quality assurance resources.

Manufacturing of our Products

Our supply chain for manufacturing raw materials, API and drug product ready for distribution and commercialization is a multi-step international process. Establishing and managing the supply chain requires a significant financial commitment and the creation and maintenance of numerous third-party contractual relationships.

We contract with third parties to manufacture our drug candidates for clinical purposes. Third-party manufacturers supply us with raw materials, and other third-party manufacturers convert these raw materials into API or convert the API into final dosage form. For most of our drug candidates, once our raw materials are produced, we rely on one third party to manufacture the API, another to make finished drug product and a third to lyophilize, package and label the finished product. While we currently have focused on single vendors for manufacturing of peptide, formulation development, and lyophilization and vialing, there are a number of vendors we are in contact with and can also use if required.

We may not be able to obtain sufficient quantities of any of our raw materials or drug candidates if our designated manufacturers do not have the capacity or capability to manufacture our products according to our schedule and specifications. If any of these single source suppliers were to become unable or unwilling to supply us with API or finished product that complies with applicable regulatory requirements, we could incur significant delays in our clinical trials which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We have established a quality assurance program intended to ensure that our third-party manufacturers and service providers produce materials and provide services, when applicable, in accordance with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices and other applicable regulations.

For our future products, we intend to continue to establish third-party suppliers to manufacture sufficient quantities of our drug candidates to undertake clinical trials and to manufacture sufficient quantities of any product that is approved for commercial sale. If we are unable to contract for large scale manufacturing with third parties on acceptable terms for our future products or develop manufacturing capabilities internally, our ability to conduct large scale clinical trials and ultimately meet customer demand for commercial products will be adversely affected.

Third-party Manufacturers

Our third-party manufacturers are independent entities, under contract with us, who are subject to their own unique operational and financial risks which are out of our control. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to perform as required, this could impair our ability to deliver our products on a timely basis or cause delays in our clinical trials and applications for regulatory approval. To the extent that these risks materialize and affect their performance obligations to us, our financial results may be adversely affected.

While we believe there are multiple third parties capable of providing most of the materials and services we need in order to manufacture our product candidates, and that supply of materials that cannot be second-sourced can be managed with inventory planning, there is always a risk that we may underestimate demand, and that our manufacturing capacity through third-party manufacturers may not be sufficient.

Access to Supplies and Materials

Our third-party manufacturers need access to certain supplies and products to manufacture our drug candidates. If delivery of material from their suppliers were interrupted for any reason or if they are unable to purchase sufficient quantities of raw materials used to manufacture our drug candidates, they may be unable to supply our drug candidates in development for clinical trials.

Research and Development

Since our inception, we have made substantial investments in research and technology development. During the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we incurred research and development expenses of approximately $5.3 million, and $3.8 million, respectively.

Product Liability and Insurance

Once we are able to commence the sale of our products into the market, we will face the risk of product liability claims. Because we are not yet selling our products, we have not experienced any product liability claims to date. Management maintains products and clinical trial liability insurance policies. There can be no assurance that liability claims will not exceed such insurance coverage limits, which could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations or that such insurance will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms, if at all.

Human Resources

Employees

We currently have seven full-time employees. The management team is comprised of Peter Hoang (President and Chief Executive Officer), Dr. Glynn Wilson (Strategy Advisor), Michael J. Loiacono (Chief Financial Officer), Dr. Robert Florkiewicz (Senior Director of Molecular Biology & Virology) and a Director of Administration. Additionally, we employ a Director of Manufacturing and an Investor Relations Manager.

Consultants

We have consulting agreements with a number of leading academic scientists, clinicians and regulatory experts. These individuals serve as key consultants or expert witnesses with respect to the imetelstat program or in legal proceedings. They also serve as important contacts for us throughout the broader scientific and clinical communities. They are distinguished individuals with expertise in numerous fields, including cellular biology, molecular biology, oncology, clinical, manufacturing and regulatory. Dr. Richard Kenney serves as our Acting Medical Director in a consulting capacity.

We retain each consultant according to the terms of a consulting agreement. Under such agreements, we pay them a consulting fee and reimburse them for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in performing their services for us. In addition, some consultants hold options to purchase our common stock, subject to the vesting requirements contained in separate award agreements. Our consultants may be employed by other entities and therefore may have commitments to their employer, or may have other consulting or advisory agreements that may limit their availability to us.

Available Information

Our website is located at www.tapimmune.com . 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, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file or furnish such materials to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not intended to be incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K.