UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

or

For the transition period from _______ to _______

Commission file number: 001-15911

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (609) 896-9100

Securities registered pursuant to section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes [  ] No [X]

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes [  ] No [X]

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Yes [  ] No [X]

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $38.2 million as of June 30, 2019 (the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) based on the closing sale price of $1.82 for the Registrant’s common stock on that date as reported by The Nasdaq Capital Market. For purposes of this calculation, shares of common stock held by directors, officers and stockholders who own greater than 10% of the Registrant’s outstanding stock at June 30, 2019 were excluded. This determination of executive officers and directors as affiliates is not necessarily a conclusive determination for any other purpose.

As of March 24, 2020, 29,257,101 shares of the registrant’s common stock were issued and outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement to be filed for its 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof. Such Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

CELSION CORPORATION

FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CELSION CORPORATION

FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PART I

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain of the statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”) are forward-looking and constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). In addition, from time to time we may publish forward-looking statements relating to such matters as anticipated financial performance, business prospects, technological developments, product pipelines, clinical trials and research and development activities, the adequacy of capital reserves and anticipated operating results and cash expenditures, current and potential collaborations, strategic alternatives and other aspects of our present and future business operations and similar matters that also constitute such forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, among other things, unforeseen changes in the course of research and development activities and in clinical trials; possible changes in cost, timing and progress of development, preclinical studies, clinical trials and regulatory submissions; our collaborators’ ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approval of any of our product candidates; possible changes in capital structure, financial condition, future working capital needs and other financial items; changes in approaches to medical treatment; introduction of new products by others; success or failure of our current or future collaboration arrangements, risks and uncertainties associated with possible acquisitions of other technologies, assets or businesses; our ability to obtain additional funds for our operations; our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our technologies and product candidates and our ability to operate our business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others; our reliance on third parties to conduct preclinical studies or clinical trials; the rate and degree of market acceptance of any approved product candidates; possible actions by customers, suppliers, strategic partners, potential strategic partners, competitors and regulatory authorities; compliance with listing standards of The Nasdaq Capital Market; and those listed under “Risk Factors” below and elsewhere in this Annual Report.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “plan,” “believe, “could,” “intend,” “predict”, “may,” “should,” “will,” “would” and words of similar import regarding the Company’s expectations. Forward-looking statements are only predictions. Actual events or results may differ materially. Although we believe that our expectations are based on reasonable assumptions within the bounds of our knowledge of our industry, business and operations, we cannot guarantee that actual results will not differ materially from our expectations. In evaluating such forward-looking statements, you should specifically consider various factors, including the risks outlined under “Risk Factors.” The discussion of risks and uncertainties set forth in this Annual Report is not necessarily a complete or exhaustive list of all risks facing the Company at any particular point in time. We operate in a highly competitive, highly regulated and rapidly changing environment and our business is in a state of evolution. Therefore, it is likely that new risks will emerge, and that the nature and elements of existing risks will change, over time. It is not possible for management to predict all such risk factors or changes therein, or to assess either the impact of all such risk factors on our business or the extent to which any individual risk factor, combination of factors, or new or altered factors, may cause results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statement. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statement that may be made from time to time by us or on our behalf for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future. Unless the context requires otherwise or unless otherwise noted, all references in this Annual Report to “Celsion” “the Company”, “we”, “us”, or “our” are to Celsion Corporation, a Delaware corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary, CLSN Laboratories, Inc., also a Delaware Corporation.

Trademarks

The Celsion brand and product names, including but not limited to Celsion® and ThermoDox®, contained in this document are trademarks, registered trademarks or service marks of Celsion Corporation or its subsidiary in the United States (U.S.) and certain other countries. This document also contains references to trademarks and service marks of other companies that are the property of their respective owners.

OVERVIEW

Celsion is an integrated development clinical stage oncology drug company focused on advancing innovative cancer treatments, including directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy and RNA-based therapies. Our lead product candidate is ThermoDox®, a proprietary heat-activated liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin, currently in a Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of primary liver cancer (the “OPTIMA Study”). Second in our product pipeline is GEN-1, a DNA-mediated immunotherapy for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer. These investigational products are based on platform technologies that provide the basis for future development of a range of therapeutics, largely focused on difficult-to-treat forms of cancer. The first platform technology is Lysolipid Thermally Sensitive Liposomes, a heat sensitive liposomal based dosage form that is designed to target disease with known chemotherapeutics in the presence of mild heat. The second platform technology is TheraPlas, a novel nucleic acid-based investigational candidate under development for local transfection of therapeutic DNA plasmids. Employing these technologies, we are working to develop and commercialize more efficient, effective and targeted oncology therapies that maximize efficacy while minimizing side effects common to cancer treatments.

THERMODOX®

Liposomes are manufactured submicroscopic vesicles consisting of a discrete aqueous central compartment surrounded by a membrane bilayer composed of naturally occurring lipids. Conventional liposomes have been designed and manufactured to carry drugs and increase residence time, thus allowing the drugs to remain in the bloodstream for extended periods of time before they are removed from the body. However, the current existing liposomal formulations of cancer drugs and liposomal cancer drugs under development do not provide for the immediate release of the drug and the direct targeting of organ specific tumors, two important characteristics that are required for improving the efficacy of cancer drugs such as doxorubicin. A team of research scientists at Duke University developed a heat-sensitive liposome that rapidly changes its structure when heated to a threshold minimum temperature of 39.5º to 42º Celsius. Heating creates channels in the liposome bilayer that allow an encapsulated drug to rapidly disperse into the surrounding tissue. Through a perpetual, world-wide, exclusive development and commercialization license from Duke University, we have licensed this novel, heat-activated liposomal technology that is differentiated from other liposomes through its unique low heat-activated release of encapsulated chemotherapeutic agents.

We are able to use several available focused-heat technologies, such as radiofrequency ablation (“RFA”), microwave energy and high intensity focused ultrasound (“HIFU”), to activate the release of drugs from our novel heat sensitive liposomes.

THERMODOX® for the Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer

Primary Liver Cancer Overview

Hepatocellular carcinoma (“HCC”) is one of the most common and deadliest forms of cancer worldwide. It ranks as the third most common solid tumor cancer. It is estimated that up to 90% of liver cancer patients will die within five years of diagnosis. The incidence of primary liver cancer is approximately 35,000 cases per year in the U.S., approximately 65,000 cases per year in Europe and is increasing at approximately 2-3% per year worldwide. Global incidence (per 2017 GLOBALCAN statistics) is reported at 755,000 cases. The World Health Organization (WHO) has projected that HCC will be the most prevalent form of cancer by 2030. HCC is commonly diagnosed in patients with longstanding hepatic disease and cirrhosis (primarily due to hepatitis C in the U.S., Japan and Europe and hepatitis B in Asia).

At an early stage, the standard first line treatment for liver cancer is surgical resection of the tumor. Up to 80% of patients are ineligible for surgery or transplantation at time of diagnosis because early stage liver cancer generally has few symptoms and when finally detected the tumor frequently is too large for surgical resection. There are few alternative treatments, since radiation therapy and chemotherapy are largely ineffective in treating liver cancer. For tumors generally up to 5 centimeters in diameter, RFA has emerged as the standard of care treatment which directly destroys the tumor tissue through the application of high temperatures administered by a probe inserted into the core of the tumor. Local recurrence rates after RFA directly correlate to the size of the tumor. For tumors 3 cm or smaller in diameter the recurrence rate has been reported to be 10 – 20%; however, for tumors greater than 3 cm, local recurrence rates of 40% or higher have been observed.

Celsion’s Approach

While RFA uses extremely high temperatures (greater than 90° Celsius) to ablate the tumor, it may fail to treat micro-metastases in the outer margins of the ablation zone because temperatures in the periphery may not be high enough to destroy cancer cells. Our ThermoDox® treatment approach is designed to utilize the ability of RFA devices to ablate the center of the tumor while simultaneously thermally activating our ThermoDox® liposome to release its encapsulated doxorubicin to kill any remaining viable cancer cells throughout the heated region, including the ablation margins. This novel treatment approach is intended to deliver the drug directly to those cancer cells that survive RFA. This approach is designed to increase the delivery of the doxorubicin at the desired tumor site while potentially reducing drug exposure distant to the tumor site.

The OPTIMA Study

The OPTIMA Study represents an evaluation of ThermoDox® in combination with a first line therapy, RFA, for newly diagnosed, intermediate stage HCC patients. HCC incidence globally is approximately 755,000 new cases per year and is the third largest cancer indication globally. Approximately 30% of newly diagnosed patients can be addressed with RFA.

On February 24, 2014, we announced that the United States Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) provided clearance for the OPTIMA Study, which is a pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox®, in combination with standardized RFA, for the treatment of primary liver cancer. The trial design of the OPTIMA Study is based on the comprehensive analysis of data from an earlier clinical trial conducted by the Company called the HEAT Study (the “HEAT Study”). The OPTIMA Study is supported by a hypothesis developed from an overall survival analysis of a large subgroup of 285 patients from the HEAT Study.

Post-hoc data analysis from our earlier Phase III HEAT Study suggest that ThermoDox® may substantially improve OS, when compared to the control group, in patients if their lesions undergo a 45-minute RFA procedure standardized for a lesion greater than 3 cm in diameter. Data from nine OS sweeps have been conducted since the top line progression free survival (“PFS”) data from the HEAT Study were announced in January 2013, with each data set demonstrating substantial improvement in clinical benefit over the control group with statistical significance. On August 15, 2016, we announced updated results from its final retrospective OS analysis of the data from the HEAT Study (the “HEAT Study subgroup”). These results demonstrated that in a large, well bounded, subgroup of patients with a single lesion (n=285, 41% of the HEAT Study patients), treatment with a combination of ThermoDox® and optimized RFA provided an average 54% risk improvement in OS compared to optimized RFA alone. The Hazard Ratio (“HR”) at this analysis is 0.65 (95% CI 0.45 - 0.94) with a p-value of 0.02. Median OS for the ThermoDox® subgroup has been reached which translates into a two-year survival benefit over the optimized RFA subgroup (projected to be greater than 80 months for the ThermoDox® plus optimized RFA subgroup compared to less than 60 months projection for the optimized RFA only subgroup).

While this information should be viewed with caution since it is based on a retrospective analysis of a subgroup, we also conducted additional analyses that further strengthen the evidence for the HEAT Study subgroup. We commissioned an independent computational model at the University of South Carolina Medical School. The results unequivocally indicate that longer RFA heating times correlate with significant increases in doxorubicin concentration around the RFA treated tissue. In addition, we conducted a prospective preclinical study in 22 pigs using two different manufacturers of RFA and human equivalent doses of ThermoDox® that clearly support the relationship between increased heating duration and doxorubicin concentrations.

The OPTIMA Study was designed with extensive input from globally recognized HCC researchers and expert clinicians. The FDA also provided formal written feedback to the Company on the study protocol and trial design. The OPTIMA Study was designed to enroll up to 550 patients globally at approximately 65 clinical sites in the U.S., Canada, European Union (EU), China and other countries in the Asia-Pacific region and will evaluate ThermoDox® in combination with standardized RFA, which will require a minimum of 45 minutes across all investigators and clinical sites for treating lesions three to seven centimeters, versus standardized RFA alone. The primary endpoint for this clinical trial is overall survival (“OS”), and the secondary endpoints are progression free survival and safety. The statistical plan calls for two interim efficacy analyses by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (“DMC”).

We completed enrollment of 556 patients in the Phase III OPTIMA Study in August 2018. Data for the study will be reviewed as it matures with up to two interim analyses - the first analysis was conducted in the second half of 2019 and the second analysis is expected to be conducted in mid-2020. We expect that the final efficacy analysis, if necessary, will be completed in early 2021. ThermoDox® has received U.S. FDA Fast Track Designation and has been granted orphan drug designation for primary liver cancer in both the U.S. and the EU. Additionally, the U.S. FDA has provided ThermoDox® with a 505(b)(2) registration pathway. Subject to a successful trial, the OPTIMA Study has been designed to support registration in all key primary liver cancer markets. We fully expect to submit registrational applications in the U.S., Europe and China. We expect to submit, and we believe that applications will be accepted in South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, three other significant markets for ThermoDox® if it were to receive approval in Europe, China or the U.S.

On December 18, 2018, we announced that the DMC for the OPTIMA Study completed its last scheduled review of all patients enrolled in the trial and unanimously recommended that the OPTIMA Study continue according to protocol to its final data readout. The DMC’s recommendation was based on the committee’s assessment of safety and data integrity of all patients randomized in the trial as of October 4, 2018. The DMC reviewed study data at regular intervals throughout the patient enrollment period, with the primary responsibilities of ensuring the safety of all patients enrolled in the study, the quality of the data collected, and the continued scientific validity of the study design. As part of its review of all 556 patients enrolled into the trial, the DMC evaluated a quality matrix relating to the total clinical data set, confirming the timely collection of data, that all data are current as well as other data collection and quality criteria.

On August 5, 2019, the Company announced that the prescribed number of OS events had been reached for the first prespecified interim analysis of the OPTIMA Phase III Study. Following preparation of the data, the first interim analysis was conducted by the DMC on November 1, 2019. This timeline was consistent with the Company’s stated expectations and is necessary to provide a full and comprehensive data set that may represent the potential for a successful trial outcome. In accordance with the statistical plan, this initial interim analysis has a target of 118 events, or 60% of the total number required for the final analysis. At the time of the data cutoff, the Company received reports of 128 events. The hazard ratio for success at 128 events is approximately 0.63, which represents a 37% reduction in the risk of death compared with RFA alone and is consistent with the 0.65 hazard ratio that was observed in the prospective HEAT Study subgroup, which demonstrated a two-year overall survival advantage and a median time to death of more than seven and a half years.

On August 13, 2019, the Company announced that results from an independent analysis of the Company’s ThermoDox® HEAT Study conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were published in the peer-reviewed publication, Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. The analysis was conducted by the intramural research program of the NIH and the NIH Center for Interventional Oncology (CIO), with the full data set from the Company’s HEAT Study. The analysis evaluated the full data set to determine if there was a correlation between baseline tumor volume and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) heating time (minutes/tumor volume in milliliters), with or without ThermoDox® treatment, for patients with HCC. The NIH analysis was conducted under the direction of Dr. Bradford Wood, MD, Director, NIH Center for Interventional Oncology and Chief, NIH Clinical Center Interventional Radiology.

The article titled, “RFA Duration Per Tumor Volume May Correlate With Overall Survival in Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated With RFA Plus Lyso-thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin,” discussed the NIH analysis of results from 437 patients in the HEAT Study (all patients with a single lesion representing 62.4% of the study population). The key finding was that increased RFA heating time per tumor volume significantly improved overall survival (OS) in patients with single-lesion HCC who were treated with RFA plus ThermoDox®, compared to patients treated with RFA alone. A one-unit increase in RFA duration per tumor volume was shown to result in about a 20% improvement in OS for patients administered ThermoDox®, compared to RFA alone. The authors conclude that increasing RFA heating time in combination with ThermoDox® significantly improves OS and establishes an improvement of over two years versus the control arm when the heating time per milliliter of tumor is greater than 2.5 minutes. This finding is consistent with the Company’s own results, which defined the optimized RFA procedure as a 45-minute treatment for tumors with a diameter of 3 centimeters. Thus, the NIH analysis lends support to the hypothesis underpinning the OPTIMA Study.

On August 27, 2019, the Company announced that a study from a single site in China titled “Thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin plus radiofrequency ablation increased tumor destruction and improved survival in patients with medium and large hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomized, double-blinded, dummy-controlled clinical trial in a single center” has been published in the Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. These data were generated as part of the Phase III HEAT (Hepatocellular Carcinoma Study of RFA and ThermoDox®) Study sponsored by Celsion. The data from this single site at the Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing show an OS improvement of 22.5 months in patients with 3-7 cm unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumors receiving combined radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and ThermoDox®, compared with the use of RFA alone.

In this study, patients received 50 mg/m2 of ThermoDox® or placebo, plus RFA for 45 minutes or longer. Patients were followed for 11 to 80 months (average: 49.1 ± 24.8 months), with 18 of 22 patients completing the study. The mean OS for the ThermoDox® plus RFA group was 68.5 ± 7.2 months, which was significantly greater than the placebo plus RFA group (46.0 ± 10.6 months, pValue = 0.045). At the end of the follow-up period, the percentage of patients alive after 1, 3 and 5 years were as follows:

The publication can be found in the Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics | Year: 2019 | Volume: 15 | Issue: 4 | Page 773 – 783. The authors are Yang W, Lee JC, Chen MH, Zhang ZY, Bai XM, Yin SS, et al. from the Departments of Ultrasound and Radiology, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute in Beijing. Professor Min-Hua Chen was a principal investigator in Celsion’s Phase III HEAT Study, from which these data are derived, and is also a principal investigator in the Company’s ongoing Phase III OPTIMA Study for the treatment of primary liver cancer with ThermoDox® plus standardized RFA.

On November 4, 2019, the Company announced that the DMC unanimously recommended the OPTIMA Study continue according to protocol. The recommendation was based on a review of blinded safety and data integrity from 556 patients enrolled in the Company’s multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled pivotal Phase III OPTIMA Study with ThermoDox®.

The DMC’s pre-planned interim efficacy review followed 128 patient events, or deaths, which occurred in August 2019. Data presented demonstrated that PFS and OS data appear to be tracking with patient data observed at a similar time point in the Company’s subgroup of patients followed prospectively in the earlier Phase III HEAT Study, upon which the OPTIMA Study is based.

The data review demonstrated the following:

While the Company has not unblinded the study to report a hazard ratio, PFS and OS are tracking similarly to the subgroup of patients who received more than 45 minutes of RFA in our HEAT Study and followed prospectively for more than three years. This subgroup in the HEAT Study demonstrated a 2-year overall survival advantage and a median time to death of more than 7 ½ years. This tracking appears to bode well for study success at the second of two pre-planned interim efficacy analysis which is intended after a minimum of 158 patient deaths and is projected to occur during the second quarter of 2020. The hazard ratio for success at 158 events is 0.70 with a P-value of 0.022 This is below the hazard ratio of 0.65, P-value = 0.02 observed for the HEAT Study subgroup of patients treated with RFA > 45 minutes.

IMMUNO-ONCOLOGY Program

On June 20, 2014, we completed the acquisition of substantially all of the assets of EGEN, a private company located in Huntsville, Alabama. Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, CLSN Laboratories acquired all of EGEN’s right, title and interest in and to substantially all of the assets of EGEN, including cash and cash equivalents, patents, trademarks and other intellectual property rights, clinical data, certain contracts, licenses and permits, equipment, furniture, office equipment, furnishings, supplies and other tangible personal property. A key asset acquired from EGEN was the TheraPlas technology platform and the first drug candidate developed from it is GEN-1.

THERAPLAS Technology Platform

TheraPlas is a technology platform for the delivery of DNA and mRNA therapeutics via synthetic non-viral carriers and is capable of providing cell transfection for double-stranded DNA plasmids and large therapeutic RNA segments such as mRNA. There are two components of the TheraPlas system, a plasmid DNA or mRNA payload encoding a therapeutic protein, and a delivery system. The delivery system is designed to protect the DNA/RNA from degradation and promote trafficking into cells and through intracellular compartments. We designed the delivery system of TheraPlas by chemically modifying the low molecular weight polymer to improve its gene transfer activity without increasing toxicity. We believe that TheraPlas may be a viable alternative to current approaches to gene delivery due to several distinguishing characteristics, including enhanced molecular versatility that allows for complex modifications to potentially improve activity and safety.

The design of the TheraPlas delivery system is based on molecular functionalization of polyethyleneimine (PEI), a cationic delivery polymer with a distinct ability to escape from the endosomes due to heavy protonation. The transfection activity and toxicity of PEI is tightly coupled to its molecular weight therefore the clinical application of PEI is limited. We have used molecular functionalization strategies to improve the activity of low molecular weight PEIs without augmenting their cytotoxicity. In one instance, chemical conjugation of a low molecular weight branched BPEI1800 with cholesterol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) to form PEG-PEI-Cholesterol (PPC) dramatically improved the transfection activity of BPEI1800 following in vivo delivery. Together, the cholesterol and PEG modifications produced approximately 20-fold enhancement in transfection activity. Biodistribution studies following intraperitoneal or subcutaneous administration of DNA/PPC nanocomplexes showed DNA delivery localized primarily at the injection site with only small amount escaping into the systemic circulation. PPC is the delivery component of our lead TheraPlas product, GEN-1, which is in clinical development for the treatment ovarian cancer and in preclinical development for the treatment of glioblastoma. The PPC manufacturing process has been scaled up from bench scale (1-2 g) to 0.6Kg, and several current Good Manufacturing Practice, (“cGMP”) lots have been produced with reproducible quality.

We believe that TheraPlas has emerged as a viable alternative to current approaches due to several distinguishing characteristics such as strong molecular versatility that may allow for complex modifications to potentially improve activity and safety with little difficulty. The biocompatibility of these polymers reduces the risk of adverse immune response, thus allowing for repeated administration. Compared to naked DNA or cationic lipids, TheraPlas is generally safer, more efficient, and cost effective. We believe that these advantages place Celsion in strong position to capitalize on this technology platform.

Ovarian Cancer Overview

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal of gynecological malignancies among women with an overall five-year survival rate of 45%. This poor outcome is due in part to the lack of effective prevention and early detection strategies. There were approximately 22,000 new cases of ovarian cancer in the U.S. in 2014 with an estimated 14,000 deaths. Mortality rates for ovarian cancer declined very little in the last forty years due to the unavailability of detection tests and improved treatments. Most women with ovarian cancer are not diagnosed until Stages III or IV, when the disease has spread outside the pelvis to the abdomen and areas beyond causing swelling and pain, where the five-year survival rates are 25 - 41 percent and 11 percent, respectively. First-line chemotherapy regimens are typically platinum-based combination therapies. Although this first line of treatment has an approximate 80 percent response rate, 55 to 75 percent of women will develop recurrent ovarian cancer within two years and ultimately will not respond to platinum therapy. Patients whose cancer recurs or progresses after initially responding to surgery and first-line chemotherapy have been divided into one of the two groups based on the time from completion of platinum therapy to disease recurrence or progression. This time period is referred to as platinum-free interval. The platinum-sensitive group has a platinum-free interval of longer than six months. This group generally responds to additional treatment with platinum-based therapies. The platinum-resistant group has a platinum-free interval of shorter than six months and is resistant to additional platinum-based treatments. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, topotecan, and Avastin are the only approved second-line therapies for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The overall response rate for these therapies is 10 to 20 percent with median overall survival of eleven to twelve months. Immunotherapy is an attractive novel approach for the treatment of ovarian cancer particularly since ovarian cancers are considered immunogenic tumors. IL-12 is one of the most active cytokines for the induction of potent anti-cancer immunity acting through the induction of T-lymphocyte and natural killer cell proliferation. The precedence for a therapeutic role of IL-12 in ovarian cancer is based on epidemiologic and preclinical data.

GEN-1

GEN-1 is a DNA-based immunotherapeutic product candidate for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer by intraperitoneally administering an Interleukin-12 (“IL-12”) plasmid formulated with our proprietary TheraPlas delivery system. In this DNA-based approach, the immunotherapy is combined with a standard chemotherapy drug, which can potentially achieve better clinical outcomes than with chemotherapy alone. We believe that increases in IL-12 concentrations at tumor sites for several days after a single administration could create a potent immune environment against tumor activity and that a direct killing of the tumor with concomitant use of cytotoxic chemotherapy could result in a more robust and durable antitumor response than chemotherapy alone. We believe the rationale for local therapy with GEN-1 is based on the following.

OVATION I Study

In February 2015, we announced that the FDA accepted, without objection, the Phase Ib dose-escalation clinical trial of GEN-1 in combination with the standard of care in neoadjuvant ovarian cancer (the “OVATION I Study”). On September 30, 2015, we announced enrollment of the first patient in the OVATION I Study. The OVATION I Study was designed (i) to identify a safe, tolerable and potentially therapeutically active dose of GEN-1 by recruiting and maximizing an immune response and (ii) to enroll three to six patients per dose level to evaluate safety and efficacy and attempt to define an optimal dose for a follow-on Phase I/II study. In addition, the OVATION I Study establishes a unique opportunity to assess how cytokine-based compounds such as GEN-1 directly affect ovarian cancer cells and the tumor microenvironment in newly diagnosed patients. The study was designed to characterize the nature of the immune response triggered by GEN-1 at various levels of the patients’ immune system, including:

We initiated the OVATION I Study at four clinical sites at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Oklahoma University Medical Center, Washington University in St. Louis and the Medical College of Wisconsin. During 2016 and 2017, we announced data from the first fourteen patients in the OVATION I Study who completed treatment. On October 3, 2017 we announced final clinical and translational research data from the OVATION Study.

GEN-1 plus standard chemotherapy produced positive clinical results, with no dose limiting toxicities and positive dose dependent efficacy signals which correlate well with positive surgical outcomes. The OVATION I Study evaluated escalating doses of GEN-1 (36 mg/m2, 47 mg/m2, 61 mg/m2 and 79 mg/m2) administered intraperitoneally in combination with three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to interval debulking surgery, followed by three cycles of NAC in the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with Stage III/IV ovarian cancer.

In this Phase IB dose-escalation study, the 14 patients who were evaluable for response demonstrated median PFS of 21 months in patients treated per protocol and 17.1 months for the intent-to-treat population (n=18) for all dose cohorts, including three patients who dropped out of the study after 13 days or less, and two patients who did not receive full NAC and GEN-1 cycles. In addition, 100% of patients administered NAC plus the two higher doses of GEN-1 experienced an objective tumor response (defined as a partial or complete response) compared to only 60% of patients given the two lower doses. Pathological changes were assessed as part of the study, with the density of markers measured in tissue sections assessed via immunohistochemistry staining. Among patients administered the high doses of GEN-1 (n=8), pre-treatment to post-treatment reductions in key biomarkers were observed (FoxP3 -62.5%; IDO-1 -60%; PD-1 -62.5%; PD-L1 -37.5%). Reductions were also observed in patients administered the lower doses of GEN-1 (n=4) for all but one of the four key biomarkers (FoxP3 -40%; IDO-1 -40%; PD-1 +25%; PD-L1 -37.5%). The ratio of CD8+ cells to the four key immunosuppressive cell signals increased following treatment in 60 - 80% of patients.

Dose-limiting toxicity was not reached in the OVATION I Study.

OVATION 2 Study

On November 13, 2017, the Company filed its Phase I/II clinical trial protocol with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for GEN-1 for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer. The protocol is designed with a single dose escalation phase to 100 mg/m² to identify a safe and tolerable dose of GEN-1 while maximizing an immune response. The Phase I portion of the study will be followed by a continuation at the selected dose in 130 patients randomized Phase II study.

In the OVATION 2 Study, patients in the GEN-1 treatment arm will receive GEN-1 plus chemotherapy pre- and post-interval debulking surgery. The OVATION 2 Study will include up to 130 patients with Stage III/IV ovarian cancer, with 12 to 15 patients in the Phase I portion and up to 118 patients in Phase II. The study is 80% powered to show a 33% improvement in the primary endpoint, PFS, when comparing GEN-1 with neoadjuvant + adjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant + adjuvant chemotherapy alone. The PFS primary analysis will be conducted after at least 80 events have been observed or after all patients have been followed for at least 16 months, whichever is later.

Developed with extensive input from the Company’s Medical Advisory Board, the OVATION 2 Study builds on promising clinical and translational research data from the Phase IB dose-escalation OVATION I Study, in which enrolled patients received escalating weekly doses of GEN-1 up to 79 mg/m² for a total of eight treatments in combination with NACT, followed by IDS. In addition to exploring a higher dose of GEN-1 in the OVATION 2 study, patients will continue to receive GEN-1 after their IDS in combination with adjuvant chemotherapy.

On November 5, 2019, the Company announced that the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) completed its safety review of data from the first eight patients enrolled in the ongoing Phase I/II OVATION 2 Study. Based on the DSMB’s recommendation, the study will continue as planned and the Company will proceed with completing enrollment in the Phase I portion of the trial.

The latest DSMB review of GEN-1 at 100 mg/m² (in November 2019 and February 2020) has confirmed that there were no apparent dose limiting toxicities detected in any of the patients dosed with GEN-1 and that intraperitoneal administration is well tolerated even when given with standard NACT. Of the fifteen patients treated in the Phase I portion of the OVATION 2 Study, nine patients were treated with GEN-1 plus NACT and six patients were treated with NACT only.

In March 2020, the Company announced highly encouraging initial clinical data from the first 15 patients enrolled in the ongoing Phase I/II OVATION 2 Study for patients newly diagnosed with Stage III and IV ovarian cancer. The OVATION 2 Study combines GEN-1, the Company’s IL-12 gene-mediated immunotherapy, with standard-of-care neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). Following NACT, patients undergo interval debulking surgery (IDS), followed by three additional cycles of chemotherapy.

GEN-1 plus standard NACT produced positive dose-dependent efficacy results, with no dose-limiting toxicities, which correlates well with successful surgical outcomes as summarized below: 

Because of the risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report, among others, we are unable to estimate the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects or when, if ever, and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of a product. In addition, with the recent outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, we are still evaluating the impact that the pandemic will have on our trials and on our ability to timely develop our product candidates. Our inability to complete any of our research and development activities, preclinical studies or clinical trials in a timely manner or our failure to enter into collaborative agreements when appropriate could significantly increase our capital requirements and could adversely impact our liquidity. While our estimated future capital requirements are uncertain and could increase or decrease as a result of many factors, including the extent to which we choose to advance our research, development activities, preclinical studies and clinical trials, or if we are in a position to pursue manufacturing or commercialization activities, we will need significant additional capital to develop our product candidates through development and clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals and manufacture and commercialize approved products, if any. We do not know whether we will be able to access additional capital when needed or on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. Our inability to raise additional capital, or to do so on terms reasonably acceptable to us, would jeopardize the future success of our business.

As a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, our business and our ability to execute our strategy to achieve our corporate goals are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties. Material risks and uncertainties relating to our business and our industry are described in “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report.

BUSINESS STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN

We have not generated and do not expect to generate any revenue from product sales in the next several years, if at all. An element of our business strategy has been to pursue, as resources permit, the research and development of a range of product candidates for a variety of indications. We may also evaluate licensing cancer products from third parties for cancer treatments to expand our current product pipeline. This is intended to allow us to diversify the risks associated with our research and development expenditures. To the extent we are unable to maintain a broad range of product candidates, our dependence on the success of one or a few product candidates would increase and results such as those announced in relation to the HEAT study on January 31, 2013 will have a more significant impact on our financial prospects, financial condition and market value. We may also consider and evaluate strategic alternatives, including investment in, or acquisition of, complementary businesses, technologies or products. As demonstrated by the HEAT Study results, drug research and development is an inherently uncertain process and there is a high risk of failure at every stage prior to approval. The timing and the outcome of clinical results are extremely difficult to predict. The success or failure of any preclinical development and clinical trial can have a disproportionately positive or negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition, prospects and market value.

Our current business strategy includes the possibility of entering into collaborative arrangements with third parties to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates. In the event that third parties take over the clinical trial process for one or more of our product candidates, the estimated completion date would largely be under the control of that third party rather than us. We cannot forecast with any degree of certainty which proprietary products or indications, if any, will be subject to future collaborative arrangements, in whole or in part, and how such arrangements would affect our development plan or capital requirements. We may also apply for subsidies, grants or government or agency-sponsored studies that could reduce our development costs.

We had $16.7 million in cash, investments, interest receivable and deferred income tax asset as of December 31, 2019. During the first quarter of 2020, we raised an additional $6.4 million in capital under the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement and from the February 2020 Registered Direct Offering (as defined below). Given our development plans, we anticipate cash resources will be sufficient to fund our operations and financial commitments through mid-2021. In addition, the Company has approximately $15 million available under the Capital on Demand Agreement with JonesTrading International Services LLC. On March 5, 2020, we announced the termination of the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement. Other than the Capital on Demand Agreement with Jones Trading that provides us the ability to sell equity securities in the future, we have no other committed sources of additional capital.

As a result of the risks and uncertainties discussed in this Annual Report, among others, we are unable to estimate the duration and completion costs of our research and development projects or when, if ever, and to what extent we will receive cash inflows from the commercialization and sale of a product if one of our product candidates receives regulatory approval for marketing, if at all. Our inability to complete any of our research and development activities, preclinical studies or clinical trials in a timely manner or our failure to enter into collaborative agreements when appropriate could significantly increase our capital requirements and could adversely impact our liquidity. While our estimated future capital requirements are uncertain and could increase or decrease as a result of many factors, including the extent to which we choose to advance our research and development activities, preclinical studies and clinical trials, or whether we are in a position to pursue manufacturing or commercialization activities, we will need significant additional capital to develop our product candidates through development and clinical trials, obtain regulatory approvals and manufacture and commercialize approved products, if any. We do not know whether we will be able to access additional capital when needed or on terms favorable to us or our stockholders. Our inability to raise additional capital, or to do so on terms reasonably acceptable to us, would jeopardize the future success of our business. See Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information regarding the Company’s financial condition, liquidity and capital resources.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURES

We are engaged in a limited amount of research and development in our own facilities and have sponsored research programs in partnership with various research institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute and Duke University. We are currently, with minimal cash expenditures, sponsoring clinical and pre-clinical research at the University of Oxford, University of Utrecht, Oklahoma State University and the Children’s Hospital Research Institute. The majority of the spending in research and development is for the funding of ThermoDox® and GEN-1 clinical trials. Research and development expenses were approximately $13.1 million and $11.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively. See Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information regarding expenditures related to our research and development programs.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Government authorities in the U.S., at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, quality control, approval, manufacturing, labeling, post-approval monitoring and reporting, recordkeeping, packaging, promotion, storage, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources

Regulation in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) and implementing regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable FDA requirements at any time pre- or post-approval may result in a delay of approval or administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s imposition of a clinical hold on trials, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, issuance of warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal prosecution.

Research and Development

The vehicle by which FDA approves a new pharmaceutical product for sale and marketing in the U.S. is a New Drug Application (“NDA”) or a Biologics License Application (BLA). A new drug or biological product cannot be marketed in the United States without FDA’s approval of an NDA/BLA. The steps ordinarily required before a new drug can be marketed in the U.S. include (a) completion of pre-clinical and clinical studies; (b) submission and FDA acceptance of an Investigational New Drug application (IND), which must become effective before human clinical trials may commence; (c) completion of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the product to support each of its proposed indications; (d) submission and FDA acceptance of an NDA/BLA; (e) completion of an FDA inspection and potential audits of the facilities where the drug or biological product is manufactured to assess compliance with the current good manufacturing practices (cGMP) and to assure adequate identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency; and (e) FDA review and approval of the NDA/BLA.

Pre-clinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity, formulation and stability, as well as animal studies, to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product. Pre-clinical safety tests must be conducted by laboratories that comply with FDA regulations regarding good laboratory practice. The results of pre-clinical tests are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND and are reviewed by the FDA before the commencement of human clinical trials. Submission of an IND will not necessarily result in FDA authorization to commence clinical trials, and the absence of FDA objection to an IND does not necessarily mean that the FDA will ultimately approve an NDA/BLA or that a product candidate otherwise will come to market.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of a qualified principal investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices under protocols submitted to the FDA as part of an IND and with patient informed consent. Also, each clinical trial must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), and is subject to ongoing IRB monitoring.

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap or be combined. Phase I clinical trials may be conducted in patients or healthy volunteers to evaluate the product’s safety, dosage tolerance and pharmacokinetics and, if possible, seek to gain an early indication of its effectiveness. Phase II clinical trials usually involve controlled trials in a larger but still relatively small number of subjects from the relevant patient population to evaluate dosage tolerance and appropriate dosage; identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks; and provide a preliminary evaluation of the efficacy of the drug for specific indications. Phase III clinical trials are typically conducted in a significantly larger patient population and are intended to further evaluate safety and efficacy, establish the overall risk-benefit profile of the product, and provide an adequate basis for physician labeling.

In certain circumstances, a therapeutic product candidate being studied in clinical trials may be made available for treatment of individual patients. Pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), the manufacturer of an investigational product for a serious disease or condition is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for individual patient access to such investigational product.

There can be no assurance that any of our clinical trials will be completed successfully within any specified time period or at all. Either the FDA or we may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including among other things, if we, the FDA, our independent DMC, or the IRB conclude that clinical subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. The FDA inspects and reviews clinical trial sites, informed consent forms, data from the clinical trial sites (including case report forms and record keeping procedures) and the performance of the protocols by clinical trial personnel to determine compliance with good clinical practices. The conduct of clinical trials is complex and difficult, and there can be no assurance that the design or the performance of the pivotal clinical trial protocols of any of our current or future product candidates will be successful.

The results of pre-clinical studies and clinical trials, if successful, are submitted to FDA in the form of an NDA or BLA. Among other things, the FDA reviews an NDA to determine whether the product is safe and effective for its intended use and reviews a BLA to determine whether the product is safe, pure, and potent, and in each case, whether the product candidate is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP. The testing, submission, and approval process requires substantial time, effort, and financial resources, including substantial application user fees and annual product and establishment user fees. There can be no assurance that any approval will be granted for any product at any time, according to any schedule, or at all. The FDA may refuse to accept or approve an application if it determines that applicable regulatory criteria are not satisfied. The FDA may also require additional testing for safety and efficacy. Even, if regulatory approval is granted, the approval will be limited to specific indications. There can be no assurance that any of our current product candidates will receive regulatory approvals for marketing or, if approved, that approval will be for any or all of the indications that we request.

The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs and BLAs. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA or BLA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the NDA/BLA is accepted for filing, most standard reviews applications are completed within ten months of filing; most priority review applications are reviewed within six months of filing. Priority review are applied to a product candidate that the FDA determines has the potential to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would be a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness compared to available therapies. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

Section 505(b)(2) NDAs

As an alternative path to FDA approval for modifications to formulations or uses of drugs previously approved by the FDA, an applicant may submit an NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FDCA. Section 505(b)(2) was enacted as part of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and effectiveness, but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This type of application permits reliance for such approvals on literature or on an FDA finding of safety, effectiveness or both for an approved drug product.

As such, under Section 505(b)(2), the FDA may rely, for approval of an NDA, on data not developed by the applicant. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements, including clinical trials, to support the change from the approved branded reference drug. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for the new indication sought by the 505(b)(2) applicant.

FDA Regulations Specific to Gene-Based Products

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates gene-based products as biological products. Biological products intended for therapeutic use may be regulated by either the Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research (CBER) or the Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research (CDER). Gene-based products are subject to extensive regulation under the FDCA, the PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Each clinical trial of investigational gene therapies must be reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) for each clinical site. IBCs were established under the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules to provide local review and oversight of nearly all forms of research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules. The IBC assesses biosafety issues, specifically, safety practices and containment procedures, related to the investigational product and clinical study. Compliance with the NIH Guidelines is mandatory for investigators at institutions receiving NIH funds for research involving recombinant DNA, however many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them. Such trials remain subject to FDA and other clinical trial regulations, and only after FDA, IBC, and other relevant approvals are in place can these protocols proceed.

Additional Controls for Biological Products

To help reduce the increased risk of the introduction of adventitious agents, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing controls for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs, and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the United States and between states.

After a BLA is approved, the biological product may be subject to official lot release as a condition of approval. As part of the manufacturing process, the manufacturer is required to perform certain tests on each lot of the product before it is released for distribution. If the product is subject to official release by the FDA, the manufacturer submits samples of each lot of product to the FDA together with a release protocol showing a summary of the history of manufacture of the lot and the results of all of the manufacturer’s tests performed on the lot. The FDA may also perform certain confirmatory tests on lots of some products, such as viral vaccines, before releasing the lots for distribution by the manufacturer.

In addition, the FDA conducts laboratory research related to the regulatory standards on the safety, purity, potency, and effectiveness of biological products. As with drugs, after approval of biological products, manufacturers must address any safety issues that arise, are subject to recalls or a halt in manufacturing, and are subject to periodic inspection after approval.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for reviewing product candidates, or provide for the approval of a product candidate on the basis of a surrogate endpoint. Even if a product candidate qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product candidate no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be lengthened. Generally, product candidates that are eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. For example, Fast Track is a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of product candidates to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and fill unmet medical needs.

Although Fast Track and priority review do not affect the standards for approval, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor of a Fast Track designated product candidate and expedite review of the application for a product candidate designated for priority review. Accelerated approval provides for an earlier approval for a new product candidate that meets the following criteria: is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies and demonstrates an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality (IMM) that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. A surrogate endpoint is a laboratory measurement or physical sign used as an indirect or substitute measurement representing a clinically meaningful outcome. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to verify and describe the predicted effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical endpoint, and the product may be subject to accelerated withdrawal procedures.

A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product candidate is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapeutics, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product candidate may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. A request for Breakthrough Therapy designation should be submitted concurrently with, or as an amendment to, an IND, but ideally no later than the end of Phase 2 meeting.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials within one year of completion, although disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two additional years. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Orphan Drug Designation

In 2009, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for ThermoDox® for the treatment of HCC. In 2005, the FDA granted orphan drug designation for GEN-1 for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. However, if a product which has an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan drug exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same drug for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. Orphan drug designation can also provide opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and FDA user-fee benefits.

Hatch-Waxman Exclusivity

The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent data exclusivity within the U.S. to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety. During the exclusivity period, the FDA generally may not accept for review an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that references the previously approved drug. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA referencing the new chemical entity may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement.

Biosimilars

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological product candidates shown to be highly similar to or interchangeable with an FDA licensed reference product. Biosimilarity sufficient to reference a prior FDA-approved product requires that there be no differences in conditions of use, route of administration, dosage form, and strength, and no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product candidate and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency. Biosimilarity must be shown through analytical trials, animal trials, and a clinical trial or trials, unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services waives a required element. A biosimilar product candidate may be deemed interchangeable with a prior approved product if it meets the higher hurdle of demonstrating that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biological product and the reference product may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference product. To date, a handful of biosimilar products and no interchangeable products have been approved under the BPCIA. Complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation, which is still being evaluated by the FDA.

A reference product is granted 12 years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and no application for a biosimilar can be submitted for four years from the date of licensure of the reference product. The first biological product candidate submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product has exclusivity against a finding of interchangeability for other biological products for the same condition of use for the lesser of (i) one year after first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar, (ii) 18 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar is approved if there is no patent challenge, (iii) 18 months after resolution of a lawsuit over the patents of the reference product in favor of the first interchangeable biosimilar applicant, or (iv) 42 months after the first interchangeable biosimilar’s application has been approved if a patent lawsuit is ongoing within the 42-month period.

Post-Approval Requirements

After FDA approval of a product is obtained, we and our contract manufacturers are required to comply with various post-approval requirements, including establishment registration and product listing, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse reactions and production problems to the FDA, providing updated safety and efficacy information for drugs, or safety, purity, and potency for biological products, and complying with requirements concerning advertising and promotional labeling. As a condition of approval of an NDA/BLA, the FDA may require the applicant to conduct additional clinical trials or other post market testing and surveillance to further monitor and assess the drug’s safety and efficacy. The FDA can also impose other post-marketing controls on us as well as our products including, but not limited to, restrictions on sale and use, through the approval process, regulations and otherwise. The FDA also has the authority to require the recall of our products in the event of material deficiencies or defects in manufacture. A governmentally mandated recall, or a voluntary recall by us, could result from a number of events or factors, including component failures, manufacturing errors, instability of product or defects in labeling.

In addition, manufacturing establishments in the U.S. and abroad are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and must comply with cGMP. To maintain compliance with cGMP, manufacturers must expend funds, time and effort in the areas of production and quality control. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the quality, purity and potency of the product candidate. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its proposed shelf-life.

Foreign Clinical Studies to Support an IND, NDA, or BLA

The FDA will accept as support for an IND, NDA, or BLA a well-designed, well-conducted, non-IND foreign clinical trial if it was conducted in accordance with GCP and the FDA is able to validate the data from the trial through an on-site inspection, if necessary. A sponsor or applicant who wishes to rely on a non-IND foreign clinical trial to support an IND must submit supporting information to the FDA to demonstrate that the trial conformed to GCP. This information includes the investigator’s qualifications; a description of the research facilities; a detailed summary of the protocol and trial results and, if requested, case records or additional background data; a description of the drug substance and drug product, including the components, formulation, specifications, and, if available, the bioavailability of the product candidate; information showing that the trial is adequate and well controlled; the name and address of the independent ethics committee that reviewed the trial and a statement that the independent ethics committee meets the required definition; a summary of the independent ethics committee’s decision to approve or modify and approve the trial, or to provide a favorable opinion; a description of how informed consent was obtained; a description of what incentives, if any, were provided to subjects to participate; a description of how the sponsor monitored the trial and ensured that the trial was consistent with the protocol; a description of how investigators were trained to comply with GCP and to conduct the trial in accordance with the trial protocol; and a statement on whether written commitments by investigators to comply with GCP and the protocol were obtained.

Regulatory applications based solely on foreign clinical data meeting these criteria may be approved if the foreign data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice, the trials have been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence, and the data may be considered valid without the need for an on-site inspection by FDA or, if FDA considers such an inspection to be necessary, FDA is able to validate the data through an on-site inspection or other appropriate means. Failure of an application to meet any of these criteria may result in the application not being approvable based on the foreign data alone.

New Legislation and Regulations

From time to time, legislation is drafted, introduced and passed in Congress that could significantly change the statutory provisions governing the testing, approval, manufacturing and marketing of products regulated by the FDA. In addition to new legislation, FDA regulations and policies are often revised or interpreted by the agency in ways that may significantly affect our business and our products. It is impossible to predict whether further legislative changes will be enacted or whether FDA regulations, guidance, policies or interpretations will be changed or what the effect of such changes, if any, may be. Further, with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that Congress and FDA may implement new laws, regulations, or policies that may impact our ability to continue development programs as planned.

Other regulatory matters

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities of product candidates following product approval, where applicable, or commercialization are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, which may include the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments and governmental agencies.

Other healthcare laws

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our business operations and any current or future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians 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 develop, market, sell and distribute any drugs for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other related governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, reputational harm, additional oversight and reporting obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar settlement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws 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 similar actions, penalties and sanctions. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource-consuming and can divert a company’s attention from its business.

In the U.S., numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws, govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information. For example, in June 2018, the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which came into effect on January 1, 2020 and provides new data privacy rights for consumers and new operational requirements for companies, which may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. The CCPA gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. While there is currently an exception for protected health information that is subject to HIPAA and clinical trial regulations, as currently written, the CCPA may impact certain of our business activities. The CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent state privacy legislation in the U.S., which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business.

In the event we decide to conduct clinical trials or continue to enroll subjects in our ongoing or future clinical trials, we may be subject to additional privacy restrictions. The collection, use, storage, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Economic Area, or EEA, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective on May 25, 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EEA, including the United States, and permits data protection authorities to impose large penalties for violations of the GDPR, including potential fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenues, whichever is greater. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR includes restrictions on cross-border data transfers. The GDPR may increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process where such processing is subject to the GDPR, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the GDPR, including as implemented by individual countries. Compliance with the GDPR will be a rigorous and time-intensive process that may increase our cost of doing business or require us to change our business practices, and despite those efforts, there is a risk that we may be subject to fines and penalties, litigation, and reputational harm in connection with our European activities. Further, the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU, often referred to as Brexit, has created uncertainty with regard to data protection regulation in the United Kingdom. In particular, it is unclear how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated now that the United Kingdom has left the EU.

Insurance Coverage and Reimbursement

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients who are prescribed treatments for their conditions and providers performing the prescribed services generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the associated healthcare costs. Thus, even if a product candidate is approved, sales of the product will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations, provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for, the product. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by CMS, an agency within HHS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare and private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. No uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price or reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

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

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

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, also called the Medicare Modernization Act, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug and biologic benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs and biologics. Unlike Medicare Parts A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs and biologics, and each drug plan can develop its own formulary that identifies which drugs and biologics it will cover, and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include products within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs and biologics in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs and biologics may increase demand for products for which we obtain marketing approval. Any negotiated prices for any of our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan will likely be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug or biologic product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the average manufacturer price, or AMP, and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. As of 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively the ACA, expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although under the current state of the law these newly eligible entities (with the exception of children’s hospitals) will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. As 340B drug pricing is determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase. Further, on December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change instituted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, under the 340B program. For the 2019 and 2018 fiscal years, CMS altered the reimbursement formula. The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” that was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation, and such a dramatic change was beyond the scope of the Secretary’s authority. On May 6, 2019, the district court reiterated that the rate reduction exceeded the Secretary’s authority and declared that the rate reduction for 2019 also exceeded the Secretary’s authority and remanded the issue to HHS to devise an appropriate remedy. On July 10, 2019, the district court entered its final judgment and CMS has filed an appeal and a decision by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is pending. However, subsequently, hospitals have filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for D.C. to enjoin the reimbursement cuts for 2020. It is unclear how such litigation could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our products in the future and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products. Changes to these current laws and state and federal healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

These laws, and future state and federal healthcare reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding and otherwise affect the prices we may obtain for any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval or the frequency with which any such product candidate is prescribed or used.

Outside the United States, ensuring coverage and adequate payment for a product also involves challenges, as the pricing of biological products is subject to governmental control in many countries. For example, in the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that products may be marketed only after a reimbursement price has been agreed. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost effectiveness of a particular therapy to currently available therapies or so-called health technology assessments, in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. Other countries may allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control product volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Efforts to control prices and utilization of biological products will likely continue as countries attempt to manage healthcare expenditures.

Current and future healthcare reform legislation

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system directed at broadening the availability of healthcare, improving the quality of healthcare, and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the United States Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for products under government health care programs. The Affordable Care Act includes provisions of importance to our potential product candidates that:

Some of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act have yet to be implemented, and there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act, as well as recent efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the Affordable Care Act. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, delaying the implementation of certain Affordable Care Act-mandated fees, and increasing the point-of-sale discount that is owed by pharmaceutical manufacturers who participate in Medicare Part D. On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. On March 2, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petitions for writs of certiorari to review this case, and has allotted one hour for oral arguments, which are expected to occur in the fall. We will continue to evaluate the effect that the ACA and its possible repeal and replacement has on our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the Affordable Care Act was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, included aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their commercial products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted state and federal legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. For example, at the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. Additionally, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase drug manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products, and reduce the out of pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has solicited feedback on some of these measures and has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy, a type of prior authorization, for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. Although a number of these and other measures may require additional authorization to become effective, Congress and the Trump administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payers. At the state level, legislatures are increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control biopharmaceutical and biologic product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

On May 30, 2018, the Right to Try Act was signed into law. The law, among other things, provides a federal framework for certain patients to access certain investigational new drug products that have completed a Phase 1 clinical trial and that are undergoing investigation for FDA approval. Under certain circumstances, eligible patients can seek treatment without enrolling in clinical trials and without obtaining FDA permission under the FDA expanded access program. There is no obligation for a drug manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act, but the manufacturer must develop an internal policy and respond to patient requests according to that policy.

Regulation Outside of the U.S.

In addition to regulations in the U.S., we will be subject to a variety of regulations of other countries governing, among other things, any clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our product candidates. Whether or not we obtain FDA approval (clinical trial or marketing) for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in countries outside of the U.S., such as the EU and China, prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the products in those countries. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

In the EU, before starting a clinical trial, a valid request for authorization must be submitted by the sponsor to the competent authority of the EU Member State(s) in which the sponsor plans to conduct the clinical trial, as well as to an independent national Ethics Committee. A clinical trial may commence only once the relevant Ethics Committee(s) has (have) issued a favorable opinion and the competent authority of the EU Member State(s) concerned has (have) not informed the sponsor of any grounds for non-acceptance. Failure to comply with the EU requirements may subject a company to the rejection of the request and the prohibition to start a clinical trial. Clinical trials conducted in the EU (or used for marketing authorization application in the EU) must be conducted in accordance with applicable Good Clinical Practice (“GCP”) and Good Manufacturing Practice (“GMP”) rules, ICH guidelines and be consistent with ethical principles. EU Member State inspections are regularly conducted to verify the sponsor’s compliance with applicable rules. The sponsor is required to record and report to the relevant national competent authorities (and to the Ethics Committee) information about serious unexpected suspected adverse reactions (“S.U.S.A.Rs”). The way clinical trials are conducted in the EU will undergo a major change when the new EU Clinical Trial Regulation (Regulation 536/2014) comes into application in 2019.

As in the U.S., no medicinal product may be placed on the EU market unless a marketing authorization has been issued. In the EU, medicinal products may be authorized either via the mutual recognition and decentralized procedure, the national procedure or the centralized procedure. The centralized procedure, which is compulsory for medicines produced by biotechnology or those medicines intended to treat AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders or diabetes and is optional for those medicines that are highly innovative, provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU Member States. Marketing authorizations granted via the centralized procedure are valid for all EU Member States. Products submitted for approval via the centralized procedure are assessed by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), a committee within the European Medicine Agency (EMA). The CHMP assesses, inter alia, whether a medicine meets the necessary quality, safety and efficacy requirements and whether it has a positive risk-benefit balance. The requirements for an application dossier for a biological product contain different aspects than that of a chemical medicinal product.

In the EU, the requirements for pricing, coverage and reimbursement of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval are provided for by the national laws of EU Member States. Governments influence the price of pharmaceutical products through their pricing and reimbursement rules and control of national health care systems that fund a large part of the cost of those products to consumers.

We may seek orphan designations for our product candidates. In the EU, as we understand it, a medicinal product may be designated as an orphan medicinal product if the sponsor can establish that it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10 thousand persons, or that, for the same purposes, it is unlikely that the marketing of the medicinal product would generate sufficient return; and that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, that the medicinal product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition. Sponsors who obtain orphan designation benefit from a type of scientific advice specific for designated orphan medicinal products and protocol assistance from the EMA. Fee reductions are also available depending on the status of the sponsor and the type of service required. Marketing authorization applications for designated orphan medicinal products must be submitted through the centralized procedure.

The EU Data Protection Directive and Member State implementing legislation may also apply to health-related and other personal information obtained outside of the U.S. The Directive will be replaced by the EU General Data Protection Regulation in May 2018. The Regulation will increase our responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms to ensure compliance with the new EU data protection rules.

MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY

We do not currently own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of preclinical, clinical or commercial quantities of any of our product candidates. We currently contract with third party contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) for our preclinical and clinical trial supplies, and we expect to continue to do so to meet the preclinical and any clinical requirements of our product candidates. We have agreements for the supply of such drug materials with manufacturers or suppliers that we believe have sufficient capacity to meet our demands. In addition, we believe that adequate alternative sources for such supplies exist. However, there is a risk that, if supplies are interrupted, it would materially harm our business. We typically order raw materials and services on a purchase order basis and do not enter into long-term dedicated capacity or minimum supply arrangements.

Manufacturing is subject to extensive regulations that impose various procedural and documentation requirements, which govern record keeping, manufacturing processes and controls, personnel, quality control and quality assurance, among others. Our CMOs manufacture our product candidates under cGMP conditions. cGMP is a regulatory standard for the production of pharmaceuticals that will be used in humans which is recognized by FDA and many foreign regulatory authorities.

SALES AND MARKETING

Our current focus is on the development of our existing portfolio, the completion of clinical trials and, if and where appropriate, the registration of our product candidates. We currently do not have marketing, sales and distribution capabilities. If we receive marketing and commercialization approval for any of our product candidates, we intend to market the product either directly or through strategic alliances and distribution agreements with third parties. The ultimate implementation of our strategy for realizing the financial value of our product candidates is dependent on the results of clinical trials for our product candidates, the availability of regulatory approvals and the ability to negotiate acceptable commercial terms with third parties.

PRODUCT LIABILITY AND INSURANCE

Our business exposes us to potential product liability risks that are inherent in the testing, manufacturing and marketing of human therapeutic products. We presently have product liability insurance limited to $10 million per incident, and if we were to be subject to a claim in excess of this coverage or to a claim not covered by our insurance and the claim succeeded, we would be required to pay the claim out of our own limited resources.

COMPETITION

Competition in the discovery and development of new methods for treating and preventing disease is intense. We face, and will continue to face, competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as academic and research institutions and government agencies both in the U.S. and abroad. We face significant competition from organizations pursuing the same or similar technologies used by us in our drug discovery efforts and from organizations developing pharmaceuticals that are competitive with our product candidates.

Most of our competitors, either alone or together with their collaborative partners, have substantially greater financial resources and larger research and development staffs than we do. In addition, most of these organizations, either alone or together with their collaborators, have significantly greater experience than we do in developing products, undertaking preclinical testing and clinical trials, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products, and manufacturing and marketing products. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry may result in even more resources being concentrated among our competitors. These companies, as well as academic institutions, governmental agencies, and private research organizations, also compete with us in recruiting and retaining highly qualified scientific personnel and consultants. Our ability to compete successfully with other companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology field also depends on the status of our collaborations and on the continuing availability of capital to us.

ThermoDox®

Although there are many drugs and devices marketed and under development for the treatment of cancer, the Company is not aware of any other heat activated drug delivery product either being marketed or in human clinical development. In addition, the Company is not aware of any other Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of newly diagnosed or intermediate stage HCC or primary liver cancer.

GEN-1

Studied indications for GEN-1 include ovarian cancer and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) brain cancer. In evaluating the competitive landscape for both indications, early stage indications are treated with chemotherapy (temozolomide, BCNU, CCNU for brain cancer; docetaxel, doxil and cisplatinum for ovarian cancer), while later stage ovarian cancer is treated with Bevacizumab - Avastin®, an anti-angiogenesis inhibitor. Avastin® is currently also being evaluated for early stage disease.

In product positioning for the ovarian cancer indications, there currently is no direct immunotherapy competitor for GEN-1, which will be studied as an adjuvant to both chemotherapy standard of care regimens, as well as anti-angiogenesis compounds. To support these cases, we have conducted clinical studies in combination with chemotherapy for ovarian cancer, and preclinical studies in combination with both temozolomide and Bevacizumab-Avastin®.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Licenses

Duke University License Agreement

In 1999, we entered into a license agreement with Duke University under which we received exclusive rights, subject to certain exceptions, to commercialize and use Duke’s thermo-liposome technology. In relation to these liposome patents licensed from Duke University, we have filed two additional patents related to the formulation and use of liposomes. We have also licensed from Valentis, CA certain global rights covering the use of pegylation for temperature sensitive liposomes.

In 2003, our obligations under the license agreement with Duke University with respect to the testing and regulatory milestones and other licensed technology performance deadlines were eliminated in exchange for a payment of shares of our common stock. The license agreement continues to be subject to agreements to pay a royalty based upon future sales. In conjunction with the patent holder, we have filed international applications for a certain number of the U.S. patents.

Our rights under the license agreement with Duke University extend for the longer of 20 years or the end of any term for which any relevant patents are issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Currently we have rights to Duke’s patent for its thermo-liposome technology in the U.S. and to future patents received by Duke in Canada, the EU, Japan and Australia, where it has patent applications have been granted. The European grant provides coverage in the European Community. For this technology, our license rights are worldwide, including the U.S., Canada, certain EU Member States, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan.

Patents and Proprietary Rights

Celsion holds an exclusive license agreement with Duke University for its temperature-sensitive liposome technology that covers the ThermoDox® formulation. Celsion also has issued patents which pertain specifically to methods of storing stabilized, temperature-sensitive liposomal formulations and will assist in the protection of global rights. These patents will extend the overall term of the ThermoDox® patent portfolio to 2026. These patents are the first in this family, which includes pending applications in the U.S., Europe and additional key commercial geographies in Asia. This extended patent runway to 2026 allows for the evaluation of future development activities for ThermoDox® and Celsion’s heat-sensitive liposome technology platform.

For the ThermoDox® technology, we either exclusively license or own U.S. and international patents with claims and methods and compositions of matters that cover various aspects of lysolipid thermally sensitive liposomes technology, with expiration dates ranging from 2018 to 2026.

For the TheraPlas technology, we own three U.S. and international patents and related applications with claims and methods and compositions of matters that cover various aspects of TheraPlas and GEN-1 technologies, with expiration dates ranging from 2020 to 2028.

There can be no assurance that an issued patent will remain valid and enforceable in a court of law through the entire patent term. Should the validity of a patent be challenged, the legal process associated with defending the patent can be costly and time consuming. Issued patents can be subject to oppositions, interferences and other third-party challenges that can result in the revocation of the patent or maintenance of the patent in amended form (and potentially in a form that renders the patent without commercially relevant or broad coverage). Competitors may be able to circumvent our patents. Development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products can be subject to substantial delays and it is possible that at the time of commercialization any patent covering the product has expired or will be in force for only a short period of time following commercialization. We cannot predict with any certainty if any third-party U.S. or foreign patent rights, other proprietary rights, will be deemed infringed by the use of our technology. Nor can we predict with certainty which, if any, of these rights will or may be asserted against us by third parties. Should we need to defend ourselves and our partners against any such claims, substantial costs may be incurred. Furthermore, parties making such claims may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to develop or commercialize some or all of our products in the U.S. and abroad and could result in the award of substantial damages. In the event of a claim of infringement, we or our partners may be required to obtain one or more licenses from a third party. There can be no assurance that we can obtain a license on a reasonable basis should we deem it necessary to obtain rights to an alternative technology that meets our needs. The failure to obtain a license may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition to the rights available to us under completed or pending license agreements, we rely on our proprietary know-how and experience in the development and use of heat for medical therapies, which we seek to protect, in part, through proprietary information agreements with employees, consultants and others. There can be no assurance that these proprietary information agreements will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, or that these agreements, even if fully enforced, will be adequate to prevent third-party use of the Company’s proprietary technology. Please refer to “Item 1A, Risk Factors,” including, but not limited to, “We rely on trade secret protection and other unpatented proprietary rights for important proprietary technologies, and any loss of such rights could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.” Similarly, we cannot guarantee that technology rights licensed to us by others will not be successfully challenged or circumvented by third parties, or that the rights granted will provide us with adequate protection. Please refer to “Item 1A, Risk Factors,” including, but not limited to, “Our business depends on licensing agreements with third parties to permit us to use patented technologies. The loss of any of our rights under these agreements could impair our ability to develop and market our products.”

EMPLOYEES

As of March 25, 2020, we employed 29 full-time employees. We also maintain active independent contractor relationships with various individuals, most of whom have month-to-month or annual consulting agreements. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

COMPANY INFORMATION

Celsion was founded in 1982 and is a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 997 Lenox Drive, Suite 100, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648. Our telephone number is (609) 896-9100. The Company’s website is www.celsion.com. The information contained in, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of, and is not incorporated in, this Annual Report.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

We make available free of charge through our website, www.celsion.com, our Annual Report, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). In addition, our website includes other items related to corporate governance matters, including, among other things, our corporate governance principles, charters of various committees of the Board of Directors, and our code of business conduct and ethics applicable to all employees, officers and directors. We intend to disclose on our internet website any amendments to or waivers from our code of business conduct and ethics as well as any amendments to its corporate governance principles or the charters of various committees of the Board of Directors. Copies of these documents may be obtained, free of charge, from our website. The SEC also maintains an internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file periodic and other reports electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The address of that site is www.sec.gov. The information available on or through our website is not a part of this Annual Report and should not be relied upon.

RECENT EVENTS

On February 27, 2020, the Company entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with several institutional investors, pursuant to which the Company agreed to issue and sell, in a registered direct offering (the “Offering”), an aggregate of 4,571,428 shares (the “Shares”) of our common stock at an offering price of $1.05 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $4.8 million before the deduction of the Placement Agent fees and offering expenses. The Shares are being offered by the Company pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-227236). The Purchase Agreement contains customary representations, warranties and agreements by the Company and customary conditions to closing. The closing of the Offering and the Private Placement occurred on March 3, 2020. In a concurrent private placement (the “Private Placement”), the Company agreed to issue to the investors that participated in the Offering, for no additional consideration, warrants, to purchase up to 2,971,428 shares of Common Stock (the “Original Warrants”). The Original Warrants were initially exercisable six months following their and were set to expire on the five-year anniversary of such initial exercise date. The Warrants had an exercise price of $1.15 per share subject to adjustment as provided therein. On March 12, 2020 the Company entered into private exchange agreements (the “Exchange Agreements”) with holders the Warrants. Pursuant to the Exchange Agreements, in return for a higher exercise price of $1.24 per share of Common Stock, the Company issued new warrants to the Investors to purchase up to 3,200,000 shares of Common Stock (the “Exchange Warrants”) in exchange for the Original Warrants. The Exchange Warrants, like the Original Warrants, are initially exercisable six months following their issuance (the “Initial Exercise Date”) and expire on the five-year anniversary of their Initial Exercise Date. Other than having a higher exercise price, different issue date, Initial Exercise Date and expiration date, the terms of the Exchange Warrants are identical to those of the Original Warrants.

On March 5, 2020, the Company delivered notice to Aspire Capital Fund, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (“Aspire Capital”), terminating the Common Stock Purchase Agreement dated October 28, 2019 (the “2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement”) with Aspire Capital effective as of March 6, 2020. The 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement provided that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth therein, Aspire Capital was committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $10 million of shares of the Company’s common stock over the 24-month term of the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement at a price equal to (i) the lowest sale price of the Company’s common stock on the purchase date; or (ii) the arithmetic average of the three (3) lowest closing sale prices for the Company’s common stock during the ten (10) consecutive trading days ending on the trading day immediately preceding the purchase date. In consideration for entering into the 2019 Aspire Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to Aspire Capital 100,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.