Exhibit 99.1

Overview of Ocular Therapeutix

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for diseases and conditions of the eye using our proprietary hydrogel platform technology. Our bioresorbable hydrogel-based drug product candidates are designed to provide extended delivery of therapeutic agents to the eye. Our lead product candidates are DEXTENZA (dexamethasone insert), for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain, allergic conjunctivitis and inflammatory dry eye disease, and OTX-TP, for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension, which are extended delivery, drug-eluting inserts that are placed into the canaliculus through a natural opening called the punctum located in the inner portion of the eyelid near the nose. Our intracanalicular inserts combine our hydrogel technology with U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approved therapeutic agents with the goal of providing extended delivery of drug to the eye. We also have an intravitreal hydrogel depot which is in preclinical development for the treatment of diseases and conditions of the back of the eye, including wet age-related macular degeneration, or wet AMD. Our intravitreal depot is designed to be delivered via intravitreal injection to release therapeutic agents, such as antibodies to vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, over an extended period. We have entered into a collaboration, option and license with Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Regeneron, for the development and potential commercialization of products containing our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds, with the initial focus on the VEGF trap aflibercept, currently marketed under the brand name Eylea. In addition to our ongoing product development, we currently market our first commercial product, ReSure Sealant, a hydrogel-based ophthalmic wound sealant approved by the FDA to seal corneal incisions following cataract surgery. ReSure Sealant is the first and only surgical sealant to be approved by the FDA for ophthalmic use.

Poor patient compliance with eye drop regimens and the need for frequent administration of eye drops at high drug concentrations due to rapid washout by the tears can create challenges in the successful management of ocular diseases and conditions. For example, poor patient compliance can lead to diminished efficacy and disease progression and high drug concentrations can create side effects. We are developing therapies to replace standard of care eye drop regimens with our innovative extended-delivery, drug-eluting intracanalicular inserts, which we formerly referred to as punctum plugs. Our intracanalicular inserts are designed to release a therapeutic agent to the surface of the eye over an extended period. The goal for our intracanalicular depot product candidates is to change the management of many front-of-the-eye diseases and conditions from frequent, pulsed eye drop therapy, characterized by significant variations in drug concentration over time, to longer term, extended delivery of therapeutic agents to improve patient outcomes.

DEXTENZA

Our most advanced product candidate, DEXTENZA, incorporates the FDA-approved corticosteroid dexamethasone as an active pharmaceutical ingredient into a hydrogel-based drug-eluting insert for intracanalicular use. In September 2015, we submitted to the FDA a New Drug Application, or NDA, for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain. On July 25, 2016, we announced that we had received a Complete Response Letter, or CRL, from the FDA regarding our NDA for DEXTENZA. In the CRL, the concerns raised by the FDA pertained to deficiencies in manufacturing process and controls identified during a pre-NDA approval inspection of our manufacturing facility performed by the FDA New England District Office, or the District Office, in February 2016 that were documented on FDA Form 483. The CRL did not identify any efficacy or safety concerns with respect to the clinical data provided in the NDA nor any need for additional clinical trials for the approval of the NDA. In November 2016, we received notice from the District Office accepting that our responses satisfactorily addressed the remaining corrective actions in the Form 483. We have had ongoing communications with the FDA, including the District Office and offices within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, including the Office of Process and Facilities, with regard to manufacturing issues and our plans for a resubmission to the NDA. In October 2016, we met with the FDA to discuss our plans for resubmission to the NDA and to attempt to gain clarity on the likelihood of a re-inspection of our manufacturing facility. The FDA indicated that a decision as to whether a re-inspection is needed will be made during its review of our resubmission. We anticipate the resubmission to the NDA in December 2016 and plan to include the letter from the District Office accepting that our responses satisfactorily addressed the remaining corrective actions in the Form 483 in our resubmission. Adequate resolution of the Form 483 manufacturing deficiencies with the District Office is a prerequisite to the approval of the

NDA for DEXTENZA, although the final decision as to the adequacy of our manufacturing processes is made by CDER, with input from the Office of Process and Facilities, as part of the NDA review process. We anticipate that the FDA will classify the resubmission of our NDA and determine whether a re-inspection is needed within 30 days of the NDA resubmission date. We expect that a decision by the FDA to conduct a re-inspection of our manufacturing facility would result in a classification of the resubmission to the NDA as a class 2, or major review, and would take up to six months to complete. If no re-inspection is needed, we expect the FDA to classify the NDA resubmission as a class 1, or minor review, and take up to two months to complete.

In March and April 2015, we reported topline results from two Phase 3 clinical trials of DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain. The data from these two completed Phase 3 clinical trials and a prior Phase 2 clinical trial are being used to support our NDA for post-surgical ocular pain. In the first Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met both primary efficacy endpoints, absence of pain in the study eye at day 8 and absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye at day 14, with statistical significance. In the second Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met the primary efficacy endpoint for absence of pain at day 8 with statistical significance but did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint for absence of inflammatory cells at day 14. In November 2016, we reported topline results from a third Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain. In this third Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met both primary efficacy endpoints, absence of pain at day 8 and absence of inflammatory cells at day 14, with statistical significance. See “— Recent Developments” below for more information regarding this third Phase 3 clinical trial. Subject to receiving approval for the pain indication pursuant to the initial NDA, we plan to submit an NDA supplement for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation.

DEXTENZA is also in Phase 3 clinical development for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. We announced topline results of our first Phase 3 clinical trial for allergic conjunctivitis in October 2015 and in We announced topline results of our second Phase 3 clinical trial for this indication in June 2016. We met the primary efficacy endpoint for ocular itching in the first Phase 3 trial but did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint for conjunctival redness in this trial. We did not meet the sole primary endpoint for ocular itching in the second Phase 3 trial. Certain post-hoc analyses of the second Phase 3 trial for DEXTENZA for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis have led us to believe that a placebo insert which is present through the timepoints chosen as the primary efficacy endpoints may enhance the performance of the placebo. As such, we believe a fast-resorbing placebo insert may lessen the placebo response we observed in the completed Phase 3 trial. Although post-hoc analyses performed using an unlocked clinical trial database can result in the introduction of bias, we believe that these analyses provide important information regarding DEXTENZA. We have completed the design of a fast-resorbing placebo insert and plan to conduct a non-significant risk study in humans in the first half of 2017 with a clinical research organization comparing this insert to the longer resorbing insert used in our DEXTENZA trials. Depending on the results of this study, we may incorporate a longer resorbing insert into the placebo arm of a future Phase 3 clinical trial. In the second Phase 3 clinical trial, as well as other DEXTENZA clinical trials completed to date regardless of indication, DEXTENZA has exhibited a strong safety profile and has been generally well-tolerated. There were no serious adverse events observed in the second Phase 3 clinical trial.

Finally, DEXTENZA is in Phase 2 clinical development for the treatment of inflammatory dry eye disease. We announced topline results from an exploratory Phase 2 clinical trial for this indication in December 2015. We are assessing our plans for our dry eye program going forward and may focus future efforts on an intracanalicular insert containing an immunosuppressant drug.

If our NDA for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain is approved by the FDA in the first half of 2017, we expect to commercially launch this product in the United States in the second half of 2017. We expect to sell DEXTENZA in the United States through a direct sales force, although we plan to use a contract sales organization, or CSO, to initially hire and deploy this sales force. We intend to prepare for the commercialization process by conducting surgical demonstrations to key surgeons and educating them on the potential benefits of DEXTENZA. We may also supplement the sales force with a co-promotional arrangement with another ophthalmology company with an existing sales force. We expect to apply for a transitional pass-through reimbursement status code from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain. We would expect pass-through reimbursement status to remain in effect for three years if we receive this status code. We expect to submit to the CMS for a J code for DEXTENZA for the treatment of other indications, including allergic conjunctivitis, if we receive marketing approval from the FDA for these indications.

OTX-TP

Our second product candidate, OTX-TP, incorporates travoprost, an FDA-approved prostaglandin analog that reduces elevated intraocular pressure, or IOP, as its active pharmaceutical ingredient, into a hydrogel-based drug-eluting intracanalicular insert. OTX-TP is being developed as a treatment for glaucoma and ocular hypertension. We reported topline results from a Phase 2b clinical trial for this indication in October 2015. We completed an End-of-Phase 2 review with the FDA in April 2016 and initiated the first of two Phase 3 clinical trials of OTX-TP in September 2016. We expect each of the two Phase 3 trials to enroll approximately 550 patients at 50 sites in the United States. Based on the feedback from the FDA, the Phase 3 clinical trial design will include an OTX-TP treatment arm and a placebo-controlled comparator arm that will use a non-drug eluting hydrogel-based intracanalicular insert. There will not be a requirement for either a timolol comparator or a validation arm. No eye drops, placebo or active, will be administered in either the OTX-TP treatment arm or the placebo-controlled arm. The primary efficacy endpoint will be superiority in the reduction of IOP from baseline in the OTX-TP treatment arm compared to the placebo arm at three diurnal time points at each of three measurement dates, including 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 12 weeks. We expect that the FDA will require that OTX-TP show both a statistically superior reduction of intraocular pressure, when compared to the placebo, as a primary efficacy endpoint, and a clinically meaningful reduction of intraocular pressure in the absolute prior to granting marketing approval.

Back-of-the-eye Program

In addition to DEXTENZA and OTX-TP, we are engaged in the preclinical development of our hydrogel depot administered via intravitreal injection to address the large and growing markets for diseases and conditions of the back of the eye. Our initial development efforts are focused on the use of our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with anti-angiogenic drugs, such as protein-based anti-VEGF drugs or small molecule anti-angiogenic drugs, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or TKIs, for the treatment of retinal diseases such as wet AMD, retinal vein occlusion and diabetic macular edema. Our initial goal for this program is to provide extended delivery of a protein-based large molecule or small molecule TKI drug targeting VEGF over a four to six month period following administration of a bioresorbable hydrogel incorporating the drug by an injection into the vitreous humor, thereby reducing the frequency of the current monthly or bi-monthly intravitreal injection regimen for wet AMD and other retinal diseases.

Regeneron Collaboration

In October 2016, we entered into a strategic collaboration, option and license agreement, or Collaboration Agreement, with Regeneron, for the development and potential commercialization of products containing our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds for the treatment of retinal diseases, with the initial focus on the VEGF trap aflibercept, currently marketed under the brand name Eylea. The Collaboration Agreement does not cover the development of any products that deliver small molecule drugs, including TKIs, or deliver large molecule drugs other than those that target VEGF proteins. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we and Regeneron have agreed to conduct a joint research program with the aim of developing an extended delivery formulation of aflibercept that is suitable for advancement into clinical development. A joint research committee comprised of an equal number of representatives from each of Regeneron and us is responsible for reviewing, approving and overseeing the parties’ research and development activities with respect to licensed product candidates and making any modifications to those activities. In general, Regeneron has final decision making authority over matters on which the joint research committee deadlocks, following escalation to designated executive officer representatives of the parties, except for matters that would impose a material increase in costs or obligations on us beyond those costs and obligations included in the mutually agreed collaboration plan. We granted Regeneron an option, or the Option, to enter into an exclusive, worldwide license under our intellectual property to develop and commercialize products containing our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds, or Licensed Products.

If the Option is exercised, Regeneron will conduct further preclinical development and an initial clinical trial under a collaboration plan. We are obligated to reimburse Regeneron for certain development costs during the period through the completion of the initial clinical trial, subject to a cap of $25 million, which cap may be increased

by up to $5 million under certain circumstances. Regeneron will be responsible for funding an initial preclinical tolerability study. We do not expect our funding requirements to be material over the next twelve months. If Regeneron elects to proceed with further development beyond the initial clinical trial, it will be solely responsible for conducting and funding further development and commercialization of product candidates. If the Option is exercised, Regeneron is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to research, develop and commercialize at least one Licensed Product. Such efforts shall include initiating the dosing phase of a subsequent clinical trial within specified time periods following the completion of the first-in-human clinical trial or the initiation of preclinical toxicology studies, subject to certain extensions.

Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, Regeneron has agreed to pay us $10 million upon exercise of the Option. We are also eligible to receive up to $145 million per Licensed Product upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones, $100 million per Licensed Product upon first commercial sale of such Licensed Product and up to $50 million based on the achievement of specified sales milestones for all Licensed Products. In addition, we are entitled to tiered, escalating royalties, in a range from a high-single digit to a low-to-mid teen percentage of net sales of Licensed Products.

ReSure

Following our receipt of FDA approval for ReSure Sealant, we commercially launched this product in the United States in 2014 through a network of ophthalmology-focused distributors. ReSure Sealant is approved to seal corneal incisions following cataract surgery and is the first and only surgical sealant to be approved by the FDA for ophthalmic use. In the pivotal clinical trials that formed the basis for FDA approval, ReSure Sealant provided superior wound closure and a better safety profile than sutured closure.

Market Background

Our clinical stage product candidates and our marketed product are based on a proprietary bioresorbable hydrogel technology platform that uses polyethylene glycol, or PEG, as a key component. Bioresorbable materials gradually break down in the body into non-toxic, water soluble compounds that are cleared by normal biological processes. PEG is used in many pharmaceutical products and is widely considered to be safe and biocompatible. Our technology platform allows us to tailor the physical properties, drug release profiles and bioresorption rates of our hydrogels to meet the needs of specific clinical indications. We have used this platform to engineer each of our intracanalicular insert product candidates, ReSure Sealant and our intravitreal depot. Our technical capabilities include a deep understanding of the polymer chemistry of PEG-based hydrogels and the design of the specialized manufacturing processes required to achieve a reliable, preservative free and high purity product.

Our product candidates target large and growing markets. Transparency Market Research, a provider of business information reports and services, estimates that the annual worldwide market for ophthalmic medications was $16 billion as of 2012 and is expected to increase to $21.6 billion by 2018.

We have in-licensed all of the patent rights and a significant portion of the technology for ReSure Sealant and our hydrogel platform technology product candidates from Incept, LLC, or Incept, an intellectual property holding company. Amarpreet Sawhney, our President and Chief Executive Officer, is a general partner of Incept and has a 50% ownership stake in Incept.

Our founders and management team have significant experience in developing and commercializing medical products for other companies using bioresorbable hydrogel technology, including FDA-approved and currently marketed medical products such as DuraSeal Dural Sealant® (marketed by Integra Lifesciences, Inc.), a sealant for cranial and spine surgery, and Mynx® (marketed by Cardinal Health, Inc.), a sealant for femoral artery punctures after angiography and angioplasty. Dr. Sawhney was the founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of Confluent Surgical, Inc., the company that developed and commercialized the DuraSeal Dural Sealant and was the technology founder of AccessClosure, Inc., the company that developed and commercialized Mynx.

Product Pipeline

The following table summarizes the status of our key product development programs and our marketed product. We hold worldwide exclusive commercial rights to the core technology underlying all of our products in development.

Recent Developments

In November 2016, we reported topline results from a third Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain. This third Phase 3 clinical trial was a prospective, randomized, parallel-arm, vehicle-controlled, multicenter, double-masked trial. We enrolled 438 patients in this trial who were undergoing clear corneal cataract surgery at 21 sites in the United States. Immediately following surgery, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either DEXTENZA or a placebo vehicle control intracanalicular insert without active drug. We evaluated patients at days 2, 4, 8, 14, 30 and 45. As in the first two Phase 3 clinical trials, the two primary efficacy measures in the third Phase 3 clinical trial were absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye when measured with a slit lamp biomicroscope and absence of pain in the study eye. To meet the efficacy endpoint for absence of inflammatory cells, there needed to be a complete absence of inflammatory cells. Absence of pain was based on a patient reported score of zero on a scale from zero to ten of ocular pain assessment. The first primary efficacy endpoint was the difference in the proportion of patients in each treatment group with absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye at day 14. The second primary efficacy endpoint was the difference in the proportion of patients in each treatment group with absence of pain in the study eye at day 8. For clarification of the endpoints, the day of surgery and insertion of DEXTENZA or the placebo is considered to be day 1.

We evaluated as secondary efficacy measures the absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye and absence of pain in the study eye at each evaluation date other than the day used for the primary efficacy measure and also the level of flare in the anterior chamber of the study eye. The secondary analyses on primary efficacy measures were intended to be exploratory assessments that can be used to support the results from the primary endpoints.

In this trial, DEXTENZA successfully met its two primary efficacy endpoints for inflammation and pain, achieving statistically significant differences between the treatment group and the placebo group for the absence of inflammatory cells on day 14 and the absence of pain on day 8, respectively. Of patients treated with DEXTENZA, 52.3% showed an absence of inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber of the study eye on day 14, compared to 31.1% of those receiving the placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts (p< 0.0001). Of patients treated with

DEXTENZA, 79.6% reported absence of pain in the study eye on day 8, compared to 61.3% of those receiving the placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts (p< 0.0001). Secondary analyses on the primary efficacy measures have also been completed. DEXTENZA achieved each of the secondary endpoints related to absence of inflammatory cells and absence of pain with statistical significance compared to placebo at each of the pre-specified timepoints, with the exception of the endpoint for the absence of inflammatory cells at day 2 (which is the day following surgery). Additional secondary endpoints including flare, as well as an assessment of all safety data, continue to be evaluated.

There were no serious adverse events observed in this Phase 3 clinical trial that were considered treatment-related by the trial investigator. There were three patients that experienced a serious adverse event in the DEXTENZA treatment group (1.4% incidence), consisting of lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage, retinal detachment and acute cardiac failure. There were two patients that experienced a serious adverse event in the vehicle control group (0.9% incidence), consisting of nephrolithiasis and hypoxia. No patients experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event leading to withdrawal from the trial. There were 63 adverse events noted in the DEXTENZA group and 86 adverse events noted in the vehicle control group. The most common ocular treatment-emergent adverse events consisted of eye inflammation and increased ocular pressure (defined as an increase greater than 10mm Hg). There were 18 patients (8.3% incidence) in the DEXTENZA group and 45 patients (20.4% incidence) in the vehicle control group with eye inflammation. There were 16 patients (7.4% incidence) in the DEXTENZA group and 6 patients (2.7% incidence) in the vehicle control group with increased intraocular pressure. All of the patients in the DEXTENZA group who experienced increased intraocular pressure had an onset at day 2, which is believed to be related to the surgical procedure, and only two patients in the DEXTENZA group experienced persistent increased intraocular pressure greater than 10mm Hg beyond day 2.

Exhibit 99.2 to OCUL 8-K

RISK FACTORS

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. (“we”, “us”, or “our”) is filing information for the purposes of updating and superseding the risk factor disclosure contained in its prior public filings, including those previously set forth in Part II, Item IA, “Risk Factors” of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 10, 2016, and its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015, filed with the SEC on November 9, 2016.

You should carefully consider the following risk factors, in addition to other information included in our other filings with the SEC, in evaluating us and our business. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we presently deem less significant may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need For Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. We expect to incur losses over the next several years and may never achieve or maintain profitability.

Since inception, we have incurred significant operating losses. Our net losses were $28.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2014, $39.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2015 and $31.9 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016. As of September 30, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $161.1 million. Through September 30, 2016, we have financed our operations primarily through private placements of our preferred stock, public offerings of our common stock and borrowings under credit facilities. In June 2015, we completed a follow-on offering of our common stock, which resulted in the sale of 4,600,000 shares consisting of 3,200,000 shares being sold by us and 1,400,000 shares being sold by certain stockholders of the Company, including those shares sold in connection with the exercise by the underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares. We received net proceeds from the follow-on offering of approximately $65.6 million after deducting underwriting discounts and offering costs. In the first quarter of 2014, we began recognizing revenue from sales of ReSure Sealant, which was approved in January 2014 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, to seal clear corneal incisions following cataract surgery. We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to research and development, including preclinical studies and clinical trials and, beginning in the first quarter of 2014, commercialization of ReSure Sealant. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year.

We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

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

ReSure Sealant is currently our only source of revenue from product sales. We do not expect sales of ReSure Sealant to generate revenue that is sufficient for us to achieve profitability. Instead, for us to become and remain profitable, we will need to succeed in developing and commercializing products with greater market potential. This will require us or our current or future collaborators to be successful in a range of challenging activities, including:

We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenue that is sufficient or great enough to achieve profitability. In July 2016, we received a Complete Response Letter, or CRL, from the FDA regarding our new drug application, or NDA, for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain. In the CRL, the concerns raised by the FDA pertain to deficiencies in manufacturing process and controls identified during a pre-NDA approval inspection of our manufacturing facility performed by the FDA New England District Office, or the District Office, in February 2016 that were documented on FDA Form 483. In November 2016, we received notice from the District Office accepting that our responses satisfactorily addressed the remaining corrective actions in the Form 483. Since receiving the CRL, we have also had ongoing communications with the FDA, including the New England District Office and offices within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, including the Office of Process and Facilities, with regard to the manufacturing issues and our plan for a resubmission of our NDA. In October 2016, we met with the FDA to discuss plans for resubmission to the NDA and to attempt to gain clarity on the likelihood of a re-inspection of our manufacturing facility. The FDA indicated that a decision as to

whether a re-inspection is needed will be made during its review of our resubmission. We anticipate the resubmission to the NDA in December 2016 and plan to include the letter from the District Office accepting that our responses satisfactorily addressed the remaining corrective actions in the Form 483 in our resubmission. Adequate resolution of the Form 483 manufacturing deficiencies with the District Office is a prerequisite to the approval of the NDA for DEXTENZA, although the final decision as to the adequacy of our manufacturing processes is made by CDER, with input from the Office of Process and Facilities, as part of the NDA review process. We anticipate that the FDA will classify the resubmission of our NDA and determine whether a re-inspection is needed within 30 days of the NDA resubmission date. We expect that a decision by the FDA to conduct a re-inspection of our manufacturing facility would result in a classification of the resubmission to the NDA as a class 2, or major review, and would take up to six months to complete. If no re-inspection is needed, we expect the FDA to classify the NDA resubmission as a class 1, or minor review, and take up to two months to complete. While the FDA has indicated to us it intends to classify the resubmission to the NDA as a class 1 or class 2 resubmission, it is not required to use such classifications for our resubmission and it is possible that review by the FDA could take as long as our initial NDA review cycle of 10 months, or longer if additional issues are identified. We will need to resolve the issues in the CRL and obtain approval upon resubmission of our NDA before we can commercialize and begin to generate revenue from sales of DEXTENZA.

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 depress the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our product offerings or even continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our stockholders to lose all or part of their investment.

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

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

As of September 30, 2016, we had cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities of $75.7 million. Based on our current plans and forecasted expenses, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities will enable us to fund our operating expenses, debt service obligations and capital expenditure requirements into the fourth quarter of 2017. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. We may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory approval of products with the market potential sufficient to enable us to achieve profitability. We do not expect to generate significant revenue from sales of any product for several years, if at all. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional financing to achieve our business objectives. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations, even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

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

Until such time, if ever, as we can generate product revenues sufficient to achieve profitability, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of revenue from sales of ReSure Sealant and potential payments under our collaboration with Regeneron, equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements and marketing and distribution arrangements. We do not have any committed external source of funds other than the amounts we are entitled to receive from Regeneron for potential option exercise, development, regulatory and sales milestones and royalty payments under our collaboration. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our stockholders’ ownership interests will be diluted, and the terms of these securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our existing stockholders’ rights as holders of our common stock. Debt financing and preferred equity financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. Our pledge of our assets as collateral to secure our obligations under our credit facility may limit our ability to obtain additional debt financing.

If we raise additional funds through collaborations, strategic alliances, licensing arrangements or marketing and distribution arrangements, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, future revenue streams, research programs or product candidates or grant licenses on terms that may not be favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds through equity or debt financings when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market products or product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Our substantial indebtedness may limit cash flow available to invest in the ongoing needs of our business.

We have a significant amount of indebtedness. In April 2014, we entered into a credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB and MidCap Financial SBIC, LP, or MidCap. In December 2015, we amended this facility to

increase the aggregate principal amount to $15.6 million and extend both the interest-only payment period and the maturity date. Our obligations under this facility are secured by all of our assets other than our intellectual property. Our intellectual property rights are subject to a negative pledge arrangement under the facility. We could in the future incur additional indebtedness beyond such amounts.

Our substantial debt combined with our other financial obligations and contractual commitments could have significant adverse consequences, including:

We intend to satisfy our current and future debt service obligations with our existing cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities and potential payments under our collaboration with Regeneron and funds from external sources. However, we may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to pay the amounts due under our existing debt. Funds from external sources may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. In addition, a failure to comply with the conditions of our credit facility could result in an event of default under those instruments. In the event of an acceleration of amounts due under our credit facility as a result of an event of default, including upon the occurrence of an event that would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operations, properties, assets or condition or a failure to pay any amount due, we may not have sufficient funds or may be unable to arrange for additional financing to repay our indebtedness or to make any accelerated payments, and the lenders could seek to enforce security interests in the collateral securing such indebtedness. In addition, the covenants under our existing credit facility, the pledge of our assets as collateral and the negative pledge of our intellectual property limit our ability to obtain additional debt financing.

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

We are an early-stage company. Our operations to date have been limited to organizing and staffing our company, acquiring rights to intellectual property, business planning, raising capital, developing our technology, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials, manufacturing initial quantities of our products and product candidates and, beginning in the first quarter of 2014, commercializing ReSure Sealant. Consequently, any predictions about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history.

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

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

We have broad discretion in the use of our available cash and other sources of funding and may not use them effectively.

Our management has broad discretion in the use of our available cash and other sources of funding and could spend those resources in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our common stock. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could cause the price of our common stock to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest our available cash in a manner that does not produce income or that loses value.

Risks Related to Product Development

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

We have devoted a significant portion of our financial resources and business efforts to the development of our drug-eluting intracanalicular insert product candidates for diseases and conditions of the front of the eye. In particular, we are investing substantial resources to complete the development of DEXTENZA for post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain, allergic conjunctivitis and inflammatory dry eye disease and OTX-TP for glaucoma and ocular hypertension. We cannot accurately predict when or if any of our product candidates will prove effective or safe in humans or whether these product candidates will receive marketing approval. Our ability to generate product revenues sufficient to achieve profitability will depend heavily on our obtaining marketing approval for and commercializing one or both of DEXTENZA and OTX-TP.

The commercial success of our intracanalicular insert and other product candidates will depend on many factors, including the following:

In certain cases, such as in our collaboration with Regeneron, many of these factors may be beyond our control, including clinical development and sales, marketing and distribution efforts. If we or our collaborators do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or an inability to successfully commercialize our product candidates, which would materially harm our business.

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

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any product candidate, including our intracanalicular insert product candidates, we must complete preclinical development and then

conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans . Clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome . A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing . The outcome of preclinical testing and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later stage clinical trials, interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results and results from one completed clinical trial may not be replicated in a subsequent clinical trial with a similar study design . Some of our completed studies, including our pilot studies for OTX-TP and our Phase 1 clinical trial of OTX-MP, were conducted with small patient populations, making it difficult to predict whether the favorable results that we observed in such studies will be repeated in larger and more advanced clinical trials. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products.

In general, the FDA requires two adequate and well controlled clinical trials to support the effectiveness of a new drug for marketing approval. In a Phase 2 clinical trial of DEXTENZA that we completed in 2013 in which we were evaluating DEXTENZA for post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain, DEXTENZA did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint for inflammation with statistical significance at the pre-specified time point at day 8. However, we did achieve statistical significance for this inflammation endpoint at days 14 and 30. Accordingly, we measured the primary efficacy endpoint for inflammation in our completed Phase 3 clinical trials of DEXTENZA at day 14. In the first and third Phase 3 clinical trials, DEXTENZA met both primary endpoints for post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain with statistical significance. However, in the second Phase 3 clinical trial, DEXTENZA met only one of the two primary efficacy endpoints with statistical significance. In this second trial, DEXTENZA did not meet the primary endpoint relating to absence of inflammatory cells in the study eye at day 14.

According to the trial protocols, the two primary efficacy endpoints in our completed Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials are fixed sequence endpoints. As such, a statistical analysis of the trial results required that we first assess the primary endpoint regarding absence of inflammatory cells in the study eye. The protocol and statistical analysis plan for the trial did not contemplate assessing the primary endpoint regarding absence of pain in the study eye in the event the clinical trial of DEXTENZA did not meet the first primary endpoint with statistical significance. The FDA has informed us that the hierarchy of the two primary endpoints for post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain is applicable in connection with their review of our NDA seeking approval for DEXTENZA for an ocular pain indication. However, the FDA has also informed us that pain endpoints from the Phase 2 and first two Phase 3 trials, with respect to which we received favorable data, would support the NDA submission. Therefore, in September 2015, we submitted to the FDA an NDA for DEXTENZA for an ocular pain indication using the existing data from our completed Phase 2 and first two Phase 3 clinical trials notwithstanding the FDA’s comment regarding the applicability of the hierarchy of the two primary endpoints in our completed Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. In July 2016, we received a CRL from the FDA regarding our NDA for DEXTENZA. In the CRL, the concerns raised by the FDA pertain to deficiencies in manufacturing process and controls identified during a pre-NDA approval inspection of our manufacturing facility. When we submit our response regarding these deficiencies, we will also need to furnish to the FDA a safety update regarding all completed trials of DEXTENZA, regardless of indication, dosage form or dose level.

We announced topline results from a third Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain in November 2016, which we plan to use to support the potential labeling expansion of DEXTENZA’s indications for use to include inflammation. We modified the design of this third Phase 3 clinical trial compared to our first two Phase 3 clinical trials of DEXTENZA based on our learnings from these prior trials. In this trial, DEXTENZA successfully met its two primary efficacy endpoints for inflammation and pain, achieving statistically significant differences between the treatment group and the placebo group for the absence of inflammatory cells on day 14 and the absence of pain on day 8, respectively. Secondary analyses on the primary efficacy measures have also been completed. DEXTENZA achieved each of the secondary endpoints related to absence of inflammatory cells and absence of pain with statistical significance compared to placebo at each of the pre-specified timepoints, with the exception of the endpoint for the absence of inflammatory cells at day 2 (which is the day following surgery). Additional secondary endpoints including flare, as well as an assessment of all safety data, continue to be evaluated. Based on the results of our third Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA, and subject to receiving approval for the pain indication pursuant to the initial NDA, we plan to submit an NDA supplement for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation. Although we believe our planned approach for seeking marketing approval of DEXTENZA is supported by our discussions with the FDA and by the absence of

any efficacy or safety concerns identified by the FDA in the CRL with respect to the clinical data provided in the NDA, the FDA could nonetheless not grant marketing approval of DEXTENZA for the pain indication until we obtain complete results from the third Phase 3 clinical trial, or at all.

In our first Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for allergic conjunctivitis, DEXTENZA met one of the two primary endpoints. DEXTENZA achieved the primary endpoint for ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis but not the primary endpoint for conjunctival redness, in each case measured on day 7 after insertion of the depot. The difference in the mean scores for ocular itching between the DEXTENZA group and the placebo group was greater than 0.5 units on a five point scale at all time points on day 7 post-insertion and was greater than 1.0 unit at a majority of the time points on day 7 post-insertion. The DEXTENZA group did not achieve these pre-specified endpoints on day 7 post-insertion with respect to conjunctival redness. In our second Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for allergic conjunctivitis, DEXTENZA did not meet the sole primary endpoint for ocular itching. The single primary endpoint of the second Phase 3 clinical trial was the difference in the mean scores in ocular itching between the treatment group and the placebo comparator group at three time points on day 7 following insertion of the depots. While mean ocular itching was seen to be numerically lower (more favorable) in the DEXTENZA treatment group compared to the placebo group measured at each of the three specified times on day 7 following insertion of the depots, at 3, 5, and 7 minutes by -0.18, -0.29, and -0.29 units, respectively, on a five point scale, this difference did not reach statistical significance. In addition, the trial did not achieve the requirement of at least a 0.5 unit difference at all three time points on day 7 following insertion of the depots and at least a 1.0 unit difference at the majority of the three time points between the treatment group and the placebo group on day 7 following insertion of the depots. Further, in our prior Phase 2 clinical trial of DEXTENZA in which we were evaluating DEXTENZA for allergic conjunctivitis, DEXTENZA met one of the two primary efficacy measures. The DEXTENZA treatment group achieved a mean difference compared to the vehicle control group of more than 0.5 units on a five point scale on day 14 for all three time points measured in a day for both ocular itching and conjunctival redness. The DEXTENZA group did not achieve a mean difference compared to the vehicle control group of 1.0 unit for the majority of the three time points measured on day 14 for either ocular itching or conjunctival redness. Even if we obtain favorable clinical trial results in any additional Phase 3 clinical trials of DEXTENZA for allergic conjunctivitis, including meeting all primary efficacy measures, we may not obtain approval for DEXTENZA to treat allergic conjunctivitis or ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis, or the FDA may require that we conduct additional clinical trials. Post-hoc analyses that we performed on the results of our completed Phase 3 clinical trials for allergic conjunctivitis may not be predictive of success in any future Phase 3 clinical trial. Although we believe that these analyses provide important information regarding DEXTENZA and are helpful in understanding the results of this trial and determining the appropriate criteria for future clinical trials, post-hoc analyses performed using an unlocked clinical trial database can result in the introduction of bias and are given less weight by regulatory authorities than pre-specified analyses.

We designed our Phase 2 clinical trials of OTX-TP for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension to assess clinically meaningful response to treatment, and did not power these trials to measure any efficacy endpoints with statistical significance. We reported topline efficacy results from our Phase 2b clinical trial of OTX-TP for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension in October 2015. In this trial, on day 60 at the 8:00 a.m. time point, the OTX-TP group experienced a mean intraocular pressure lowering effect of 4.7 mmHg, compared with intraocular pressure lowering of 6.4 mmHg for the timolol arm. On day 90 at the 8:00 a.m. time point, the OTX-TP group experienced an intraocular pressure lowering effect of 5.1 mmHg, compared with an intraocular pressure lowering effect of 7.2 mmHg in the timolol arm. Also in this trial, on day 60, the OTX-TP group experienced a mean diurnal intraocular pressure lowering effect of 3.3 mmHg compared to baseline 5.9 mmHg compared for the timolol group. On day 90, the OTX-TP group experienced a mean diurnal intraocular pressure, or IOP, lowering effect of 3.6 mmHg compared to baseline, versus 6.3 mmHg for the timolol group. We expect that our planned Phase 3 clinical trials for OTX-TP, one of which we initiated during the third quarter of 2016, will be powered with an appropriate number of patients to measure with statistical significance the superiority of OTX-TP as compared to a placebo vehicle intracanalicular insert in the reduction of mean IOP from baseline at all of the nine diurnal time points at week 2, week 6 and week 12 visits. The trial design will not have eye drops, placebo or active, administered in either the treatment or the placebo-controlled arm. However, results from our Phase 2 clinical trials may not necessarily predict a likelihood of achieving our primary endpoint in the Phase 3 clinical trials with statistical significance, including as a result of differences in trial design. If we do not achieve our primary endpoint in the Phase 3 clinical trials with statistical significance, we may not obtain marketing approval for OTX-TP.

In addition, post-hoc analyses that we performed on the results of our completed Phase 2b clinical trial may not be predictive of success in our planned Phase 3 clinical trials. Post-hoc analyses performed using an unlocked clinical trial database can result in the introduction of bias and are given less weight by regulatory authorities than pre-specified analyses.

The success of our intracanalicular insert product candidates is dependent upon retention following insertion and during the course of intended therapy. As such, we continue to conduct non-significant risk Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, medical device, or NSR, studies in the United States for our intracanalicular insert in an effort to increase the rate of retention. All NSR studies that we have performed to date have involved placebo vehicle control intracanalicular inserts without active drug. If we determine to make any future changes to the design or composition of our depots, such changes could affect the outcome of any subsequent clinical trials using these updated depots. For example, in our Phase 2b clinical trial of OTX-TP, we used a different version of intracanalicular insert than either of the inserts that we used in our Phase 2a clinical trial of OTX-TP. Based on the results of our completed Phase 2a clinical trial, we designed the OTX-TP depot, that was used in our Phase 2b clinical trial to deliver drug over a 90 day period at the same daily rate as the two-month version of the depot used in the Phase 2a clinical trial. To achieve this, we modified the design of the OTX-TP depot to enlarge it in order to enable the depot to carry a greater amount of drug. In addition, we incorporated minor structural changes to improve retention rates. In our Phase 2b clinical trials, OTX-TP depots could be visualized in approximately 88% of eyes by the day 60 visit. By the day 90 visit, the ability to visualize OTX-TP had declined to approximately 42% of eyes as the hydrogel softened, liquefied and had either advanced further down in the canaliculus or had cleared through the nasolacrimal duct. We are conducting additional NSR studies on additional modified depot designs, including a polyethylene glycol, or PEG, tip on the proximal end of the depot that have been incorporated into the design of the Phase 3 trials of OTX-TP. If in our Phase 3 clinical trials the retention rates for our depots are inadequate to ensure that the patient is receiving appropriate therapy, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals or, even if approved, achieve market acceptance of our extended-delivery drug delivery products.

The protocols for our clinical trials and other supporting information are subject to review by the FDA and regulatory authorities outside the United States. For our intracanalicular insert product candidates, we have typically conducted our initial and earlier stage clinical trials outside the United States. We generally plan to conduct our later stage and pivotal clinical trials of our intracanalicular insert product candidates in the United States. The FDA, however, could require us to conduct additional studies or require us to modify our planned pivotal clinical trials to receive clearance to initiate such trials in the United States or to continue such trials once initiated. The FDA is not obligated to comment on our trial protocols within any specified time period or at all or to affirmatively clear or approve our planned pivotal clinical trials. Subject to a waiting period of 30 days, we could choose to initiate our pivotal clinical trials in the United States without waiting for any additional period for comments from the FDA.

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

We have conducted, and may in the future choose to conduct, one or more of our clinical trials outside the United States. We have typically conducted our initial and earlier stage clinical trials for our product candidates, including our intracanalicular insert product candidates, outside the United States. We generally plan to conduct our later stage and pivotal clinical trials of our intracanalicular insert product candidates in the United States.

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

Other risks inherent in conducting international clinical trials include:

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

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

For example, we applied for a deferral from the FDA for the requirement to conduct pediatric studies for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain until after approval of such product in adult populations for that indication. While the FDA ultimately approved our request, if the FDA had required us to conduct pediatric studies in advance of FDA approval in adult populations, we would have experienced significant delays in our ability to obtain marketing approval for DEXTENZA for this indication. We will face a similar risk if we seek a comparable deferral for other product candidates or indications.

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

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

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

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

Patient enrollment is affected by a variety of factors, including:

Each of our two Phase 3 clinical trials of OTX-TP are expected to enroll an aggregate of approximately 550 patients at 50 sites in the United States and will be the largest clinical trials we will have conducted to date. Patients randomized into the placebo control arm will not receive any glaucoma medications during the course of the trials. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients in the Phase 3 clinical trials or any of our other clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of our company to decline and limit our ability to obtain additional financing.

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

If our extended-delivery drug delivery product candidates or any of our other product candidates are associated with serious adverse events or undesirable side effects in clinical trials or have characteristics that are unexpected, we may need to abandon their development or limit development to more narrow uses or subpopulations in which the serious adverse events, undesirable side effects or other characteristics are less prevalent, less severe or more acceptable from a risk-benefit perspective. In each of our first two Phase 3 clinical trials of DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain, there were two subjects that experienced serious adverse events in the DEXTENZA group, none of which were ocular in nature or considered by the investigator to be related to the study treatment. In our third Phase 3 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for the

treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain, there were three subjects that experienced serious adverse events in the DEXTENZA group, one of which was ocular in nature and none of which were considered by the investigator to be related to the study treatment. There was one ocular serious adverse event in the vehicle control group in the three completed Phase 3 clinical trials, which was hypopyon, or inflammatory cells in the anterior chamber. In our earlier Phase 2 clinical trial of DEXTENZA for the same indication, there were three serious adverse events, none of which was considered by the investigator to be related to the study treatment. In the DEXTENZA group of this Phase 2 clinical trial of DEXTENZA, the only adverse event that occurred more than once for the same subject was reduced visual acuity, which occurred twice but these were not considered by the investigator to be related to the study treatment.

In our two pilot studies of OTX-TP for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension and our Phase 2a clinical trial of OTX-TP for the same indication, the most common adverse event was inflammatory reaction of the eyelids and ocular surface, which was noted in three patients in our pilot studies and in five patients in our Phase 2a clinical trial. No hyperemia-related adverse events were noted in any of the patients treated with OTX-TP in our Phase 2b clinical trial. There were no serious adverse events reported in our Phase 2b clinical trial; however two OTX-TP subjects and two timolol subjects discontinued study participation due to ocular adverse events. Ocular adverse events were reported for 39.4% and 37.5% of subjects in the OTX-TP and timolol groups, respectively. The most frequently reported ocular adverse events were dacryocanaliculitis, or inflammation of the lacrimal ducts, acquired dacryostenosis, or closing of the tear ducts, and eyelid oedema. In the Phase 2b clinical trial, inflammatory reaction at the administration site (punctal area) and lacrimal structure injury were each noted in one OTX-TP subject as compared to higher percentages in prior trials. In the Phase 2b trial, the majority of ocular adverse events, including the most frequently reported adverse events, were assessed by the investigators as treatment related. However, many compounds that initially showed promise in clinical or early stage testing for treating ophthalmic disease have later been found to cause side effects that prevented further development of the compound. In addition, adverse events which had initially been considered unrelated to the study treatment may later be found to be caused by the study.

We may not be successful in our efforts to develop product candidates based on our bioresorbable hydrogel technology platform other than ReSure Sealant or expand the use of our bioresorbable hydrogel technology for treating additional eye diseases and conditions.

We are currently directing all of our development efforts towards applying our proprietary bioresorbable hydrogel technology platform to product candidates that are designed to provide extended delivery of therapeutic agents to the eye using active pharmaceutical ingredients that are currently used in FDA-approved ophthalmic drugs. We have a number of product candidates at various stages of development based on our bioresorbable hydrogel technology platform and are exploring the potential use of our platform for other front-of-the-eye diseases and conditions. We are also developing a hydrogel-based drug delivery depot designed to release therapeutic antibodies and small molecules such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or TKIs, to modulate the biologic activity of VEGF over a sustained period following administration by an intravitreal injection for the treatment of diseases and conditions of the back of the eye, including wet age related macular degeneration, or wet AMD. In October 2016, we entered into a collaboration with Regeneron for the development and potential commercialization of products containing our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds for the treatment of retinal diseases. Our existing product candidates and any other potential product candidates that we or our collaborators identify may not be suitable for continued preclinical or clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates that we or our current or future collaborators develop based upon our technological approach, we will not be able to obtain substantial product revenues or revenue from collaboration agreements, including our collaboration with Regeneron, in future periods.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with

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

Risks Related to Manufacturing

We will need to upgrade and expand our manufacturing facility and augment our manufacturing personnel and processes in order to meet our business plans. If we fail to do so, we may not have sufficient quantities of our products or product candidates to meet our commercial and clinical trial requirements.

We manufacture ReSure Sealant and our product candidates for use in clinical trials, research and development and commercial efforts at our multi-product facility located at our corporate headquarters in Bedford, Massachusetts. In order to meet our business plan, which contemplates our scaling up manufacturing processes to support our product candidate development programs and the potential commercialization of these product candidates, we will need to upgrade and expand our existing manufacturing facility, add manufacturing personnel and ensure that validated processes are consistently implemented in our facility. The upgrade and expansion of our facility will require additional regulatory approvals. In addition, it will be costly and time-consuming to expand our facility and recruit necessary additional personnel. If we are unable to expand our manufacturing facility in compliance with regulatory requirements or to hire additional necessary manufacturing personnel, we may encounter delays or additional costs in achieving our research, development and commercialization objectives, including in obtaining regulatory approvals of our product candidates and meeting customer demand for ReSure Sealant, which could materially damage our business and financial position.

We must comply with federal, state and foreign regulations, including quality assurance standards applicable to medical device and drug manufacturers, such as cGMP, which is enforced by the FDA through its facilities inspection program and by similar regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions where we do business. These requirements include, among other things, quality control, quality assurance and the maintenance of records and documentation. Following an inspection by the FDA in March 2015, for example, we received an FDA Form 483 containing an inspectional observation relating to inadequate procedures for documenting follow-up information pertinent to the investigation of complaints and for evaluation of complaints for adverse event reporting. We submitted our response, which was accepted by the FDA, and updated our procedures. In addition, in February 2016, as part of the ongoing review of our NDA for DEXTENZA, the FDA conducted a pre-NDA approval inspection of our manufacturing operations. As a result of this inspection, we received an FDA Form 483 containing inspectional observations focused on process controls, analytical testing and physical security procedures related to manufacture of our drug product for stability and commercial production purposes. We addressed some observations before the inspection was closed and responded to the FDA with a corrective action plan to complete the inspection process. In July 2016, we received a CRL from the FDA regarding our NDA for DEXTENZA. The concerns raised in the CRL pertain to the deficiencies in manufacturing processes raised in the February Form 483 letter. In November 2016, we received notice from the District Office accepting that our responses satisfactorily addressed the remaining corrective actions in the Form 483. In October 2016, we met with the FDA to discuss plans for resubmission to the NDA and to attempt to gain clarity on the likelihood of a re-inspection of our manufacturing facility. The FDA indicated that a decision as to whether a re-inspection is needed will be made during its review of our resubmission. We anticipate the resubmission to the NDA in December 2016 and plan to include the letter from the District Office accepting that our responses satisfactorily addressed the remaining corrective actions in to the Form 483 in our resubmission. Adequate resolution of the Form 483 manufacturing deficiencies with the District Office is a prerequisite to the approval of the NDA for DEXTENZA, although the final decision as to the adequacy of our manufacturing processes is made by CDER, with input from the Office of Process and Facilities, as part of the NDA review process. We anticipate that the FDA will classify the resubmission and determine whether a re-inspection is needed within 30 days of the NDA resubmission date. The satisfactory resolution of the manufacturing deficiencies raised in the CRL and passing any required re-inspection of our manufacturing facility is required before our NDA for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain can be approved.

The FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities at any time also may implement new standards, or change their interpretation and enforcement of existing standards for manufacture, packaging or testing of our products. Any failure to comply with applicable regulations may result in fines and civil penalties, suspension of production, product seizure or recall, imposition of a consent decree, or withdrawal of product approval, and would limit the availability of ReSure Sealant and our product candidates that we manufacture.

Any manufacturing defect or error discovered after products have been produced and distributed also could result in significant consequences, including costly recall procedures, re-stocking costs, damage to our reputation and potential for product liability claims.

If our sole clinical manufacturing facility is damaged or destroyed or production at this facility is otherwise interrupted, our business and prospects would be negatively affected.

If the manufacturing facility at our corporate headquarters or the equipment in it is damaged or destroyed, we may not be able to quickly or inexpensively replace our manufacturing capacity or replace it at all. In the event of a temporary or protracted loss of this facility or equipment, we might not be able to transfer manufacturing to a third party. Even if we could transfer manufacturing to a third party, the shift would likely be expensive and time-consuming, particularly since the new facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements and we would need FDA approval before selling any products manufactured at that facility. Such an event could delay our clinical trials or reduce our product sales.

Currently, we maintain insurance coverage against damage to our property and equipment in the amount of up to $7.7 million and to cover business interruption and research and development restoration expenses in the amount of up to $2.8 million. However, our insurance coverage may not reimburse us, or may not be sufficient to reimburse us, for any expenses or losses we may suffer. We may be unable to meet our requirements for ReSure Sealant or any of our product candidates if there were a catastrophic event or failure of our current manufacturing facility or processes.

We expect to continue to contract with third parties for at least some aspects of the production of our products and product candidates. This increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our products or product candidates or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We currently rely on third parties for some aspects of the production of ReSure Sealant and our product candidates for commercialization and preclinical testing and clinical trials, including supply of active pharmaceutical ingredient drug substance, PEG, the molecule that forms the basis of our hydrogels, and other raw materials and for sterilization of the finished product. In addition, while we believe that our existing manufacturing facility, or additional facilities that we will be able to build, will be sufficient to meet our requirements for manufacturing ReSure Sealant and any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval, we may in the future need to rely on third-party manufacturers for some aspects of the manufacture of our products or product candidates.

We do not have any long term supply agreements in place for the clinical or commercial supply of any drug substances or raw materials for ReSure Sealant or any of our product candidates. We purchase drug substance and raw materials, including the chemical constituents for our hydrogel, from independent suppliers on a purchase order basis. Any performance failure or refusal to supply drug substance or raw materials on the part of our existing or future suppliers could delay clinical development, marketing approval or commercialization of our products. If our current suppliers do not perform as we expect, we may be required to replace one or more of these suppliers. In particular, we depend on a sole source supplier for the supply of our PEG. This sole source supplier may be unwilling or unable to supply PEG to us reliably, continuously and at the levels we anticipate or are required by the market. Although we believe that there are a number of potential long term replacements to our suppliers, including our PEG supplier, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacements.

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

Third-party suppliers or manufacturers may not be able to comply with quality assurance standards, cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third parties, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products and product candidates.

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

Risks Related to Commercialization

Even though ReSure Sealant has received marketing approval from the FDA and even if any of our product candidates receives marketing approval, any of these products may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, and the market opportunity for these products may be smaller than we estimate.

ReSure Sealant or any of our product candidates that receives marketing approval may fail to gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. We commercially launched ReSure Sealant in the first quarter of 2014 and cannot yet accurately predict whether it will it will gain market acceptance and become commercially successful. For example, we previously commenced commercialization in Europe of an earlier version of ReSure Sealant that was approved and marketed as an ocular bandage. We recognized $0.1 million of revenue from the commercialization of this product through 2012. However, we ceased our commercialization of the product in 2012 to focus on the ongoing clinical development of ReSure Sealant pursuant to FDA requirements. If our products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and we may not become profitable.

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

For example, because we have not conducted any clinical trials to date comparing the effectiveness of DEXTENZA directly to currently approved alternative treatments for either post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain or allergic conjunctivitis, it is possible that the market acceptance of DEXTENZA, if it is approved for marketing, could be less than if we had conducted such trials. Although market research we have commissioned indicates that a majority of ophthalmologists believe DEXTENZA could become a new standard of care due to its potential ability to improve compliance with limited toxicity concerns, market acceptance for DEXTENZA could be substantially less than such research indicates, and we may not be able to achieve the market share we anticipate.

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

If we are unable to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, we may not be successful in commercializing ReSure Sealant or any product candidates if and when they are approved.

We have limited experience in the sale, marketing and distribution of drug and device products. To achieve commercial success for ReSure Sealant and any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval, we will need to establish and maintain adequate sales, marketing and distribution capabilities, either ourselves or through collaborations or other arrangements with third parties. We sell ReSure Sealant through a network of independent medical device distributors across the United States. We may determine to build a direct sales force to sell DEXTENZA, if approved for marketing, and may initially use a contract sales organization to staff a dedicated team of sales representatives. We may also consider co-promotional arrangements with larger ophthalmology companies. We expect that a direct sales force will be required to effectively market and sell OTX-TP, if approved for marketing. We will also rely on Regeneron to commercialize our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds. Because we do not plan to determine whether to seek regulatory approval for any of our product candidates outside of the United States until after we receive regulatory approval for the applicable product candidate in the United States, at this time we cannot be certain when, if ever, we will recognize revenue from commercialization of our product candidates in any international markets. If we decide to commercialize our products outside of the United States, we expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with one or more third parties to commercialize any product of ours that receives marketing approval. These may include independent distributors, pharmaceutical companies or our own direct sales organization.

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

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

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

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

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

Our product candidates target markets that are already served by a variety of competing products based on a number of active pharmaceutical ingredients. Many of these existing products have achieved widespread acceptance among physicians, patients and payors for the treatment of ophthalmic diseases and conditions. In addition, many of these products are available on a generic basis, and our product candidates may not demonstrate sufficient additional clinical benefits to physicians, patients or payors to justify a higher price compared to generic products. In many cases, insurers or other third-party payors, particularly Medicare, seek to encourage the use of generic products. Given that we are developing products based on FDA-approved therapeutic agents, our product candidates, if approved, will face competition from generic and branded versions of existing drugs based on the same active pharmaceutical ingredients that are administered in a different manner, typically through eye drops or intravitreal injections.

Because the active pharmaceutical ingredients in our product candidates, other than those developed under the Regeneron collaboration, are available on a generic basis, or are soon to be available on a generic basis, competitors will be able to offer and sell products with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as our products so long as these competitors do not infringe the patents that we license. For example, our licensed patents related to our intracanalicular insert product candidates largely relate to the hydrogel composition of the intracanalicular inserts and certain drug-release features of the depots. As such, if a third party were able to design around the formulation and process patents that we license and create a different formulation using a different production process not covered by our licensed patents or patent applications, we would likely be unable to prevent that third party from manufacturing and marketing its product.

Other companies have advanced into Phase 3 clinical development biodegradable, extended-delivery product candidates that could compete with our intracanalicular insert product candidates. ReSure Sealant is the first and only surgical sealant approved for ophthalmic use in the United States, but will compete with sutures as an alternative method for closing ophthalmic wounds. Multiple companies, including our collaborator Regeneron, are exploring in early stage development alternative means to deliver anti-VEGF and TKI products in an extended-delivery fashion to the back of the eye.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than our products. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

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

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

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

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

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

The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing, coverage and reimbursement for new drug and device products vary widely from country to country. Current and future legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription

pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidate to other available therapies. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if our product candidates obtain marketing approval.

ReSure Sealant or any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval in the United States or in other countries may not be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, may not be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, coverage and an adequate level of reimbursement may not be available, and reimbursement policies of third-party payors may adversely affect our ability to sell our product candidates profitably. ReSure Sealant is not separately reimbursed when used as part of a cataract surgery procedure, which could limit the degree of market acceptance of this product by surgeons. In addition, while DEXTENZA may be considered a post-surgical product in the same fashion as eye drops, if it receives marketing approval, it may instead be categorized as an intra-operative product. If DEXTENZA is categorized as an intra-operative product, it will not be subject to separate reimbursement, which could likewise limit its market acceptance.

We expect to apply for a transitional pass-through reimbursement status from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular pain, subject to the approval of the NDA resubmission we expect to file with the FDA for this indication. We expect pass-through status would remain in effect for up to three years depending on when we apply for and receive this reimbursement status. We expect to submit to the CMS for a standard J code for DEXTENZA for the treatment of other indications, including allergic conjunctivitis, as well as for our OTX-TP product candidate, if our clinical trials are successful and if our NDA filings and NDA supplements are approved by the FDA. There are no assurances that we will be successful in obtaining and retaining reimbursement for our product candidate.

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

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

We currently hold $10.0 million in product liability insurance coverage in the aggregate, with a per incident limit of $10.0 million, which may not be adequate to cover all liabilities that we may incur. We will need to increase our insurance coverage as we expand our clinical trials and our sales of ReSure Sealant and any other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. We will need to further increase our insurance coverage if we commence commercialization of any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Insurance coverage is increasingly expensive. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in an amount adequate to satisfy any liability that may arise.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

We will depend heavily on our collaboration with Regeneron for the success of our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds. If Regeneron does not exercise its option, terminates our collaboration agreement or is unable to meet its contractual obligations, it could negatively impact our business.

In October 2016, we entered into a strategic collaboration, option and license agreement, or Collaboration Agreement, with Regeneron for the development and potential commercialization of products containing our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds. Our ability to generate revenues from the Collaboration Agreement will depend on our and Regeneron’s abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to each of us under the Collaboration Agreement. We did not receive any upfront payment under the Collaboration Agreement, although Regeneron has an option to enter into an exclusive, worldwide license, with the right to sublicense, under our intellectual property to develop and commercialize products containing our extended-delivery hydrogel depot in combination with Regeneron’s large molecule VEGF-targeting compounds. Regeneron has agreed to pay us $10 million upon exercise of the option. The option is exclusive until 12 months after Regeneron has received a product candidate in accordance with a collaboration plan and non-exclusive for an additional six months following the end of the exclusive period. Under the Collaboration Agreement, we are obligated to reimburse Regeneron for certain development costs incurred by Regeneron under the collaboration plan during the period through the completion of the initial clinical trial, subject to a cap of $25 million, which cap may be increased by up to $5 million under certain circumstances. We are also entitled to receive under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement specified development, regulatory and sales milestone payments, as well as royalty payments.

If Regeneron has not exercised the option during the designated option period, the Collaboration Agreement will expire. If Regeneron exercises the option, the Collaboration Agreement will expire on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the later of 10 years from the date of first commercial sale in such country or the expiration of all patent rights covering the licensed product in such country. The Collaboration Agreement may be terminated by Regeneron at any time after exercise of the option upon 60 days’ prior written notice. Either party may, subject to a cure period, terminate the Collaboration Agreement in the event of the other party’s uncured material breach, in addition to other specified termination rights.

If we are unable to achieve the preclinical milestones set forth in the collaboration plan, Regeneron may not exercise the option, in which case we would not receive the $10 million payment in connection with such option and would have incurred significant development expenses. Even if Regeneron does exercise its option, we or Regeneron may not be successful in achieving the necessary preclinical, clinical, regulatory and sales milestones in connection with the collaboration. Further, if Regeneron were to breach or terminate the Collaboration Agreement or if Regeneron elects not to exercise the option we granted it and not to proceed in the collaboration, we may not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for our intravitreal depot product candidates and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our intravitreal depot product candidates. We may not be able to seek and obtain a viable, alternative collaborator to partner for the development and commercialization of the licensed products on similar terms or at all.

We have entered into collaborations with third parties to develop certain product candidates, and in the future may enter into collaborations with third parties for the commercialization of ReSure Sealant or the development or commercialization of our product candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to capitalize on the market potential of these product candidates.

We have in the past entered into collaboration agreements with third parties, including our collaboration with Regeneron, and expect to utilize a variety of types of collaboration, distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties to commercialize ReSure Sealant or any of our product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval in markets outside the United States. We also may enter into arrangements with third parties to perform these services in the United States if we do not establish our own sales, marketing and distribution capabilities in the

United States for our product candidates or if we determine that such third-party arrangements are otherwise beneficial. We also may seek additional third-party collaborators for development and commercialization of other product candidates. Our likely collaborators for any sales, marketing, distribution, development, licensing or broader collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. Other than the distributors we use to sell ReSure Sealant, and our collaboration with Regeneron, we are not currently party to any such arrangement. Our ability to generate revenues from these arrangements will depend on our collaborators’ abilities and efforts to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements.

Our collaboration with Regeneron poses, and any future collaborations likely will pose, a number of risks, including the following:

Collaboration agreements may not lead to development or commercialization of product candidates in the most efficient manner, or at all. If any collaborations that we enter into do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. If we do not receive

the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop our product candidates. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this “Risk Factors” section also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

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

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

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

For example, we are conducting preclinical testing of protein-based anti-VEGF compounds in collaboration with several pharmaceutical companies to explore the feasibility of delivering their drugs using our intravitreal depot. We are exploring broader collaborations for the development and potential commercialization of our intravitreal depot technology in combination with protein-based anti-VEGF drugs for the treatment of back-of-the-eye diseases and conditions.

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

If we are unable to train, maintain and expand our network of independent distributors, we may not be able to successfully commercialize ReSure Sealant or any other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

We commercially launched ReSure Sealant in the first quarter of 2014 and sell the product through a network of independent medical device distributors across the United States. As a result, our revenues are directly dependent upon the sales and marketing efforts of these independent distributors.

Our relationships with our distributors are non-exclusive, and our distributors will simultaneously sell products on behalf of third parties, including products that may compete directly or indirectly with our products or product candidates. If our independent distributors fail to devote sufficient time to the sale of ReSure Sealant, or if

they otherwise fail to adequately promote, market and sell ReSure Sealant, our sales could decrease. We face significant challenges and risks in managing our geographically dispersed distribution network and retaining the individuals who make up that network. If a substantial number of our independent distributors, or any significant independent distributor, were to cease to do business with us within a short period of time, our sales could be adversely affected. In such a situation, we may need to seek alternative independent distributors. Because of the competition for their services, we may be unable to recruit additional qualified independent distributors to work with us. We may also not be able to enter into agreements with them on favorable or commercially reasonable terms, if at all. Failure to retain qualified independent distributors would prevent us from successfully commercializing ReSure Sealant or any other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval and intend to distribute through qualified independent distributors.

Although the majority of our clinical development is administered and managed by our own employees, we have relied, and may continue to rely, on third parties for certain aspects of our clinical development, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials.

Our employees have administered and managed most of our clinical development work, including our clinical trials for ReSure Sealant and our clinical trials for DEXTENZA for the treatment of post-surgical ocular inflammation and pain. However, we have relied and may continue to rely on third parties, such as contract research organizations, or CROs, to conduct future clinical trials of our product candidates, including OTX-TP for the treatment of glaucoma and ocular hypertension. If we deem necessary, we may engage third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct or assist in our clinical trials or other clinical development work. If we are unable to enter into an agreement with a CRO or other service provider when required, our product development activities would be delayed.

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

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may be unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for our technology and products, or the scope of the patent protection obtained may not be sufficiently broad, such that our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and products may be impaired.

Our success depends in large part on our and our licensor’s ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our proprietary technology and products. We and our licensor have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our novel technologies and product candidates. Some of our licensed patents that we believe are integral to our hydrogel technology platform have terms that extend through at least 2024. However, other broader patents within our licensed patent portfolio expire between 2017 and 2019. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our licensed patent portfolio would be less effective in excluding others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours. The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not have filed or prosecuted and may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

In some circumstances, we do not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to enforce or maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. In particular, the license agreement that we have entered into with Incept, LLC, or Incept, an intellectual property holding company, which covers all of the patent rights and a significant portion of the technology for ReSure Sealant and our product candidates, provides that, with limited exceptions, Incept has sole control and responsibility for ongoing prosecution for the patents covered by the license agreement. In addition, although we have a right under the Incept license to bring suit against third parties who infringe our licensed patents in our field, other Incept licensees may also have the right to enforce our licensed patents in their own respective fields without our oversight or control. Those other licensees may choose to enforce our licensed patents in a way that harms our interest, for example, by advocating for claim interpretations or agreeing on invalidity positions that conflict with our positions or our interest. For example, Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation, another licensee of Incept, has filed suit against HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc. alleging infringement of several patents which we also license. This enforcement action could result in one or more of these patents being invalidated or rendered unenforceable. We also have no right to control the defense of any of our licensed patents if their validity or scope is challenged before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, European Patent Office, or other patent office or tribunal. Instead, we would essentially rely on our licensor to defend such challenges, and it may not do so in a way that would best protect our interests. Therefore, our licensed patents and applications may not be prosecuted, enforced, defended or maintained in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. If Incept fails to prosecute, enforce or maintain such patents, or loses rights to those patents, our licensed patent portfolio may be reduced or eliminated.

The patent position of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our licensor’s patent rights are highly uncertain. Our licensor’s pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, unlike patent law in the United States, European patent law precludes the patentability of methods of treatment of the human body and imposes substantial restrictions on the scope of claims it will grant if broader than specifically disclosed embodiments. Moreover, we have no patent protection and likely will never obtain patent protection for ReSure Sealant outside the United States and Canada. We have only four issued patents outside of the United States for two of our three intracanalicular insert product candidates, and two of these expire by 2019. We have two licensed patent families in Europe and certain other parts of the world for our intravitreal drug delivery product candidates, but only one patent issuance, to date, outside of the United States. Patents might not be issued and we may never obtain any patent protection or may only obtain substantially limited patent protection outside of the United States with respect to our products.

Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we or our licensor were the first to make the inventions claimed in our licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we or our licensors were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Databases for patents and publications, and methods for searching them, are inherently limited so it is not practical to review and know the full scope of all issued and pending patent applications. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our licensed patent rights are uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or products, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and products. In particular, during prosecution of any patent application, the issuance of any patents based on the application may depend upon our ability to generate additional preclinical or clinical data that support the patentability of our proposed claims. We may not be able to generate sufficient additional data on a timely basis, or at all. Moreover, changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Recent patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or

the Leahy-Smith Act, includes a number of significant changes to United States patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The USPTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. The first to file provisions limit the rights of an inventor to patent an invention if not the first to file an application for patenting that invention, even if such invention was the first invention. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents. For example, the Leahy-Smith Act provides a new administrative tribunal known as the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, or PTAB, that provides a venue for companies to challenge the validity of competitor patents at a cost that is much lower than district court litigation and on timelines that are much faster. Although it is not clear what, if any, long term impact the PTAB proceedings will have on the operation of our business, the initial results of patent challenge proceedings before the PTAB since its inception in 2013 have resulted in the invalidation of many U.S. patent claims. The availability of the PTAB as a lower-cost, faster and potentially more potent tribunal for challenging patents could therefore increase the likelihood that our own licensed patents will be challenged, thereby increasing the uncertainties and costs of maintaining and enforcing them. Moreover, if such challenges occur, as indicated above, we have no right to control the defense. Instead, we would essentially rely on our licensor to consider our suggestions and to defend such challenges, with the possibility that it may not do so in a way that best protects our interests.

We may be subject to a third-party preissuance submission of prior art to the USPTO, or become involved in other contested proceedings such as opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future products.

In the United States, the FDA does not prohibit physicians from prescribing an approved product for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling. Although use of a product directed by off-label prescriptions may infringe our method-of-treatment patents, the practice is common across medical specialties, particularly in the United States, and such infringement is difficult to detect, prevent or prosecute. In addition, patents that cover methods of use for a medical device cannot be enforced against the party that uses the device, but rather only against the party that makes them. Such indirect enforcement is more difficult to achieve.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our licensed patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

Because the active pharmaceutical ingredients in our product candidates are available on a generic basis, or are soon to be available on a generic basis, competitors will be able to offer and sell products with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient as our products so long as these competitors do not infringe any patents that we license. Our licensed patents largely relate to the hydrogel composition of our intracanalicular inserts and the drug-release design scheme of our depots. As such, if a third party were able to design around the formulation and process patents that we license and create a different formulation using a different production process not covered by our licensed patents or patent applications, we would likely be unable to prevent that third party from manufacturing and marketing its product.

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

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one of the U.S. patents covering each of such product candidates or the use thereof may be eligible for up to five years of patent term restoration under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA-approved product. Patent term extension also may be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. Nevertheless, we may not be granted patent term extension either in the United States or in any foreign country because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the term of extension, as well as the scope of patent protection during any such extension, afforded by the governmental authority could be less than we request.

Further, our license from Incept does not provide us with the right to control decisions by Incept or its other licensees on Orange Book listings or patent term extension decisions under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Thus, if one of our important licensed patents is eligible for a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, and it covers a product of another Incept licensee in addition to our own product candidate, we may not be able to obtain that extension if the other licensee seeks and obtains that extension first.

If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration, or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product may be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration sooner, and our revenue could be reduced, possibly materially.

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

Competitors may infringe our licensed patents or other intellectual property. As a result, to counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Under the terms of our license agreement with Incept, we have the right to initiate suit against third parties who we believe infringe on the patents subject to the license. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation.

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

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our ReSure Sealant and product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the biotechnology, medical device, and pharmaceutical industries. We may become party to, or threatened with, infringement litigation claims regarding our products and technology, including claims from competitors or from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. Moreover, we may become party to future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding our licensed patent portfolio or the patents of third parties. Such proceedings could also include contested post-grant proceedings such as oppositions, inter partes review, reexamination, interference or derivation proceedings before the USPTO or foreign patent offices. The legal threshold for initiating litigation or contested proceedings is low, so that even lawsuits or proceedings with a low probability of success might be initiated and require significant resources to defend. Litigation and contested proceedings can also be expensive and time-consuming, and our adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensor can. The risks of being involved in such litigation and proceedings may increase as our product candidates near

commercialization and as we gain the greater visibility associated with being a public company. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future. We may not be aware of all such intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates and their uses. Thus, we do not know with certainty that ReSure Sealant or any of our product candidates, or our commercialization thereof, does not and will not infringe or otherwise violate any third party’s intellectual property.

We are aware of a family of U.S. patent applications and issued patents that expired in approximately December 2015 and which have claims that ReSure Sealant could be considered as having infringed. We believe that the claims of this patent family are subject to a claim of invalidity. We are also aware of a U.S. patent with an expiration in 2020 with claims directed to formulations of hydrogels and which could be alleged to cover the hydrogel formulations used in our product candidates OTX-TP and OTX-MP. Based on the specifications and file history of that patent, we believe its claims should be construed with a scope that does not cover our product candidates. We also believe that such claims, if and to the extent they were asserted against our product candidates, would be subject to a claim of invalidity.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our products and technology. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent and could be forced to indemnify our customers or collaborators. A finding of infringement could also result in an injunction that prevents us from commercializing our product candidates or forces us to cease some of our business operations. In addition, we may be forced to redesign our product candidates, seek new regulatory approvals and indemnify third parties pursuant to contractual agreements. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in our intellectual property licenses and funding arrangements with third parties, we could lose rights that are important to our business.

Our license agreement with Incept, under which we license all of our patent rights and a significant portion of the technology for ReSure Sealant and our product candidates, imposes royalty and other financial obligations and other substantial performance obligations on us. We also may enter into additional licensing and funding arrangements with third parties that may impose diligence, development and commercialization timelines and milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under current or future license and collaboration agreements, our counterparties may have the right to terminate these agreements, in which event we might not be able to develop, manufacture or market any product that is covered by these agreements or may face other penalties under the agreements. Such an occurrence could diminish the value of our product. Termination of these agreements or reduction or elimination of our rights under these agreements may result in our having to negotiate new or reinstated agreements with less favorable terms, or cause us to lose our rights under these agreements, including our rights to important intellectual property or technology.

Under the terms of our license agreement with Incept, we have agreed to assign to Incept our rights in any patent application filed at any time in any country for which one or more inventors are under an obligation of assignment to us. These assigned patent applications and any resulting patents are included within the specified patents owned or controlled by Incept to which we receive a license under the agreement. Incept has retained rights to practice the patents and technology licensed to us under the agreement for all purposes other than for researching, designing, developing, manufacturing and commercializing products that are delivered to or around the human eye for diagnostic, therapeutic or prophylactic purposes relating to ophthalmic diseases or conditions. As a result, termination of our agreement with Incept, based on our failure to comply with this or any other obligation under the agreement, would cause us to lose our rights to important intellectual property or technology upon which our business depends. Additionally, the field limit of the license and the requirement that we assign to Incept our rights in any patent application restricts our ability to expand our business outside of ophthalmology.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology, medical device or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

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

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

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

In addition to seeking patents for our technology, products and product candidates, we also rely on trade secrets, including unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information, to maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect these trade secrets, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. Despite these efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed.

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

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, the marketing approval process is expensive, time-consuming and uncertain and may prevent us from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates. If we or any current or future collaborator of ours is not able to obtain, or if there are delays in obtaining, required regulatory approvals, we or they will not be able to commercialize our product candidates, and our ability to generate revenue will be materially impaired.

The activities associated with the development and commercialization of our product candidates, including design, testing, manufacture, safety, efficacy, recordkeeping, labeling, storage, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution, are subject to comprehensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory agencies in the United States and by the EMA and similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. Failure to obtain marketing approval for a product candidate will prevent us from commercializing the product candidate. We have only received approval to market ReSure Sealant in the United States, and have not received approval to market any of our product candidates or to market ReSure Sealant in any jurisdiction outside the United States. We may determine to seek a CE Certificate of Conformity, which demonstrates compliance with relevant requirements and provides approval to commercialize ReSure Sealant in the European Union. If we are unable to obtain a CE Certificate of Conformity for ReSure Sealant or any of our other product candidates for which we seek European regulatory approval, we will be prohibited from commercializing such product or products in the European Union and other places which require the CE Certificate of Conformity. In such a case, the potential market to commercialize our products may be significantly smaller than we currently estimate.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is expensive and may take many years, especially if additional clinical trials are required, if approval is obtained at all. Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and purity. Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities. The FDA, the EMA or other regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe or effective, are only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use. In addition, while we have had general discussions with the FDA concerning the design of some of our clinical trials, we have not discussed with the FDA the specifics of the regulatory pathways for our product candidates.

As part of the ongoing review of the NDA for DEXTENZA for post-surgical ocular pain, the FDA has completed inspections of three sites from our two completed Phase 3 clinical trials for compliance with the study protocol and Good Clinical Practices. During the first of these inspections, the FDA identified storage temperature excursions for the investigational product that is labeled to be stored in a refrigerated condition between two degrees and eight degrees Celsius. We also had previously addressed a minor temperature deviation report during the conduct of the Phase 3 trials and communicated a response to the trial sites. In addition, while investigating the report stemming from the FDA inspection, several more noteworthy temperature excursions were found to have occurred that had not been fully reported. Because of the limited nature of the temperature excursions and historical product testing, including testing on product stored at elevated temperatures, we believe it is unlikely that drug product performance was significantly impacted. We have also implemented a corrective action plan to address clinical compliance and prevent recurrence in other clinical studies. However, if the FDA determines as part of its review of our NDA that the temperature excursions and associated protocol deviations compromised any of the results from our completed Phase 3 clinical trials, the FDA may request additional site specific data analyses or even exclude certain study subjects from sites in which the temperature excursions were determined to be significant in duration before considering approval of the NDA.

Changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment of additional statutes or regulations, or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application. The FDA, the EMA and regulatory authorities in other countries have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition,

varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate. Any marketing approval we or any current or future collaborator of ours ultimately obtains may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Accordingly, if we or any current or future collaborator of ours experiences delays in obtaining approval or if we or they fail to obtain approval of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate revenues will be materially impaired.

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

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

Even if we, or any current or future collaborators, obtain marketing approvals for our product candidates, the terms of approvals, ongoing regulations and post-marketing restrictions for our products may limit how we manufacture and market our products, which could materially impair our ability to generate revenue.

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

The FDA required two post-approval studies as a condition for approval of our premarket approval application for ReSure Sealant. The first post-approval study, identified as the Clinical PAS, was to confirm that ReSure Sealant can be used safely by physicians in a standard cataract surgery practice and to confirm the incidence of the most prevalent adverse ocular events identified in our pivotal study of ReSure Sealant in eyes treated with ReSure Sealant. We submitted the final study report of the Clinical PAS to the FDA in June 2016 and the FDA has confirmed the Clinical PAS has been completed. The second post-approval study, identified as the Device Exposure Registry, is intended to link to the Medicare database to ascertain if patients are diagnosed or treated for endophthalmitis within 30 days following cataract surgery and application of ReSure Sealant. In December 2015, the CMS denied our application for a tracking or research code for ReSure Sealant commercial use. In cooperation with the FDA, we have identified another option for conducting this registry study while maintaining the objective for linking ReSure Sealant use to the Medicare database through a partnership with a third party. In July 2016, the FDA approved the Device Exposure Registry protocol, which should allow us to complete the study in one to two years. We are required to provide periodic reports to the FDA on the progress of this post-approval study until it is completed. Following review of the results from these post-approval studies, or if we are unable to complete the Device Exposure Registry, any concerns raised by the FDA could lead to modifications in product labeling, the approved indication for use or negative publicity impacting our commercialization efforts.

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

Accordingly, assuming we, or any current or future collaborators, receive marketing approval for one or more of our product candidates, we, and any current or future collaborators, and our and their contract manufacturers will continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production, product surveillance and quality control. If we, and any current or future collaborators, are not able to comply with post-approval regulatory requirements, we, and any current or future collaborators, could have the marketing approvals for our products withdrawn by regulatory authorities and our, or any current or future collaborators’, ability to market any products could be limited, which could adversely affect our ability to achieve or sustain profitability. Further, the cost of compliance with post-approval regulations may have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition.

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

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

Non-compliance with European Union requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties. Similarly, failure to comply with the European Union’s requirements regarding the protection of personal information can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions.

Our relationships with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which, in the event of a violation, could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription and use of ReSure Sealant and any other product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our future arrangements with healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following:

Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government and may require product manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures. State and foreign laws also govern 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 the laws described above or any governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines

and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment or restructuring of our operations could adversely affect our financial results. We are developing and implementing a corporate compliance program designed to ensure that we will market and sell any future products that we successfully develop from our product candidates in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, but we cannot guarantee that this program will protect us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion of products from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us and any current or future collaborators to obtain marketing approval of our other product candidates and affect the prices we, or they, may obtain.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could, among other things, prevent or delay marketing approval of our other product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability, or the ability of any collaborators, to profitably sell any products for which we, or they, obtain marketing approval. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive for any approved products.

For example, in March 2010, President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or collectively the PPACA. Among the provisions of the PPACA of potential importance to our business and our product candidates are the following:

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. These changes include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, led to aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year that started in 2013 and, due to subsequent legislation, will continue until 2025. In addition, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any of our product candidates for which regulatory approval is obtained.

We expect that the PPACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, new payment methodologies and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Moreover, legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the United States Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us and any collaborators to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

Governments outside the United States tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our revenues, if any.

In some countries, such as the countries of the European Union, the pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control and access. 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, or any current or future collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product 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 materially harmed.

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

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

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

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

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

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA, to comply with manufacturing standards we have established, to comply with federal and state health-care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

If we, our collaborators or any third-party manufacturers we engage in the future fail to comply with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur significant costs.

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

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

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

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

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

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

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical and business development expertise of Amar Sawhney, Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as the other principal members of our management, scientific and clinical team. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We maintain “key person” insurance for Dr. Sawhney, but we do not have any such insurance for any of our other executives or other employees.

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

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

We expect to experience significant growth in the number of our employees and the scope of our operations, particularly in the areas of drug development, clinical, regulatory affairs, manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution. To manage our anticipated future growth, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. In June 2016, we entered into a lease agreement for new general office research and development and manufacturing space that we intend to relocate to beginning in 2017 as part of our expansion. We expect to incur significant expenses in renovating this facility and purchasing capital equipment. Due to our limited financial resources and our limited experience in managing such anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively

manage the expansion of our operations or recruit and train additional qualified personnel. The expansion of our operations, including the move to, and buildout of, our new facility, may lead to significant costs and may divert our management and business development resources. Any inability to manage growth could delay the execution of our business plans or disrupt our operations.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders, if they choose to act together, have the ability to control all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

Our executive officers, directors and principal stockholders, in the aggregate, beneficially own a large portion of our capital stock. As a result, if these stockholders were to choose to act together, they would be able to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, these persons, if they choose to act together, would control the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets.

This concentration of voting power may:

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of our company, 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 bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of our company that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which our stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, 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. Among other things, these provisions:

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.

An active trading market for our common stock may not be sustained.

Our shares of common stock began trading on the NASDAQ Global Market on July 25, 2014. Given the limited trading history of our common stock, there is a risk that an active trading market for our shares will not be sustained, which could put downward pressure on the market price of our common stock and thereby affect the ability of our stockholders to sell their shares.

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for holders of our common stock.

Our stock price may be volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their common stock at or above the price at which they purchased it. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against that company. We also may face securities class-action litigation if we cannot obtain regulatory approvals for or if we otherwise fail to commercialize DEXTENZA, OTX-TP or our other product candidates or if our commercial launch of ReSure Sealant is unsuccessful. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

Persons who were our stockholders prior to our initial public offering continue to hold a substantial number of shares of our common stock. If such persons sell, or indicate an intention to sell, substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

In addition, shares of common stock that are either subject to outstanding options or reserved for future issuance under our stock incentive plans will become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting schedules and Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and, in any event, we have filed a registration statement permitting shares of common stock issued on exercise of options to be freely sold in the public market. If these additional shares of common stock are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Certain holders of our common stock have rights, subject to specified conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares or, along with certain holders of shares of our common stock issuable upon exercise of warrants issued to lenders, to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders. Any sales of securities by these stockholders could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, and may remain an emerging growth company until December 31, 2019, provided that, if the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of any June 30 before that time or if we have annual gross revenues of $1 billion or more in any fiscal year, we would cease to be an emerging growth company as of December 31 of the applicable year. We also would cease to be an emerging growth company if we issue more than $1 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period. As an emerging growth company, we are permitted and intend to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include:

We expect to continue to take advantage of some or all of the available exemptions. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act also provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to delay such adoption of new or revised accounting standards, and, as a result, we will comply with new or revised accounting standards on the relevant dates on which adoption of such standards is required for public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is now required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, and particularly after we are no longer an emerging growth company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the listing requirements of The NASDAQ Global Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations have increased our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

For as long as we remain an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies as described in the preceding risk factor.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, we will be required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. However, while we remain an emerging growth company, we will not be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm. To achieve compliance with Section 404 within the prescribed period, we will be engaged in a process to document and evaluate our internal control over financial reporting, which is both costly and challenging. In this regard, we will need to continue to dedicate internal resources, potentially engage outside consultants and adopt a detailed work plan to assess and document the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting, continue steps to improve control processes as appropriate, validate through testing that controls are functioning as documented and implement a continuous reporting and improvement process for internal control over financial reporting. Despite our efforts, there is a risk that we will not be able to conclude, within the prescribed timeframe or at all, that our internal control over financial reporting is effective as required by Section 404. If we identify one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, it could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be our stockholders’ sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all of our future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of our credit facility and any future debt agreements that we may enter into, may preclude us from paying dividends without the lenders’ consent or at all. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be our stockholders’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.