Item 1. Business

Overview

PolarityTE, Inc., headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, is a biotechnology company developing regenerative tissue products and biomaterials. Our first regenerative tissue product is SkinTE. On July 23, 2021, we submitted an investigational new drug application (“IND”) for SkinTE to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) through our subsidiary, PolarityTE MD, Inc. (“PTE-MD”), as the first step in the regulatory process for obtaining licensure for SkinTE under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act. The FDA subsequently issued clinical hold correspondence to us identifying certain issues that needed to be addressed before the IND could be approved. We provided responses to the FDA, and on January 14, 2022, the FDA notified us that the clinical hold had been removed. The IND approval enables us to commence the first of two expected pivotal studies needed to support a biologics license application (“BLA”) seeking a chronic cutaneous ulcer indication for SkinTE. Our first planned pivotal study under our IND is a multi-center, randomized controlled trial evaluating SkinTE in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers classified as Grade 2 in the Wagner classification system (“Wagner 2 DFUs”) entitled “Closure Obtained with Vascularized Epithelial Regeneration for DFUs with SkinTE,” or “COVER DFUs Trial.” We plan to enroll up to 100 patients at up to 20 sites in the U.S. in the COVER DFUs Trial, which will compare treatment with SkinTE plus the standard-of-care to the standard-of-care alone. The primary endpoint is the incidence of DFUs closed at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints include percent area reduction (“PAR”) at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks, improved quality of life, and new onset of infection of the DFU being evaluated. As we pursue the first study, we plan to engage in discussions with the FDA regarding the design and implementation of the second pivotal study.

Beginning in 2017 we developed internally a laboratory and research capability to advance the development of SkinTE and related technologies, which we operate through our subsidiary, Arches Research, Inc. (“Arches”). At the beginning of May 2018, we acquired a preclinical research and veterinary sciences business to be used, in part, for preclinical studies on our regenerative tissue products, which we operate through our subsidiary IBEX Preclinical Research, Inc. (“IBEX”). Through IBEX, we also offer preclinical research services to unrelated third parties on a contract basis.

SkinTE

The Importance of Skin

Skin has several functions. It provides a barrier to water loss and pathogens, and protects against diverse forms of trauma, including thermal, chemical, and ultraviolet radiation. Skin keeps us in touch with our environment through a host of nerve endings, regulates body temperature, and enhances metabolic functions. Skin is an active immune organ functioning as a first line of defense against a wide spectrum of common pathogens encountered on a regular basis. Biosynthesis of melanin in the skin reduces the harmful effects of ultraviolet light. Skin is a ready source of vitamin D, which plays an important role in maintaining healthy levels of serum calcium and resorption of bone.

The clinical significance of skin is illustrated by the morbidity associated with chronic wounds, burns, and cutaneous defects. A 12-month prospective observational study of diabetic foot ulcers first published in Diabetic medicine: a journal of the British Diabetic Association in 2018 reported that out of a group of 299 patients, 17.4% had some sort of amputation of the foot and 6.0% of the 299 patients underwent revascularization surgery. A report published on Medscape in June 2018 states that pressure injuries are listed as the direct cause of death in 7-8% of all patients with paraplegia. And according to statistics collected by the National Burn Repository, the mortality rate from 2008 to 2017 among burn patients treated at surveyed burn centers is approximately 3%. We believe that the regeneration of full-thickness skin with all the processes and appendages that enable it to perform its vital functions is critical to long-term, positive patient outcomes following serious skin injury.

Limitations of Other Skin Treatment Therapies

Current clinical standards and practice adhere to the concept that skin should be replaced with skin whenever possible in settings where patients have suffered the loss of such tissue. Understanding this, medical professionals are left with a decision to attempt to temporize a wound bed with an autograft (using the patient’s own skin in a skin graft), an allograft (using human skin from a donor), or a variety of skin substitutes to provide a skin-like barrier while the margin of the wound heals through secondary intention and contraction. Historically, harvest and placement of autologous full-thickness skin results in the best outcome within wound beds because it most closely resembles the full-thickness skin that was lost. However, full-thickness harvest of skin also results in a full-thickness skin defect at the donor site, which requires primary closure (skin edge approximation and suturing) so as not to leave a gaping wound behind. Because of this absolute limit on how much autologous full-thickness donor skin can be harvested without leaving behind a non-closable wound, medical professionals can only harvest small, elliptically shaped pieces of such skin from areas of redundancy, which is termed full-thickness skin grafting (“FTSG”).

It is because there remains only a finite supply of FTSG donor material and sites that medical professionals often rely on the harvest of split-thickness skin grafts (“STSG”) for coverage of voids of the integument to get better coverage and more skin. STSGs, however, do not represent the true anatomy or function of native skin because STSG harvest procedures commonly take the top 1/100th of an inch of the patient’s own skin and therefore do not capture all the necessary cellular and tissue components and structures required for the regeneration of normal skin. Because of the failure to harvest all the necessary skin structures and components from the STSG donor site, the patient is left with an incomplete top layer of skin covering the initial defect (recipient site) and a remaining bottom layer at the donor site. In this setting, both donor and recipient sites contain incomplete skin, which often results in dysfunctional, painful scar tissues and lifelong morbidities.

Due to the limits of STSG and FTSG and the type of procedures required for such harvests, the industry has continued to investigate skin substitutes and skin alternatives that can be used in place of native skin. Among these alternatives or options are a cultured epithelial autograft (a form of manipulated autograft), allograft (tissue grafts derived from a donor of the same species as the recipient but not genetically identical), xenograft (a tissue graft or organ transplant from a donor of a different species from the recipient), and engineered skin substitutes. To our knowledge, none of these substitutes have been able to regenerate the cutaneous appendages (e.g., hair follicle, sweat gland, sebaceous glands, etc.), which are necessary for the development of full-thickness, normal skin.

Our Solution - SkinTE

The core technology of SkinTE is minimally polarized functional units (“MPFUs”). MPFUs are multi-cellular segments created from a piece of the patient’s healthy skin. SkinTE allows the patient to regenerate full-thickness, three-dimensional skin (similar to a FTSG) by contributing a much smaller skin sample, while reducing the scarring and morbidities associated with STSGs, and producing results we believe to be superior to STSGs and synthetic skin substitutes. SkinTE can be utilized by a variety of health care providers in an operating room, wound clinic, or doctor’s office. The process begins with the collection of a skin sample from the patient and shipping the sample in a temperature-controlled shipping box to our FDA-regulated biomedical manufacturing facility. The harvested skin is used to manufacture SkinTE, which is expeditiously returned for application to the patient’s wound. Processing of the skin creates multi-cellular segments that are optimized for grafting, which retain the progenitor cells found throughout the skin, including the hair follicles. The product is not cultured or expanded ex-vivo, and no enzymes, growth factors, or serum derivatives are utilized during manufacturing. The final product, SkinTE, is delivered in a syringe and has the consistency of a paste. Following wound bed preparation, SkinTE is spread evenly across the entire surface of the wound and engrafts within the wound in a similar manner to traditional skin grafts. Once integrated with the wound bed, the product expands and regenerates full-thickness skin across the entire surface.

Given our significant real-world experience with SkinTE in clinical settings for a variety of wounds and several supporting publications, we believe SkinTE can be successful in closing full-thickness complex wounds, such as DFUs penetrating to tendon, capsule, and bone classified Wagner Grades 2 through 4; Stage 3 and 4 pressure injuries; and, acute wounds. Full-thickness DFUs that penetrate to deep structures are best classified as University of Texas Grades 2 and 3, corresponding to Wagner Grades 2 through 4, and are at the highest risk for progressing to amputation with very few treatment options and a paucity of high-level data related to current treatment options. Similarly, Stage 3 pressure injuries involve the entire thickness of the skin and Stage 4 pressure injuries have exposed muscle, tendon, or bone. Due to limited reliable solutions, these injuries affect a large number of people for extended periods of time. We believe that focusing our efforts in these hard-to-treat wound types, where there are significant unmet needs, can deliver substantial positive impacts in patients’ lives and value for the SkinTE franchise for several reasons.

Clinically, we believe SkinTE is highly differentiated from current treatment alternatives in these hard-to-treat wound types. In real-world experience and data from preliminary studies conducted to date, we believe that SkinTE has covered exposed critical structures, completely filled in wound depth including tunneling, and ultimately provided complete and durable wound closure with the regenerated tissue having many of the important characteristics of native skin such as pliability, strength, sensation, ability to sweat, and hair growth. In contrast to a multi-staged approach combining numerous treatments in an algorithm dictated by wound progression, SkinTE can be applied directly into deep wounds with exposed structures, typically requires only a single application in the vast majority of cases and, unlike other products in this space, may not require a skin graft to achieve final closure. In our experience, providers treating complex wounds are most concerned with reliably covering deep structures, as this mitigates a substantial risk factor for the patient and converts the wound to a lower grade that is more manageable. We believe that covering deep structures and filling wound volume with newly generated vascular tissue is an important advantage of SkinTE and differentiates SkinTE from other treatments that have increased failure rates in these hard-to-treat wound settings. Another valuable aspect of SkinTE clinically is that it is created from a relatively small skin harvest that is well tolerated by the patient.

We believe that patients with complex wounds face significant unmet needs, and that providers are motivated to better address them. If future clinical trials conducted under our IND demonstrate outcomes similar to those observed in real-world experience and preliminary clinical studies, we believe that SkinTE has the potential to shift practice patterns, accelerate adoption, and capture a significant portion of these hard-to-treat wound markets.

Clinical Trials

Under the SkinTE IND

Our IND for SkinTE was opened in January 2022. Our first planned pivotal study under our IND is a multi-center, randomized controlled trial evaluating SkinTE in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers classified as Grade 2 in the Wagner classification system (“Wagner 2 DFUs”) entitled “Closure Obtained with Vascularized Epithelial Regeneration for DFUs with SkinTE,” or “COVER DFUs Trial.” We plan to enroll up to 100 patients at up to 20 sites in the U.S. in the COVER DFUs Trial, which will compare treatment with SkinTE plus the standard-of-care to the standard-of-care alone. The primary endpoint is the incidence of DFUs closed at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints include percent area reduction (“PAR”) at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks, improved quality of life, and new onset of infection of the DFU being evaluated. As we pursue the first study, we plan to engage in discussions with the FDA regarding the design and implementation of the second pivotal study.

On June 25, 2021, we entered into a statement of work with a contract research organization to provide services for the clinical trial described in the IND at a cost of approximately $6.5 million consisting of $3.1 million of service fees and $3.4 million of estimated costs. The estimate increased $1.4 million from the $5.1 million estimated at September 30, 2021, due to additional costs expected for longer trial subject follow up (6 months versus 3 months) and a corresponding increase in trial subject visits. In July 2021 we prepaid 10% of the total cost recited in the original work order, or $0.5 million, which will be applied to payment of the final invoice under the work order. Over the approximately three-year term of the clinical trial the service provider shall submit to us for payment invoices on a monthly basis for units of work stated in the work order that are completed and billable expenses incurred.

Pre-IND

PolarityTE conducted several clinical trials before it filed its IND for SkinTE, which were conducted on a post-marketing basis with SkinTE as a 361 HCT/P. These clinical trials include the following:

Burns and Traumatic Wounds

We initiated a head-to-head trial comparing SkinTE to the STSG, the clinical standard of care, in the first quarter of 2018. Eight patients were enrolled in the trial and the primary endpoint for the trial was graft take. Data from the trial was published in the Journal of Burn Care & Research in September 2020. Eight patients with deep-partial/full thickness burns had a portion of their wounds treated with SkinTE and the remainder of their burn treated with split-thickness skin grafting. The SkinTE treated wounds had graft take and achieved closure by their last follow-up with a single application. A single adverse event at a SkinTE harvest site secondary to a dehiscence (technical error) occurred requiring secondary closure at the time of the patient’s definitive grafting procedure. There were no other adverse events pertaining to the SkinTE applications in the trial.

Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU) Trials

DFUs are chronic wounds and represent one of the costliest, and medically significant, health related morbidities encountered during a patient’s lifetime. The estimated annual U.S. payor burden of DFU ranges from $9.1 billion to $13.2 billion according to a 2014 article in Diabetes Care, a publication of the American Diabetes Association. The outpatient management of DFUs represents the major contributing cost to the health care system. Inadequate assessment and management with chronicity of treatment is one of the primary cost drivers and failures of care.

SkinTE was used to treat 10 patients (11 DFUs) in a pilot trial completed in June 2019, and first reported at the Symposium on Advanced Wound Care Fall 2019. The following are the results as determined by independent review:

After that trial, we conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluating SkinTE plus standard of care (SOC) versus SOC alone in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers [NCT03881254] (the “DFU RCT”). In July 2021, we announced final data from the DFU RCT. The size of the study was 100 patients who were evaluated across 13 sites, with 50 participants receiving SkinTE plus SOC and 50 receiving SOC alone. The primary endpoint was percentage of ulcers closed at 12 weeks. A secondary endpoint was percent area reduction (PAR) at 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks.

The trial met the primary endpoint of wound closure at 12 weeks and secondary endpoint of Percent Area Reduction (PAR) assessed at 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Final analysis of the DFU RCT shows the following:

Mean (SD) values for PAR at weeks 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 by treatment group

Venous Leg Ulcer (VLU) Trials

VLUs are a type of chronic wound and constitute a significant burden on the worldwide health care system and are often refractory to treatment. Up to one-third of treated patients experience four or more episodes of recurrence. Delivering all the elements of native skin can potentially reduce the recurrence rate.

SkinTE was used to treat 10 patients in a pilot trial completed in September 2019, and first reported at the Symposium on Advanced Wound Care Fall 2019, where PolarityTE received recognition as Best Abstract. The following are the results as determined by independent review:

We started a multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluating SkinTE versus standard of care in treatment of VLU [NCT03881267] (“the “VLU-RCT”), but decided in the first quarter of 2021 to suspend that trial after 29 patients were enrolled because we believed that our resources would be better used in future clinical trials conducted under an open IND that can be used in our eventual planned BLA submission. In February 2022, we announced final data from the VLU RCT. The 29 patients who were evaluated across 10 sites, with 14 participants receiving SkinTE plus SOC and 15 receiving SOC alone. The primary endpoint was percentage of ulcers closed at 12 weeks. A secondary endpoint was percent area reduction (PAR) at 4, 6, 8, and 12 weeks.

The trial met the primary endpoint of wound closure at 12 weeks and secondary endpoint of Percent Area Reduction (PAR) assessed at 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks. Final analysis of the VLU RCT shows the following:

Mean (SD) values for PAR at weeks 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 by treatment group

Market Opportunity

The primary markets for SkinTE are wounds from traumatic injury, chronic wounds (including DFUs, VLUs, and pressure ulcers), burn wounds, and acute wounds, such as traumatic wounds, and wounds from surgical procedures.

Our Plan for Advancing SkinTE

Our IND for SkinTE was accepted by the FDA in January 2022, and this enables us to commence the first of two expected pivotal studies needed to support a BLA for a chronic cutaneous ulcer indication for SkinTE. We expect to begin enrolling subjects in the COVER DFUs Trial in the second quarter of 2022. We also expect to engage with the FDA during 2022 regarding the design of the second pivotal study we plan to conduct under our open IND.

Products subject to BLA requirements must be licensed under the Public Health Service Act to be marketed. In order to be licensed, a BLA must demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of the product candidate based on results of preclinical studies and clinical trials. A BLA must also contain extensive chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) and other manufacturing information, and the applicant must pass an FDA pre-license inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with the FDA’s current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”) requirements. Satisfaction of FDA licensure requirements typically takes several years, and the actual time required may vary substantially based on the type, complexity, and novelty of the product. PolarityTE cannot be certain that any BLA approvals for its products will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

The steps for obtaining FDA approval of a BLA to market a product in the U.S. ordinarily include:

Preclinical tests typically include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity, and formulation, as well as animal studies, and an IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. Even though our IND for SkinTE is open, the FDA can request additional information and testing pertaining to the product and the procedures for manufacturing and delivering the product.

Our preliminary experience indicates that SkinTE may benefit patients with immediately life-threatening conditions and other serious diseases or conditions. In 2009, the FDA implemented new regulations related to Expanded Access Investigational New Drug Applications (“Expanded Access INDs”), which are often colloquially referred to as “compassionate use,” and pertain to the use of an investigational drug or biologic when the primary purpose is to diagnose, monitor, or treat a patient’s disease or condition, rather than to obtain the kind of information about the drug that is generally derived from clinical trials. The FDA has proposed several processes for obtaining Expanded Access INDs, which we will evaluate for potential implementation now that the IND for SkinTE is open. Under FDA regulations the amount that may be charged for SkinTE used under an Expanded Access IND must be authorized by the FDA and, if authorized at all, may be limited to our direct costs of manufacture. We believe, however, that an Expanded Access IND may enable us to provide SkinTE to providers treating persons with life-threatening or serious diseases and conditions, and thereby maintain existing, and develop new, relationships with physicians in the wound care industry.

Potential Product Enhancements or Additions

SkinTE POC

Our SkinTE point-of-care device is intended to permit the processing and deployment of SkinTE immediately following the initial harvest at the point-of-care. SkinTE POC is in the development stage.

SkinTE Cryo

SkinTE Cryo allows PolarityTE to offer multiple deployments from one original harvest through a cryopreservation process. Using one harvest for multiple deployments may improve patient treatment when a patient is susceptible to multiple chronic wounds, the provider suspects a patient might require a second deployment of SkinTE due to past non-compliance with rehab protocols, or the provider elects to use a staged deployment on a patient with a large wound due to wound location or other therapeutic circumstances. SkinTE Cryo is in the development stage and is a long-term development project.

PTE 11000

PTE 11000 is an allogenic, biologically active dressing for use in wound care and aesthetics to accelerate healing of skin. It is a composition made using cadaveric tissue via a proprietary process. It is currently in the preclinical phase of development, and we cannot predict when that phase may be complete.

Other Tissue Regeneration Products

We believe our innovative technologies may be platforms for developing therapies that address a variety of indications, including bone, cartilage, muscle, blood vessels, and neural elements, as well as solid and hollow organ composite tissue systems.

For the foreseeable future we intend to apply our business and financial resources to the SkinTE IND and BLA and development work on SkinTE POC, and we have at this time put on hold further work on other product development.

Manufacturing

PolarityTE maintains at its facility in Salt Lake City, Utah, manufacturing processes and quality systems that allow it to receive a skin specimen, qualify the incoming tissue, process and manufacture the SkinTE tissue product, and perform outgoing quality control and quality assurance work prior to shipping. PolarityTE validated its manufacturing process as being aseptic. All SkinTE is manufactured within an ISO 5 isolator located within an ISO 7 cleanroom. PolarityTE’s processes are designed and validated to prevent the spread of communicable disease, and to prevent cross-contamination between samples, and its quality systems comply with current Good Tissue Practices (“cGTP”) under 21 C.F.R. Part 1271.

PolarityTE is modifying its manufacturing practices and facility so that it complies with cGMP under requirements of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as well as under 21 C.F.R. Parts 210 and 211, and other applicable regulations, which are in addition to cGTP referenced above.

Suppliers

As part of PolarityTE’s strategy of ensuring timely delivery of its products, it has avoided relying on any third-party supplier as a sole source vendor for any element of its production process. PolarityTE has identified alternate suppliers and, where appropriate, supply alternatives for any sourcing need.

Intellectual Property

As we advance our technologies, product, and pipeline developments, we seek to apply a multilayered approach for protecting intellectual property relating to our innovation with patents (utility and design), copyrights, trademarks, as well as know-how and trade secret protection. We are actively seeking U.S. and foreign patent protection in selected jurisdictions for a variety of technologies, including our MPFU technology, our Complex Living Interface Coordinated Self-Assembling Materials (“CLICSAM”) technology, our Composite-Interfacing, Biomaterial Accelerant Substrate (“CIBAS”) technology, as well as Biological Sample Harvest and Deployment Kits. We have a number of patents issued and pending applications allowed in the United States and abroad related to our MPFU technology, including U.S. Patent No. 10,926,001 issued on February 23, 2021; U.S. Patent No. 11,000,629 issued on May 11, 2021; U.S. Patent No. 11,266,765 issued on March 8, 2022; and U.S. Application No. 17/326,734 filed on May 21, 2021. Each of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,926,001; 11,000,629; and 11,266,765 have an estimated expiration date of November 30, 2035.

Patent terms extend for varying periods of time according to the date of patent filing or grant and the pertinent law in the various countries where patent protection is obtained. The actual protection afforded by a patent, which can vary from country to country, depends upon the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, and the availability of legal remedies in the country. Further, patent term extension may be available in certain countries to compensate for a regulatory delay in approval of certain products.

The U.S. healthcare legislation enacted in 2010 created an approval pathway for biosimilar versions of innovative biological products that did not previously exist. Prior to that time, innovative biologics had essentially unlimited regulatory exclusivity. Under the new regulatory mechanism, the FDA can approve products that are similar to (but not generic copies of) innovative biologics on the basis of less extensive data than is required by a full BLA. After an innovator has marketed its product for four years, any manufacturer may file an application for approval of a “biosimilar” version of the innovator product. However, although an application for approval of a biosimilar may be filed four years after approval of the innovator product, qualified innovative biological products will receive 12 years of regulatory exclusivity, meaning that the FDA may not approve a biosimilar version until 12 years after the innovative biological product was first approved by the FDA. The law also provides a mechanism for innovators to enforce the patents that protect innovative biological products and for biosimilar applicants to challenge the patents. Such patent litigation may begin as early as four years after the innovative biological product is first approved by the FDA.

In the United States, the increased likelihood of generic and biosimilar challenges to innovators’ intellectual property has increased the risk of loss of innovators’ market exclusivity. First, generic companies have increasingly sought to challenge innovators’ basic patents covering major pharmaceutical products. Second, statutory and regulatory provisions in the United States limit the ability of an innovator company to prevent generic and biosimilar drugs from being approved and launched while patent litigation is ongoing. As a result of all of these developments, it is not possible to predict the length of market exclusivity for a particular product with certainty based solely on the expiration of the relevant patent(s) or the current forms of regulatory exclusivity.

In striving to protect the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, we also rely heavily on trade secrets relating to our proprietary technology and on know-how. We enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems.

We seek to complement the protection of our innovation with a portfolio of trademarks and service marks in the United States and around the world. The POLARITYTE trademark has been registered in the United States and in other countries throughout the world. Additional registered trademarks in the United States include our logo, WELCOME TO THE SHIFT, WHERE SELF REGENERATES SELF, and SKINTE.

Competition

The regenerative medicine industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition, and a strong emphasis on intellectual property. We face substantial competition from companies developing and selling regenerative medicine products, as well as academic research institutions, governmental agencies, and public and private research institutions. Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their collaboration partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, and marketing approved products than we do. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than products that we develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. The key competitive factors affecting the success of our programs are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience, price, and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payers.

Contract Research Services

In May 2018, we purchased the assets of a preclinical research sciences business and related real estate from Ibex Group, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company, and Ibex Preclinical Research, Inc., a Utah corporation. We acquired these assets to accelerate research and development of our product candidates and provide preclinical research services to third parties. In 2021 all of IBEX’ business activity was providing services to third parties. The business consists of a preclinical research facility that complies with Good Laboratory Practices and is USDA registered, and includes a vivarium, operating rooms, preparation rooms, storage facilities, and surgical and imaging equipment. The real property includes two parcels in Logan, Utah, consisting of approximately 1.75 combined gross acres of land, together with the buildings, structures, fixtures, and personal property located on the real property. In March 2022, we reached a non-binding understanding with an unrelated third party that contemplates the sale of IBEX and the real property used in the operation of IBEX. The potential sale is subject to a number of contingencies. Even though the proposed sale may not materialize, we are exploring our options with respect to IBEX, which is likely to result in some other disposition or winding up of the business in 2022.

Historically, Arches offered a complimentary array of research services to those offered through IBEX, providing access to experimental planning, histology, and in vivo and in vitro imaging, including micro-ct. There was a substantial surge in COVID-19 testing throughout the United States as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the spring of 2020. In 2020 and 2021, Arches had equipment and staff capable of performing polymerase chain reaction testing for COVID-19. Arches had the opportunity to use its research facilities to offer laboratory testing services for COVID-19, and to that end registered under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (“CLIA”) in May 2020, and it began providing COVID-19 testing services on May 27, 2020.

Arches’ primary customer for testing services was an organization controlling multiple long-term care and laboratory facilities in New York State and surrounding areas. Beginning in April 2021 there was a significant loss of COVID-19 testing revenues due to the loss of Arches’ major testing customer in the first quarter of 2021. Subsequent efforts to find new business to replace the lost testing business were not successful and we made the decision to cease COVID-19 testing in August 2021.

Government Regulation

FDA and Marketing Approval

In the U.S., the FDA regulates biological products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the Public Health Service Act, and various federal regulations. These FDA-regulated products are also subject to state and local statutes and regulations, as well as applicable laws or regulations in foreign countries. The FDA, and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries, impose substantial requirements on the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record-keeping, approval, post-approval monitoring, advertising, promotion, marketing, sampling, and import and export of FDA-regulated products. Failure to comply with the applicable requirements at any time during the development process, approval process, or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions, suspension of development or marketing, or non-approval of product candidates. These sanctions could include a clinical hold on clinical trials, FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications or related supplements, withdrawal of or restrictions on an existing approval or licensure, untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, import detentions or export restrictions, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Such actions by government agencies could also require us to expend a large number of resources to respond to the actions. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. We are not sure whether legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance, or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of any such changes may be on the marketing approvals or licensures, or the prospects thereof, for our products.

IND and Clinical Trials of Drug and Biological Products

Prior to commencing a human clinical trial of a drug or biological product, an IND application, which contains the results of preclinical studies and relevant clinical studies or other human experience along with other information, such as information about product chemistry, manufacturing, and controls and a proposed protocol, must be submitted to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug or biological product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA within the 30-day time period raises concerns or questions about the conduct of the clinical trial. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns with the FDA before the clinical trial may begin. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial to be conducted during development of the drug or biologic.

An independent Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) must review and approve the investigational plan for the trial before it commences at each site. Informed written consent must be obtained from each trial subject.

Human clinical trials for drug and biological products typically are conducted in sequential phases that may overlap:

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA regulations, including good clinical practice (“GCP”) requirements, which are intended to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of trial participants, define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, investigators, administrators, and monitors, and ensure clinical trial data integrity and reliability. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board, or the sponsor, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including, among other reasons, a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements.

During the development of a new drug or biologic, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2 clinical trials, and before a New Drug Application (“NDA”) or Biologics License Application (“BLA”) is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the end-of-Phase 2 clinical trials meetings to discuss their Phase 2 clinical trials results and present their plans for the pivotal Phase 3 registration trial that they believe will support approval of the new drug/biologic.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, biologics, and devices, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information on clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, trial subject population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial, is made public as part of the registration. Sponsors also are obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials, including the study protocol and statistical analysis plan, after completion. Disclosure of the clinical trial results can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved, as long as approval occurs within a certain timeframe. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding our development programs.

The BLA Approval Process

SkinTE is an autologous product, meaning it is derived from the cells and tissues of the individual to be treated with the product. Based on the FDA’s feedback to the Company, SkinTE will not be marketed in the U.S. until it is licensed by the FDA through the BLA approval process. The process required by the FDA to obtain licensure generally involves the following:

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a 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 submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in- depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of BLAs. Most applications for standard review BLA products are reviewed within ten months of submission, and most applications for priority review BLA products are reviewed within six months of submission. The review process 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. Even if such additional information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel BLA products or products that present difficult questions of safety, purity, or potency, to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. The FDA may also inspect preclinical study sites to verify compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (“GLP”) requirements prior to approval. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the BLA product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the BLA unless compliance with cGMP requirements is satisfactory, and the BLA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the product is safe, pure, and potent for the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the BLA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, including additional large-scale clinical testing or other information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two or six months depending on the type of information included.

The cost of preparing and submitting a BLA is substantial. Furthermore, each BLA submission requires a user fee payment (approximately $3.1 million in fiscal year 2022), unless a waiver or exemption applies. Waiver of the fee may be sought on several grounds, including that the applicant is a small business submitting its first human drug application to the FDA for review, but there is no assurance we will qualify or receive a waiver if and when we file a BLA in the future. The manufacturer or sponsor of an approved BLA is also subject to annual establishment fees.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing and distribution of the licensed product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of BLA approval, the FDA may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the product’s safety, purity, and potency and may impose other conditions, including post-market studies, labeling restrictions, or other risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, which can materially affect the product’s potential market and profitability. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained, or problems or safety issues are identified following initial marketing.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling, device components, or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. A BLA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs.

Biosimilar Exclusivity

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA) creates an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilar products. A biosimilar is a biological product that is highly similar to, and has no clinically meaningful differences from, an existing FDA-licensed reference product. Biosimilarity must be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and at least one clinical study, absent a waiver. A biosimilar product may be deemed interchangeable with a prior licensed product if it is biosimilar and meets additional requirements under the BPCIA, including that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic 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 biologic. Where permitted by state law, an interchangeable product may be substituted for the reference product without the involvement of the prescriber.

A reference biologic is granted twelve years of exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the reference product, and no application for a biosimilar may be submitted for four years from the date of licensure of the reference product. The first biologic product submitted under the abbreviated approval pathway that is determined to be interchangeable with the reference product may obtain exclusivity against a finding of interchangeability for other biosimilars for the same condition or use for the lesser of (i) one year after the first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable biosimilar; (ii) eighteen months after the first interchangeable biosimilar is approved if there is no patent challenge; (iii) eighteen months after resolution of a lawsuit over the patents of the reference biologic 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-Marketing Requirements for FDA Regulated Products

Following licensure of a new product, the company and the licensed products are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, state, and foreign regulatory authorities including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping activities, reporting adverse experiences to the applicable regulatory authorities, providing regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, manufacturing products in accordance with cGMP requirements, product sampling, and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising and restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not consistent with the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet, including social media. Although physicians may prescribe products for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, who may or may not grant approval, or may engage in a lengthy review process.

The FDA, state, and foreign regulatory authorities have broad enforcement powers. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in enforcement action by the FDA, state, or foreign regulatory authorities, which may include the following:

Any of these sanctions could result in higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition, and results of operations. Such actions by government agencies could also require us to expend a large amount of managerial and financial resources to respond to the actions. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

In the U.S., after a product is approved, its manufacture is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in registered facilities and in accordance with cGMP. We have a facility for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of SkinTE that is being modified to operate in accordance with cGMP regulations. cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct deviations from cGMP. For human cellular or tissue-based products like ours, cGMP also includes current good tissue practices to prevent the transmission of communicable diseases. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural, and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs, biologics, and medical devices are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, as a manufacturer we must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

If in the future we elect to use a contract manufacturer, we will be responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms and, in certain circumstances, suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that can interrupt the operation of any such firm or result in restrictions on product supply, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

Newly discovered or developed data on safety, purity, or potency may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures.

Reimbursement, Anti-Kickback and False Claims Laws, and Other Regulatory Matters

In the U.S., the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale, and promotion of drug and biological products are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state, and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, state Attorneys General, and other state and local government agencies. For example, sales, marketing, and scientific/educational grant programs must comply when applicable with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, the privacy regulations promulgated under HIPAA, and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, as amended. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (“MMA”) established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that will provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part 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 each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs 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 may increase demand for products for which we receive regulatory approval. However, any negotiated prices for 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-government payors.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. A plan for the research will be developed by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sale of SkinTE in the future. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sale of our product. If third-party payors do not consider SkinTE to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our product after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our product on a profitable basis.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug and biologics pricing vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product, or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for our product. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally tend to be priced significantly lower than in the U.S.

In the U.S. PolarityTE is subject to complex laws and regulations pertaining to healthcare “fraud and abuse,” including, but not limited to, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and other state and federal laws and regulations. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, or a party acting on its behalf, to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order, or prescription of a particular drug, or other good or service for which payment in whole or in part may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any insurer, not just federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Due to the breadth of these federal and state anti-kickback laws, the absence of guidance in the form of regulations or court decisions and the potential for additional legal or regulatory change in this area, it is possible that PolarityTE’s future sales and marketing practices or its future relationships with medical professionals might be challenged under fraud and abuse laws, which could harm PolarityTE.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits anyone from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs and biologics, that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of estimated prices for SkinTE, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information, and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our product, and the sale and marketing of SkinTE, are subject to scrutiny under this law. Penalties for a federal False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties of between $11,181 and $22,363 for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. Although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct resulting in a federal False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. If the government were to allege that we were, or convict us of, violating these false claims laws, we could be subject to a substantial fine. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions under the federal False Claims Act and certain states have enacted laws modeled after the federal False Claims Act.

There are also an increasing number of state laws that require manufacturers to make reports to states on pricing and marketing information. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. In addition, as discussed below, a similar federal requirement requires manufacturers to track and report to the federal government certain payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals in the previous calendar year. These laws may affect our sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state, and soon federal, authorities.

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements exposes companies to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines or other penalties, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, or refusal to allow a company to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts.

Changes in regulations, statutes, or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing facility; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our product; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the PPACA, was enacted, which includes measures that have or will significantly change the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the PPACA of greatest importance to the drug industry are the following:

There have been prior public announcements by members of the federal government regarding their plans to repeal and replace the PPACA and Medicare. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the individual mandate requiring most Americans (other than those who qualify for a hardship exemption) to carry a minimum level of health coverage, effective January 1, 2019. We are not sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted and are unable to predict what impact changes in the law may have on the pricing and distribution of our product.

Employees

We have approximately 59 full-time employees and 10 part-time employees as of December 31, 2021, all of whom are in the U.S. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate History

Majesco Entertainment Company, a Delaware corporation (“Majesco DE”), was incorporated in the state of Delaware on May 8, 1998. On December 1, 2016, Majesco Acquisition Corp., a Nevada corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Majesco DE, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization with PolarityTE, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“PolarityTE NV”) and the sole stockholder of PolarityTE NV. The asset acquisition was subject to stockholder approval, which was received on March 10, 2017, and the transaction closed on April 7, 2017. In January 2017, Majesco DE changed its name to “PolarityTE, Inc.” (“PolarityTE”). Majesco Acquisition Corp. was then merged with PolarityTE NV, which remains a subsidiary of PolarityTE. Majesco Acquisition Corp. II, formed in November 2016 under Majesco Entertainment Company, changed its name to “PolarityTE MD, Inc.,” and remains a wholly owned subsidiary of PolarityTE.

In May 2018 we acquired assets of a preclinical research and veterinary sciences business and related real estate, which we now operate through IBEX. The aggregate purchase price was $3.8 million, of which $2.3 million was paid at closing and the balance satisfied by a promissory note payable to the seller with an initial fair value of $1.22 million and contingent consideration with an initial fair value of approximately $0.3 million.

Contact and Available Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 1960 S. 4250 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104, and our telephone number is (800) 560-3983.

We file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other information with the SEC. Our SEC filings are available to the public at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. We also maintain a website located at www.polarityte.com, where these SEC filings and other information about the Company can be accessed, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC.