PART I

The following table summarizes key information about our programs:

We were founded in 2009 based on innovative science conducted by Sir Greg Winter and Professor Christian Heinis. Sir Greg Winter is a pioneer in monoclonal antibodies and, in 2018, was awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry for the invention of the technology underpinning our proprietary phage display screening platform that we use to identify Bicycles. From our founding through December 31, 2019, we have generated substantial intellectual property, including four patent families directed to novel scaffolds, 16 patent families directed to our platform technology, 69 patent families directed to bicyclic peptides and related conjugates, and seven patent families directed to clinical indications and other properties of development assets. The work we have conducted in developing Bicycles and our proprietary screening platform have created substantial know‑how that we believe provides us with a competitive advantage.

Our management team includes veterans in drug development with executive experience at leading pharmaceutical companies including GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Pfizer. Our board of directors and scientific advisory board include industry experts and seasoned investors, with extensive experience in immuno‑oncology.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to become a leading biopharmaceutical company by pioneering Bicycles as a novel therapeutic modality to treat diseases that are inadequately addressed with existing treatment modalities. Specifically, we seek to execute on the following strategy to maximize the value of our novel technology and pipeline:

The Bicycle Opportunity

Introduction to Bicycles

Bicycles are fully synthetic, short peptides consisting of nine to 20 amino acids constrained to form two loops which stabilize the structural geometry of the peptide and facilitate target binding with high affinity and selectivity. Bicycles represent a unique therapeutic class, combining the pharmacological properties normally associated with a biologic with the manufacturing and PK advantages of a small molecule, with no signs of immunogenicity observed to date.

Drugs must bind to target proteins with high affinity and selectivity to achieve a therapeutic effect, while minimizing undesired effects on other proteins and physiological functions. Peptides exist in a number of folded states, only a few of which are able to bind to target proteins, and a key challenge for peptide therapeutics is designing structures that achieve these goals. We have designed our molecules to be highly constrained by linking a chemical connector compound, also known as a scaffold, to particular amino acids in the peptide chain. The resulting cyclized molecule, which we refer to as a Bicycle, is locked in the preferred state to bind to the target proteins.

Schematic of the Creation of a Cyclized Molecule Resulting in a Bicycle

We have expanded the diversity of the chemical space we can cover from approximately 1013 potential molecules in 2009 to 1020 today. We have applied our novel Bicycle modality to a growing range of targets, from a single target in 2009 to more than 105 today. We can create a wide range of Bicycles by varying four parameters:

Properties of Bicycles as Therapeutic Agents

Bicycles have a large surface area available for target binding, which is designed to allow for high affinity and selectivity to the designated target. As short sequences of amino acids, or peptides, they have a low molecular weight, typically ranging from 1.5 kDa to 2.0 kDa. Bicycles have a readily adjustable PK profile with good plasma stability and rapid distribution from the vasculature into the extracellular space. This PK profile enables rapid tissue penetration and a renal route of elimination that minimizes liver exposure. Toxicity issues are observed with small molecules that are metabolized and eliminated by the liver. Bicycle peptides, by contrast, are not subject to metabolism or elimination by the liver but are metabolized in the peripheral circulation or kidney with subsequent rapid excretion in the urine.  Consequently, by increasing excretion in urine, the liver exposure is minimized and the risk of liver toxicity is reduced. The modular nature of Bicycles allows us to optimize therapeutic molecules for specific targets. To date, we have observed no signs of immunogenicity.

Compared to biologics, Bicycles have a lower cost of production and a simpler manufacturing process, and are recognized by regulatory authorities as small molecule new chemical entities. Bicycles can be readily identified to drug a wide spectrum of targets and target classes, including many that have so far been undruggable with small molecules, such as protein‑protein interactions. Our novel and proprietary screening platform allows us to screen Bicycles against molecular targets rapidly and efficiently, affording potentially reduced timelines and costs compared to other high‑throughput screening approaches. Leveraging our platform, we can rapidly and efficiently identify a compound for development in as few as six months with the historical average time being 12 months after a target has been selected.

The figure shown below is the x‑ray diffraction crystal structure of a bicyclic peptide binding to EphA2 ligand‑binding domain.

The selectivity of the Bicycle for EphA2 as compared to other Eph family members with similar structure and sequence homology was determined using surface plasmon resonance. No binding was observed to any of the family members tested up to the maximum concentration feasible, limited by concentration of protein sample. This illustrates the high selectivity that we expect of Bicycle/target interaction.

Properties of Bicycles May Translate into Potential Therapeutic and Other Advantages

Comparison of Bicycles to Other Common Classes of Therapeutics

Our Proprietary Bicycle Screening Platform

We utilize our novel and proprietary phage display screening platform to identify Bicycles that are potentially useful in medicine. We have used this technology to identify our current pipeline, and intend to leverage it to develop a broader portfolio of product candidates to address unmet medical needs across a wide range of diseases.

Phages are bacteria‑infecting viruses consisting of genetic material wrapped in a protein coat. Phages can be harnessed to identify Bicycles by splicing DNA into the genome of a phage so that the linear peptides that encode Bicycles are presented on the surface of the phage. Our founder Sir Greg Winter, a pioneer in phage display, applied this

technology and added a cyclization step that forms Bicycles from these linear peptides. This technology underpins our novel and proprietary screening platform.

Our screening process self‑selects for Bicycles that are amenable to attachment, commonly referred to as conjugation, to other molecular payloads such as cytotoxins, innate immune agonists or other Bicycles.  Bicycles can be linked together with synthetic ease to create complex molecules with combinatorial pharmacology. Alternatively, Bicycles in the form of multimers can also be used as standalone therapeutics, such as those that we are exploring in our systemic and tumor-targeted immune cell agonist programs. We believe that the flexibility of our Bicycles and our powerful screening platform allow new therapeutics to be rapidly conceived and reduced to practice to potentially serve diverse therapeutic applications across a wide range of indications.

Schematic of our Proprietary Bicycle Screening Process

We have optimized our proprietary Bicycle screening platform, enabling the technique to be applied to a diverse range of over 105 challenging targets to date, successfully identifying Bicycles for over 80% of these targets, some of which are intractable to small molecules. During these screens, Bicycles with diverse pharmacologies were identified, including enzyme inhibitors, receptor antagonists, agonists (partial, full and supra) and neutral site binders. Neutral site binders often bind to entirely novel sites on target proteins, previously undescribed in the scientific literature. These binders can be useful when conjugated with therapeutic payloads since they allow antigen‑targeted payload delivery without impacting target function.

Our Product Candidates

Our portfolio of internal product candidates is directed to oncology applications where we believe they have the potential to treat a broad spectrum of cancers. We are collaborating with biopharmaceutical companies and organizations in other therapeutic areas, where we believe our proprietary Bicycle screening platform can identify therapies to treat diseases with significant unmet medical need.

Our Pipeline

The following table summarizes key information about our pipeline programs.

Our Oncology Programs

We believe Bicycles are an ideal vehicle to deliver small molecule payloads to tumors, both as potent cytotoxins in the case of BTCs, as well as small molecule agonists of the immune system in the case of our Bicycle‑targeted immune cell agonists. We believe that Bicycle conjugates can offer improved performance as compared to antibody‑mediated delivery.

In addition to their use as drug conjugates, Bicycles can also be configured for use as standalone therapeutics in the form of multimers. We have identified Bicycles that have been observed to directly interact with CD137, a key immune cell co‑stimulatory molecule. We believe our CD137‑targeting Bicycles may overcome limitations inherent in antibody‑mediated approaches and have the potential to be converted into simple tumor-targeted immune cell‑engaging Bicycle molecules.

Bicycle Toxin Conjugates

Within our BTC programs, we are developing BT1718 (carrying a DM1 cytotoxin payload), which is designed to target MT1‑MMP expressing tumors. BT1718 is currently being investigated for safety, tolerability and efficacy in an ongoing Phase I/IIa clinical trial that is being conducted in collaboration with CRUK. We are evaluating BT5528, our first second-generation BTC that targets EphA2 and carries a monomethyl auristatin E, or MMAE, cytotoxin payload, in an ongoing, company-sponsored Phase I/IIa clinical trial to assess safety, tolerability and efficacy in patients with solid tumors. We are conducting IND‑enabling activities for BT8009, a BTC that targets Nectin‑4 and also carries an MMAE cytotoxin payload. Studies have demonstrated that MT1‑MMP, EphA2 and Nectin‑4 are overexpressed in many cancer cell types with high unmet medical needs, including lung cancer, breast, gastric, endometrial, sarcoma pancreatic, bladder, ovarian, esophageal and other cancers. Studies have also shown that tumor overexpression in each of these targets has been associated with poor prognosis in specific cancers. We therefore believe our BTC candidates may address a wide range of cancer types with significant unmet medical need.

Background

The discovery of monoclonal antibodies enabled the development of antibody drug conjugates, or ADCs. ADCs link antibodies that target tumor‑associated antigens to potent cytotoxins through a process known as conjugation. ADCs are designed to selectively and potently destroy cancer cells by combining the targeting capability of antibodies with the cancer‑killing ability of cytotoxins. Despite the growing use of ADCs in treating cancer and high interest in ADC development programs, we believe there are significant challenges to ADCs. The large molecular size of the antibody impairs the penetration of ADCs into tumors. ADCs are generally required to internalize into tumor cells after binding to internalizing tumor antigens to the surface. Finally, the relatively long systemic exposure and subsequent liver clearance generally associated with ADCs result in dose‑limiting toxicities such as hematological, liver and gastrointestinal toxicities, and neuropathies.

Properties of  Bicycle Toxin Conjugates

We believe the properties of our BTCs may address the challenges associated with ADCs and therefore that our approach has the potential to offer substantial benefits, including:

In order to compare the ability of a Bicycle conjugate and an antibody conjugate to penetrate a tumor, using positron emission tomography, or PET, imaging, we compared a radiolabeled Bicycle to an antibody directed at the same target in a preclinical rodent study. As shown in the figure below, we observed that 15% to 20% of the injected dose per

gram was detected after administration of the Bicycle in the tumor at 40 to 60 minutes, with no antibody detectable in the tumor during this time. We also observed accumulation of the balance of the Bicycles in the bladder and kidneys, indicating rapid renal excretion. In contrast, the antibody was detected in the vasculature.

PET Imaging Revealing Payload Delivery in a Mouse Model

In addition, in a preclinical rodent study using photoacoustic imaging, we observed that Bicycles were retained in the tumor for 24 hours and at levels substantially in excess of those observed with a comparator antibody.

The figure below summarizes the results of a preclinical rodent xenograft model that investigated payload concentrations over time in different organ systems after administration of a BTC. In this model, we observed the toxin payload was retained in the target‑expressing tumor over time but was rapidly eliminated from other tissues.

Payload Concentrations Over Time in Different Organ Systems After Administration of a BTC

We believe these data demonstrate the potential of BTCs to have long‑term sustained activity and to limit the toxicity that is associated with ADCs.

BT1718

Our lead product candidate, BT1718, is a BTC that we are developing for oncology indications. The molecule is comprised of our MT1‑MMP targeting Bicycle, a hindered disulphide cleavable linker and a cytotoxin DM1 payload.

Schematic of BT1718

MT1‑MMP is a matrix metalloprotease involved in tissue remodeling and is generally expressed at relatively low levels in normal adult tissues. MT1‑MMP has an established role in cell invasion and metastasis, and we believe that MT1‑MMP is an attractive target for cytotoxin delivery due to its high level of expression on stromal and tumor cell subsets in various cancers.

In our preclinical studies, we observed that BT1718 was associated with the greatest anti‑tumor effect when membrane expression of MT1‑MMP was high (as quantified by fluorescence activated cell sorting, or FACS). Tumors with lower levels of expression of MT1‑MMP were observed to have reduced levels of response to BT1718. We are collaborating with leading cancer researchers to determine MT1‑MMP expression levels across a panel of tumor types,

which will help inform patient selection for further clinical development. One of the goals of our clinical trials is to better understand the relationship between the level of target expression and activity of BT1718.

Effect of MT1‑MMP Expression on BT1718 Activity Across Preclinical Xenograft Models

We are not aware of any other cytotoxin conjugates in development that target MT1‑MMP.

Preclinical Experience

BT1718 has been dosed in multiple species, including rodents and non‑human primates. In in vivo preclinical studies, we observed dose‑dependent anti‑tumor activity following administration of BT1718 with disease stabilization or regression in multiple xenograft models across tumor types including lung, breast, gastric, head and neck, fibrosarcoma and colorectal. These models utilized an endpoint of tumor volume, as calculated from standard caliper measurements of subcutaneous tumor and measured through the course of the preclinical study and at the end of the preclinical study to evaluate the activity of BT1718. A 3 mg/kg dose of BT1718 administered biweekly was observed to be associated with stable disease or tumor regression in several models. Further, the highest dose of BT1718 tested, 10 mg/kg administered biweekly, was observed to be associated with complete regressions in the majority of MT1‑MMP‑expressing xenograft tumors tested, with most mice remaining tumor‑free for up to 60 days after the last dose, following which the study ended. In addition, weekly dosing of 6.4 mg/kg of BT1718 (corresponding to a 19.2 mg/m2 human equivalent dose) was observed to be associated with significant anti‑tumor activity or complete responses in a range of cell line derived xenograft models, including HT1080, HCC1806 and EBC‑1.

Mouse Dose to Human Equivalent Dose Conversion

Effect of Administration of BT1718 in Cell Line Derived Xenograft Models

Patient‑derived xenograft, or PDX, models are designed to capture patient responses to oncology therapy in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with solid tumors with 80‑100% correlation between the PDX and patient response. BT1718 was also evaluated in two lung adenocarcinoma PDX models, one sensitive to, and one resistant to, docetaxel, a marketed chemotherapy medication. In both cases, we observed that BT1718 treatment at a dose of 3 mg/kg administered twice per week was associated with a significant reduction of tumor volume. Further, a 10 mg/kg dose of BT1718 administered twice per week was associated with complete and durable regression of tumors. In the docetaxel resistant model, we observed that BT1718 at both doses tested was associated with statistically significant responses, whereas docetaxel, at its maximum‑tolerated dose, was not. To determine whether data is statistically significant, we use a “p‑value,” which represents the probability that random chance could explain the results. Generally, a p‑value less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant, and may be supportive of a finding of efficacy by regulatory authorities. However, regulatory authorities, including the FDA and EMA, do not rely on strict statistical significance thresholds as criteria for marketing approval and maintain the flexibility to evaluate the overall risks and benefits of a treatment. If not otherwise specified, we used a conventional 5% or lower p‑value (p < 0.05) to define statistical significance for the clinical trials and studies and data presented in this prospectus. These models utilized an endpoint of tumor volume, as calculated from standard caliper measurements of subcutaneous tumor and measured through the course of the preclinical study and at the end of the preclinical study to evaluate the activity of BT1718.

Effect of BT1718 on Tumor Volume in Preclinical Patient‑Derived Xenograft Models

BT1718 was also evaluated in murine syngeneic tumor models in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. BT1718 in combination with anti‑cytotoxic T‑lymphocyte‑associated protein 4, or anti‑CTLA‑4, antibody was associated with significant anti‑tumor activity including complete responses, enhanced survival and development of immunogenic memory in the CT26 syngeneic tumor model. Development of immunologic memory was determined as a failure to establish tumor growth after tumor cell implantation in animals that had been cured 60 days after treatment initiation with either BT1718 in combination with anti‑CTLA‑4 (8/10 mice) or anti‑CTLA‑4 monotherapy (4/10 mice). Furthermore, BT1718 in combination with anti‑PD‑1 antibody was associated with significant anti‑tumor activity and enhanced survival in the syngeneic tumor model.

Effect of BT1718 Combination Therapy with Anti‑CTLA‑4 Antibody or Anti‑PD‑1 Antibody

in Preclinical Syngeneic Mouse Tumor Models

We also evaluated the PK profile of BT1718 in several in vivo preclinical studies. In these studies, we observed that BT1718 exhibited a consistent PK profile across species, as well as behavior consistent with our expectations of a BTC, including a volume of distribution approximately equal to extracellular fluid, rapid clearance and a short systemic half‑life. These studies utilized an endpoint of tumor volume, as calculated from standard caliper measurements of subcutaneous tumor and measured through the course of the preclinical study and at the end of the preclinical study to evaluate the activity of BT1718.

Clinical Development

Ongoing Phase I/IIa First in Human Clinical Trial

BT1718 is being investigated in an ongoing Phase I/IIa open label dose escalation and expansion clinical trial sponsored by CRUK. The Phase I part of this trial evaluates up to 40 patients with advanced solid tumors in two dosing regimens at three sites in the United Kingdom.

The Phase I part of this clinical trial evaluates the safety and tolerability of BT1718 in patients with advanced solid tumors, regardless of tumor MT1‑MMP expression levels, and establishes a recommended Phase II dose. The Phase I part of the trial has evaluated two dosing schedules, twice per week and once per week, each as one‑hour intravenous infusions. In addition, BT1718 and toxin PK profiles, preliminary efficacy, pharmacodynamic and predictive biomarkers are being explored.

The Phase IIa part of the trial will evaluate BT1718 in patients with tumors that express MT1-MMP at the recommended Phase II dose based on the findings from the Phase I part of the trial. We will determine tumor types for investigation in this part of the trial in conjunction with CRUK. To determine tumor types of interest, a clinically validated MT1‑MMP immunohistochemistry assay, or IHC, developed in collaboration with CRUK, was used to screen tumor tissue microarrays, or TMA, from multiple tumor types selected based on literature reports of high expression of MT1‑MMP, including breast, lung, sarcoma, gastric, ovarian, endometrial, bladder, and esophageal cancers. The Phase IIa part will be conducted at up to six sites in the United Kingdom. We plan to enroll patients in up to four expansion cohorts administered with our once‑weekly dose. Each cohort will evaluate 16 patients with a specified tumor type determined using the results of the MT1‑MMP IHC TMA analysis.

The endpoints for the Phase IIa part of this clinical trial will be safety and preliminary efficacy in patients with tumors expressing MT1‑MMP. Archived or fresh tumor samples from all enrolled patients will be collected and tested for MT1‑MMP expression using the clinically validated IHC and associations with tumor and stromal expression and clinical response will be explored. Biopsies of tumors will be mandatory in a subset of patients in this part of the study in order to evaluate tumor PK and pharmacodynamic biomarkers of response to BT1718.

The Phase I part of the clinical trial commenced in early 2018. 15 patients across six cohorts have been dosed and evaluated on the twice-weekly schedule, with doses ranging from 0.6 mg/m2 to 9.6 mg/m2. As of February 13, 2020,  24 patients across five cohorts have been dosed and evaluated in the once-weekly schedule with doses ranging from 9.6 mg/m2 to 32 mg/m2. With once-weekly dosing, which is the expected schedule for the Phase IIa portion of the study, BT1718 has appeared generally tolerable, with generally manageable adverse events at doses believed to be in the therapeutic range based on preclinical data. We expect CRUK to initiate expansion cohorts in the Phase IIa portion of the Phase I/IIa study in 2020.

DM1 delivery has been demonstrated in tumor biopsies at early timepoints (2 out of 3 patients). Concentrations of DM1 in the clinical tumor biopsy samples are consistent with preclinical data obtained at doses that gave partial (4.2 mg/m2) and full (14.4 mg/m2) tumor regression in mouse xenograft models. In the phase IIa part of the study, additional tumor biopsies will be taken at later timepoints to further evaluate DM1 retention.

DM1 Levels in Clinical and Preclinical Tumor Samples

BT5528

BT5528 is a BTC designed to target EphA2. The molecule is comprised of our EphA2 targeting Bicycle, a valine‑citrulline, or val‑cit, cleavable linker and a cytotoxin MMAE payload.

Schematic of BT5528

EphA2 is a member of the Ephrin superfamily of receptor tyrosine kinases regulating cell migration, adhesion, proliferation and differentiation. EphA2 is expressed at relatively low levels in normal adult tissues, but is overexpressed in numerous difficult to treat tumors including lung, breast, bladder, gastric, ovarian, endometrial, cervical, melanoma, esophageal, pancreatic, and glioma. In both cell‑derived and patient‑derived preclinical models, we observed anti‑tumor activity signals following administration of our EphA2 toxin conjugates, which correlated with EphA2 expression, as determined by FACS studies.

Effect of EphA2 Expression on BT5528 Activity Across Preclinical Xenograft Models

EphA2 has previously been pursued by other companies utilizing ADCs. However, significant safety concerns, including bleeding events and liver toxicity, were observed in preclinical studies and early clinical development, which resulted in the discontinuation of development. For example, in a Phase I clinical trial of MEDI‑547, an EphA2-targeting ADC, an increase in the liver enzyme ALT and AST was observed in half of the dosed patients and bleeding events were observed in five out of six patients, in each case within two to eight days following a single dose. The bleeding events observed in humans from the clinical trial were consistent with findings from the preclinical studies in other species, including primates.

We believe EphA2 is an attractive target for our BTCs due to the potential of Bicycles to overcome the safety concerns observed with ADCs. In our preclinical PK and toxicokinetic studies, we observed a short half‑life and volume of distribution similar to BT1718. We observed that the accumulation of MMAE in the tumor tissue led to mitotic arrest of tumor cells and tumor regression was evident within days of administration. Due to the shorter half‑life, improved penetration into solid tumors and kidney elimination, we believe that BT5528 could address the challenges of ADCs. Similar to the strategy for selecting indications for BT1718, we plan to screen tumor TMAs using a clinically validated EphA2 IHC, in a CAP accredited and CLIA certified laboratory, to prioritize those indications with high EphA2 protein expression for clinical investigation.

Preclinical Experience

BT5528 has been evaluated in preclinical studies in multiple species, including rodents and non‑human primates. In our preclinical studies, BT5528 was not observed to have a significant effect on clotting parameters and did not exhibit abnormal liver function at tolerated doses. We also observed no bleeding events in primates at toxin equivalent doses over 150‑fold higher than the clinical dose of an ADC with the same amino acid sequence and with the same linker‑toxin combination and average drug/antibody ratio as MEDI‑547 used in patients. These studies utilized an endpoint of tumor volume, as calculated from standard caliper measurements of subcutaneous tumor, measured through course of experiment and at experiment end to evaluate the activity of BT5528.

In in vivo preclinical studies, we observed dose‑dependent anti‑tumor activity following administration of BT5528 with disease stabilization or regression in multiple xenograft models representing tumor types including lung, breast, gastric, fibrosarcoma, prostate, ovarian and esophageal, with activity correlating with EphA2 expression. We observed that a dose of 1 mg/kg of BT5528 administered weekly was associated with stable disease or tumor regression in several models. Complete regressions were observed in the majority of EphA2‑expressing xenograft tumors in mice administered 2 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg of BT5528 weekly, with most mice remaining tumor‑free for more than 60 days after dose cessation, following which the study was ended. These studies utilized an endpoint of tumor volume, as calculated from standard caliper measurements of subcutaneous tumor and measured through the course of the preclinical study and at the end of the preclinical study to evaluate the activity of BT5528. In separate pharmacokinetic studies, the concentration of MMAE toxin was determined in the tumor and plasma following a single intravenous administration of 0.5 mg/kg of BT5528, indicating the efficient delivery of MMAE to the tumor by BT5528.

As shown in the figure below, we observed that BT5528 displayed superior activity to an EphA2-targeting ADC in a mouse PDX model. In this model, the tumors were large (approximately 1,000 mm3) at the commencement of dosing. The tumor was derived from a docetaxel resistant non‑small cell lung cancer from a 74 year‑old male smoker with moderate EphA2 expression. BT5528 was dosed once weekly. BT5528 was also evaluated in two pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) PDX models. BT5528 treatment at a weekly dose of 3 mg/kg was associated with a significant reduction of tumor volume. We also compared the distribution of an EphA2 BTC and an EphA2 ADC using PET imaging in a preclinical rodent study. The Bicycle was detected in the tumor at 60 minutes, as well as in the bladder and kidneys. In contrast, the antibody was not detected in the tumor at 60 minutes but was restricted to the vasculature.

Effect of BT5528 on Tumor Volume in Preclinical Patient‑Derived Xenograft Models

Docetaxel resistant NSCLC model

Clinical Development

In November 2019, Bicycle announced that the first patient had been dosed in the Phase I dose escalation portion of a Company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial of BT5528 in patients with advanced solid tumors associated with EphA2 expression. The Phase I/II multi-center, open-label trial will evaluate BT5528 administered once-weekly as a single agent and in combination with nivolumab. The Phase I portion is a dose escalation primarily designed to assess the safety and tolerability of BT5528 and to determine a recommended Phase II dose. Following selection of a recommended Phase II dose, a Phase II dose expansion portion will be initiated with the primary objective of evaluating the clinical activity of BT5528. The study will be conducted across sites in the U.S. and the UK. The Phase I dose escalation remains ongoing.

BT8009

BT8009 is a BTC designed to target Nectin‑4. The molecule is comprised of our Nectin‑4 targeting Bicycle, a val‑cit cleavable linker, and a cytotoxin MMAE payload.

Schematic of BT8009

Nectin‑4 (also known as PVRL4) is a cell adhesion molecule from the Nectin and Nectin‑like family, members of which are integral to the formation of the homotypic and heterotypic cell junctions. Nectin‑4 has been shown to be overexpressed in tumor cells and is believed to play a role in tumor cell growth and proliferation. High in normal embryonic and fetal tissue, Nectin‑4 declines in adulthood, showing a limited distribution in healthy tissues. However, Nectin‑4 is expressed on tumor cells in numerous cancer types including bladder, breast, gastric, lung and ovarian. In addition, we believe the favorable characteristics of BTC‑targeted therapies may address some of the challenges in treating pancreatic cancer.

We have observed that BT8009 efficiently delivered MMAE to the tumor and had a broad spectrum of activity that correlated with Nectin‑4 expression, as determined by FACS studies or RNA levels.

Effect of Nectin‑4 Expression on BT8009 Activity Across Preclinical Xenograft Models

We are aware of one Nectin‑4 ADC program in development, enfortumab vedotin, which is being jointly conducted by Seattle Genetics and Astellas and, in December 2019, received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Similar to the strategy for selecting indications for BT1718 and BT5528, we plan to screen tumor TMAs using a clinically validated Nectin‑4 IHC to prioritize indications with high Nectin‑4 protein expression for clinical investigation.

Our IND‑enabling preclinical studies for BT8009 are currently ongoing.

Preclinical Experience

In in vivo preclinical studies, we observed that BT8009 was associated with dose‑dependent anti‑tumor activity with disease stabilization or regression in multiple xenograft models representing tumor types including lung, breast, and esophageal cancers. We observed that BT8009 activity was correlated with either Nectin‑4 protein or mRNA expression. We observed that a dose of 3 mg/kg of BT8009 administered weekly was associated with complete regression in multiple models. We also observed complete regression of large (1,000 mm3 starting volume) MDA‑MB‑468 breast cancer tumors at a dose of 5mg/kg given every 14 days. In two models, there was no observed tumor regrowth at 59 days after the last administration, following which the study was ended. These studies utilized an endpoint of tumor volume, as calculated from standard caliper measurements of subcutaneous tumor and measured through the course of the preclinical study and at the end of the preclinical study to evaluate the activity of BT8009.

In head-to-head preclinical studies comparing BT8009 to an ADC with the same amino acid sequence and with the same linker‑toxin combination and average drug/antibody ratio as enfortumab vedotin, BT8009 displayed comparable or superior activity to the ADC in three cell‑derived xenograft studies and five PDX models. These studies utilized an endpoint of tumor volume, as calculated from standard caliper measurements of subcutaneous tumor and measured through the course of the preclinical study and at the end of the preclinical study to evaluate the activity of BT8009.

The figure below illustrates results from a preclinical non‑small cell lung cancer cell‑derived xenograft. In that model, we observed that BT8009 showed a superior activity at early time points compared to high dose administration of an ADC with the same amino acid sequence and with the same linker‑toxin combination and average drug/antibody ratio as enfortumab vedotin. We also observed that administration of BT8009 was associated with complete regression of the tumor. In other models we have observed superior activity of BT8009 over docetaxel and doxorubicin as measured by a decrease in tumor volume.

Effect of BT8009 on Tumor Volume in a Preclinical Non‑Small Cell Lung

Cancer‑Derived Xenograft Model

Bicycle Immune Cell Agonist

Approaches that activate cytotoxic T‑cells and other types of cells used in a body’s immune response have been observed to improve outcomes in cancer. However, prolonged immune activation can be toxic and lead to T‑cell exhaustion, which is a challenge amplified by the long half‑life of antibodies and biologics that are often used in these treatment approaches. We believe the differentiated properties of Bicycles may allow us to develop molecules with a pharmacodynamically distinct and improved profile over existing therapies.

We are aware of anti‑CD137 antibodies undergoing clinical testing, including urelumab being developed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which produced single agent responses but also severe liver toxicity, and utomilumab being developed by Pfizer, which exhibited minimal clinical activity with less toxicity. We are developing immune cell agonists, designed to trigger an immune response to tumors. We have identified potent Bicycle agonists of CD137, a

tumor necrosis factor receptor, or TNFR, family member. We believe that Bicycles represent a differentiated approach to target CD137 that may confer several advantages over existing modalities due to the small size and PK characteristics of Bicycles. Our Bicycle immune cell agonists are designed to circumvent the limitations of antibody and biologic therapies, such as liver toxicity and limited efficacy, and to better enable combination therapy. Bicycle immune cell agonists can be formed by conjugating multiple copies of a CD137 Bicycle to form multimers or by utilizing a bi‑specific format in which CD137 Bicycles are linked to Bicycles that bind to tumor antigens, inhibit checkpoint proteins or otherwise activate the immune system. We believe we are currently the only company that has fully chemically synthetic multivalent or tumor-targeted CD137 agonists.

Properties of Bicycle Immune Cell Agonists

In order to agonize the CD137 receptor, cross‑linking of a trimeric receptor is required. As a result, we are developing multivalent systemic and tumor-targeted molecules that cross‑link the receptor into an active form in a tumor cell independent or dependent manner as shown in the image below.

Schematic of Proposed CD137 Bicycle Agonists

These Bicycle CD137 agonists feature the following favorable pharmacological characteristics for immuno‑oncology therapeutics. We believe these characteristics have the potential to overcome the limitations of antibodies and fusion proteins.

Comparison of the Features of our Bicycle Immune Cell Agonists to Biological Immune Cell Modulators

Preclinical Experience

Multivalent CD137 Immune Cell Agonists

We observed that simple multivalent Bicycle CD137 agonists displayed potent activity in preclinical cell‑based assays. Several Bicycle CD137 agonists displayed comparable or higher fold induction compared to the natural ligand (CD137L) in an engineered reporter cell assay whereby CD137 activation leads to production of a luminescence signal. We also observed Bicycles stimulated the release of the cytokine IL‑2, a marker of immune response, from primary human T‑cells. In additional in vivo studies, we observed that CD137-binding Bicycles increased the cytotoxic T‑cell infiltration in tumor tissue. The Bicycles did not significantly change the expression of CD137 on tumoral T‑cells while urelumab led to a decrease in the target cell population. We believe this increased cytotoxic T‑cell infiltration correlates with the anti‑tumor activity of the Bicycle CD137 agonists.

Bicycle Tumor-Targeted Immune Cell Agonists (TICAs)

We have linked immune cell receptor binding Bicycles to tumor antigen binding Bicycles to form TICAs. We have found this approach to be generalizable across tumor antigen and immune cell receptors. We constructed CD137-targeting TICA molecules and observed that these bi‑specific Bicycles agonize the CD137 receptor only in the presence of cells that express the appropriate tumor antigen. Additionally, we have constructed TICA molecules with Bicycles that bind to another member of the TNF family of T‑cell costimulatory receptors TNFRSF4, also known as OX40.  As shown in the figure below, TICA molecules combining our Nectin‑4 or EphA2 tumor antigen binding Bicycles and CD137 or OX40 binding Bicycles stimulated the release of the cytokine IL‑2 or IFNꝩ from human PBMCs when in co‑culture with tumor cells that express appropriate receptor (Nectin‑4 or EphA2). In co‑culture with cells lacking Nectin‑4  

expression, or when non-binding Bicycles are incorporated (such as BCY12759) there was no activity observed. This is an example of how both the immune cell binding and tumor cell binding Bicycles can be readily interchanged in the context of our synthetic TICA molecules to generate novel and targeted immune agonists for further study.

Modularity of TICAs

In our preclinical development of TICA molecules, we have observed an ability to tune  molecules based on simple chemical changes, which we believe is an inherent advantage of our Bicycle platform‑based approach to bi‑specifics compared to other modalities. As an example of this, activity of two different Nectin‑4/CD137 TICA molecules is shown below. BCY10000 was observed to have a higher affinity CD137 binding Bicycle than BCY8854, yielding increased activity and potency in a CD137 assay.

Tunable Activity of CD137 TICAs

We also observed that the pharmacokinetic properties of TICA molecules can be tuned through chemical changes. The figure below shows the plasma concentrations over time of three Nectin-4/CD137 TICA molecules after i.v. infusion into rats at a dose of 3 mg/kg. BCY11863 demonstrates a longer circulation time than BCY10000 and BCY10572. This data shows that the properties of the TICAs can be modulated to extend the duration of exposure in vivo.

Tunable Pharmacokinetics of CD137 TICAs

In additional studies, we observed that a tumor-targeted Nectin‑4/CD137 agonist at two concentrations increased the proliferation of T cells and stimulated the release of the cytokine IL‑2 and other immune markers in cultures from patient‑derived tumors harboring Nectin‑4 expression.

CD137 and Nectin‑4 Expression in Patient Samples

As shown in the figure below, we have also observed that an EphA2/CD137 TICA, BCY12491, is capable of eliciting high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokine interferon gamma when incubated with human derived PBMCs in the presence of MC38 tumor cells expressing EphA2, while a non-binding control molecule, BCY13626, exhibits no activity.

Activity of EphA2 TICA in vitro

In further studies, we have observed that intermittent dosing of BCY12491 leads to a robust anti-tumor activity in syngeneic MC38 mouse model using humanized CD137 (huCD137) C57BL/6 mice. Administration of BCY12491 in six intravenous biweekly doses over a period of 17 days at 5 mg/kg lead to substantial tumor regressions, including two out of six complete responses (CRs). In addition, administration of BCY13626, a non-binding analog of BCY12491 had no impact on tumor growth rates.

Activity of EphA2 TICA in vivo

We believe that our ability to rapidly generate and test TICA molecules and their simple molecular format may form the basis of additional programs in the future. In addition to the immune cell and tumor targets that we have already investigated, we are also planning to screen for, or have started to screen for, Bicycles that target the NK cell receptors FcgRIIIA and NKp46 as well as additional immune cell and tumor specific antigens.

BT7480

BT7480 is a TICA that targets CD137 and Nectin-4. BT7480 exhibits potent CD137 agonism in an engineered CD137 reporter assay system that correlates with Nectin-4 surface expression on the co-cultured tumor cells. In addition, BT7480 induces robust production of interleukin-2 (IL-2) and interferon gamma (IFNg) in primary PBMC/tumor cell co-culture assays. This activity is strictly dependent on the tumor cells expressing Nectin-4 and on the ability of the TICA to bind to both of its targets, Nectin-4 and CD137. In the figure below, BT7480 induces IL-2 and IFNꝩ at sub nanomolar concentrations when incubated with human PBMCs and the Nectin-4 expressing human tumor cell line HT1376.

BT7480 produces IL-2 and IFNg in coculture with PBMC and HT1376

Additionally, we have observed that intermittent dosing of BT7480 leads to a robust anti-tumor activity in syngeneic MC38 mouse model, engineered to overexpress Nectin-4, using humanized CD137 (huCD137) C57BL/6 mice. Administration of BT7480 in six intravenous biweekly doses over a period of 17 days at 1.5 or 5 mg/kg lead to substantial tumor regressions, including five out of six complete responses at 1.5 mg/kg and six out of six complete responses at 5 mg/kg (CRs). In addition, animals that were complete responders in the experiment were subsequently re-challenged with the same tumor cell implantation and no tumor growth was observed, implying development of immunogenic memory.

Effect of BT7480 on Tumor Volume in a Preclinical Syngeneic Model with Nectin-4 Expressing MC38 Tumors in C57BL/6 Mice

Our IND‑enabling preclinical studies for BT7480 are currently ongoing.

Beyond Oncology

We have entered into several collaborations outside of our internal focus in oncology to leverage the broad applicability of Bicycles. Our strategic collaborations are based on the ability of Bicycles to address a wide variety of targets and we are working with collaborators with deep therapeutic expertise outside of oncology to enable us to more efficiently develop novel medicines for patients.

AstraZeneca.  In November 2016, we entered into a research collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca AB, or AstraZeneca, with a focus on targets within respiratory, cardiovascular and metabolic disease.

Sanofi (formerly Bioverativ).  In August 2017, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Bioverativ, Inc., (which was acquired by Sanofi in March 2018, or Sanofi), in the field of non‑malignant hematology, including hemophilia. This collaboration was terminated during 2019.

Oxurion.  In August 2013, we entered into a research collaboration and license agreement with Oxurion NV (formerly ThromboGenics NV), or Oxurion, focused on ophthalmology. The lead molecule of the partnership is THR‑149, a novel plasma kallikrein inhibitor, for the treatment of diabetic macular edema. A Phase I clinical trial of THR‑149 was completed in July 2019. The Phase I clinical trial, conducted by Oxurion, was an open-label, multi-center, non-randomized study to evaluate the safety of a single intravitreal injection of THR-149 at three ascending dose levels in 12 subjects with visual impairment due to center-involved DME. The study also investigated changes to patients’ best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). A rapid onset of action was observed from Day 1, with an increasing average improvement in BCVA of up to 7.5 letters at Day 14. This activity was maintained with an average improvement in BCVA of 6.5 letters at Day 90 following a single injection of THR-149.

Our Collaborations

Cancer Research UK

BT1718

In December 2016, we entered into a clinical trial and license agreement with Cancer Research Technology Limited and CRUK. Pursuant to the agreement, as amended in March 2017 and June 2018, CRUK’s Centre for Drug Development will sponsor and fund a Phase I/IIa clinical trial of our lead product candidate, BT1718, in patients with advanced solid tumors.

CRUK is responsible for designing, preparing, carrying out and sponsoring the clinical trial at its cost. We are responsible for supplying agreed quantities of GMP materials for the study, the supply of which has been completed. In the event that additional quantities are needed, we will provide CRUK with all reasonable assistance to complete the arrangements necessary for the generation and supply of such additional GMP materials but CRUK will be responsible for supplying and paying for such additional quantities of GMP materials.

We granted to CRUK a license to our intellectual property in order to design, prepare for, sponsor, and carry out the clinical trial. We retain the right to continue the development of BT1718 during the clinical trial. Upon the completion of the Phase I/IIa clinical study, we have the right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial upon the payment of a milestone, in cash and ordinary shares, with a combined value in the mid-six digit dollar amount. If such license is not acquired, or if it is acquired and the license is terminated and we decide to abandon development of all products that deliver cytotoxic payloads to the MT1 target antigen, Cancer Research Technology Limited may elect to receive an exclusive license to develop and commercialize the product on a revenue sharing basis (in which case we will receive tiered royalties of 70% to 90% of the net revenue depending on the stage of development when the license is granted) less certain costs, as defined by the agreement. The CRUK agreement contains additional future milestone payments upon the achievement of development, regulatory and commercial milestones, payable in cash and shares, with an aggregate total value of $50.9 million, as well as royalty payments based on a single digit percentage on net sales of products developed.

The CRUK agreement can be terminated by either party upon an insolvency event, material breach of the terms of the contract, or upon a change in control (and the new controlling entity generates its revenue from the sale of tobacco products). CRUK may terminate the arrangement for safety reasons or if it determines that the objectives of the clinical trial will not be met, in which case, if the study is terminated by CRUK prior to the completion of the Phase I dose escalation part of the study for such reasons, or if CRUK refuses release of any additional quantities of GMP materials, or if the parties cannot agree upon a plan to supply the additional quantities of GMP materials, we will be obligated to refund 50% of the costs and expenses incurred or committed by CRUK to perform the clinical trial. If the study is terminated by CRUK for an insolvency event, a material breach by us, or if we are acquired by an entity that generates its revenue from the sale of tobacco products, we will reimburse CRUK in full for all costs paid or committed in connection with the clinical trial and no further license payments, where applicable, shall be due. In such case where we are acquired by an entity that generates its revenue from the sale of tobacco products, CRUK will not be obliged to grant a license to us in respect of the results of the clinical trial and we will assign or grant to Cancer Research Technology Limited an exclusive license to develop and commercialize the product without Cancer Research Technology Limited being required to make any payment to us.

BT7401

In December 2019, we entered into a clinical trial and license agreement with Cancer Research Technology Limited and CRUK. Pursuant to the agreement, CRUK’s Centre for Drug Development will fund and sponsor development of BT7401 from current preclinical studies through the completion of a Phase IIa trial in patients with advanced solid tumors.

We granted to CRUK a license to our intellectual property in order for CRUK to design, prepare for, sponsor, and carry out the clinical trial and all necessary preclinical activities to support the trial. We retain the right to continue the development of BT7401 during the clinical trial. Upon the completion of the Phase I/IIa clinical study, we have the right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial upon the payment of a milestone, in cash and ordinary shares, with a combined value in the mid six-digit dollar amount. If such license is not acquired, or if it is acquired and the license is terminated and we decide to abandon development of all products that contain BT7401 or all the pharmaceutically active parts of BT7401, we will assign or grant to Cancer Research Technology Limited an exclusive license to develop and commercialize the product on a revenue sharing basis (in which case we will receive tiered royalties of 55% to 80% of the net revenue depending on the stage of development when the license is granted) less certain costs, as defined in the agreement. The CRUK agreement contains additional future milestone payments upon the achievement of development, regulatory and commercial milestones, payable in cash, with an aggregate total value of up to $60.3 million for each licensed product, as well as royalty payments based on a single digit percentage on net sales of

products developed, and sublicense royalties to the CRUK in the low double digit percentage of sublicense income depending on the stage of development when the license is granted.

The CRUK agreement can be terminated by either party upon an insolvency event, material breach of the terms of the contract, or upon a change in control (and the new controlling entity generates its revenue from the sale of tobacco products), or upon written notice by either party prior to the last cycle of treatment has been completed under the clinical trial. If the study is terminated by us prior to the filing of a clinical trial authorization, or by the CRUK for an insolvency event or a material breach by us prior to the start of a clinical trial, we will reimburse CRUK for certain costs paid or committed prior to the start of the clinical trial. In such case where we are acquired by an entity that generates its revenue from the sale of tobacco products, CRUK will not be obliged to grant a license to us in respect of the results of the clinical trial and we will assign or grant to Cancer Research Technology Limited an exclusive license to develop and commercialize the product without Cancer Research Technology Limited being required to make any payment to us.

Non‑Oncology Collaborators

Dementia Discovery Fund

In May 2019, we entered into a collaboration with the Dementia Discovery Fund, or DDF, to use Bicycle technology for the discovery and development of novel therapeutics for dementia. DDF is a specialized venture capital fund focused on discovering and developing novel therapies for dementia. In October 2019, the collaboration with DDF was expanded to include Oxford University’s Oxford Drug Discovery Institute (ODDI). Under the terms of the agreement, Bicycle and DDF will collaborate to identify Bicycles that bind to clinically validated dementia targets. ODDI will then profile these Bicycles in a range of target-specific and disease-focused assays to assess their therapeutic potential. If promising lead compounds are identified, DDF, ODDI and Bicycle will establish a jointly‑owned new company to advance the compounds through further development towards commercialization. The jointly‑owned company will receive a royalty and milestone‑bearing assignment and license of intellectual property from Bicycle for this purpose.

Sanofi (formerly Bioverativ)

In August 2017, we entered into a research collaboration agreement with Bioverativ Inc., which was acquired by Sanofi in March 2018, or Sanofi, in the field of non‑malignant hematology. The Sanofi collaboration agreement targeted two disease areas, with an option to add a third. We used our Bicycle screening platform to perform research and development services for the programs and Sanofi could select, under one or more license collaborations, products for each program.

Under the Sanofi agreement, we were obligated to perform research activities on each active research program, under mutually agreed upon research plans. The research and development services for each program (including for clarity the third, optional program) consisted of two stages. The first was an initial stage of screening and optimization to identify high affinity Bicycle binders and optimization of early drug like properties and was led by Bicycle. If lead compounds were identified, the second stage included chemical optimization and testing of these compounds in disease relevant biological assays, conducted jointly by us and Sanofi, in preparation for lead collaboration product nomination. Each collaboration program had a maximum initial period of three years, unless a program was abandoned or extended for up to one year by Sanofi. Sanofi could, at its sole discretion, approve any compound to be progressed into drug development and upon the selection of a collaboration product for each collaboration program, must have paid a $5.0 million payment (or $7.0 million if such product includes certain additional enabling intellectual property developed by us in the course of the collaboration) in order to obtain worldwide development and exploitation rights for that collaboration product. Sanofi would lead preclinical and clinical development, as well as subsequent marketing and commercialization.

Under the terms of the Sanofi collaboration agreement, we granted to Sanofi, for each collaboration program, a non‑exclusive, sublicensable (through multiple tiers), worldwide license under certain of our intellectual property to conduct the activities assigned to Sanofi in the applicable research plan for the duration of the applicable research term, but for no other purpose and we have agreed not to, directly or indirectly, by ourselves or in collaboration with others,

screen the Bicycle platform for compounds that bind to a target that is the subject of the Sanofi collaboration or otherwise perform any work related to or disclose such a target until the earliest of the filing acceptance for the first regulatory approval in a major market with respect to the collaboration program, termination or abandonment of such collaboration program or the seventh anniversary of the first date of the research term for the collaboration program.

Under the terms of the Sanofi collaboration agreement, we received a $10.0 million up front cash payment. Additionally, prior to the initiation of the research plan for each of the first two collaboration programs, Sanofi made a non‑refundable payment of $1.4 million for the sickle cell program and $2.8 million for the hemophilia program as payment for our services during the respective Bicycle Research Term for each program. During the Joint Research Term, Sanofi was obligated to fund our services at a minimum of $0.7 million and fund certain external costs incurred by us of up to $1.0 million per year. In addition, Sanofi is required to make certain other milestone payments to us upon the achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones. More specifically, for each collaboration program, we are eligible to receive, inclusive of the $5.0 to $7.0 million milestone payment described above, between $47.5 million and $67.0 million in development milestone payments. We were also eligible to receive up to $104.0 million in regulatory milestone payments for each collaboration product. In addition, we were eligible to receive up to $55.0 million in commercial milestone payments, on a collaboration program by collaboration program basis. In addition, to the extent any of the collaboration products covered by the licenses granted to Sanofi were commercialized, we would be entitled to receive tiered royalty payments of mid‑single digits to low‑teen digits based on a percentage of net sales. Royalty payments are subject to certain reductions, including for instances where Sanofi faces generic competition in certain countries.

Either party could terminate the agreement if the other party has materially breached or defaulted in the performance of any of its material obligations and such breach or default continued after the specified cure period. Either party could terminate the agreement in the event of the commencement of any proceeding in or for bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution or winding up by or against the other party that is not dismissed or otherwise disposed of within a specified time period. In the event of a breach, the collaboration agreement could be terminated by either party in its entirety, or, if the breach was limited to a country or countries, with respect to the country or countries to which the breach applies. Sanofi may terminate the agreement, entirely or on a program by program, licensed product by licensed product or country by country basis, for convenience.

Sanofi was also provided with an option to obtain screening services on the additional program upon making an option fee payment in addition to a non‑refundable payment as payment for our services during the respective Bicycle Research Term. The option expired in November 2018 unexercised. Sanofi exercised its right to terminate the sickle cell program in March 2019. Effective October 23, 2019, Sanofi terminated the Sanofi Collaboration Agreement. We own the material intellectual property rights developed under the sickle cell and hemophilia programs and are currently evaluating whether to advance it as an internal program, seek a collaborator or cease work on the program.

AstraZeneca

In November 2016, we entered into a research collaboration agreement with AstraZeneca AB. The collaboration is focused on the research and development of Bicycle peptides that bind to an undisclosed number of biological targets for the treatment of respiratory, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. After discovery and initial optimization of such Bicycle peptides, AstraZeneca will be responsible for all research and development, including lead optimization and drug candidate selection. AstraZeneca receives development, commercialization and manufacturing license rights with regard to any selected drug candidate(s).

Under the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement, Bicycle is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to perform research activities, under mutually agreed upon research plans. The research plans includes two discrete parts, on a research program by research program basis: (i) the Bicycle Research Term, which is focused on the generation of Bicycle peptide libraries using our peptide drug discovery platform, to be screened against selected biological targets, with the goal of identifying compounds that meet agreed criteria set by the parties, and (ii) the AZ Research Term, during which AstraZeneca may continue research activities with the goal of identifying compounds that satisfy the relevant pharmacological and pharmaceutical criteria for clinical testing. AstraZeneca may, at its sole discretion, approve

any compound to be progressed into drug development and, upon the selection of each drug candidate, AstraZeneca is to pay a milestone of $8 million.

Each research program is to continue for an initial period of three years, referred to as the research term, including one year for the Bicycle Research Term and two for the AZ Research Term. AstraZeneca may extend the research term for each research program by twelve months (or fifteen months, if needed to complete certain toxicology studies). The research term for a specific program can be shorter if it is ceased due to a screening failure, a futility determination, or abandonment by AstraZeneca. AstraZeneca has certain substitution rights should a screening failure or futility determination be reached. but is obligated to fund these additional efforts related to substitution.

Under the terms of the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement, we granted to AstraZeneca the right and license (with the right to sublicense) to certain background, foreground and platform intellectual property, for the duration of the agreement, to the extent reasonably necessary or useful for AstraZeneca to conduct the activities that are assigned to it in the applicable research plan or that are reasonably necessary or useful or the purpose of researching, developing or exploiting resulting compounds and products. We have agreed not to, directly or indirectly, by ourselves or in collaboration with others, screen the Bicycle platform for compounds that bind to a target that is the subject of the AstraZeneca collaboration or otherwise perform any work related to or disclose such a target until the earlier of the tenth anniversary of the date on which such target was selected or the dosing of the first patient in the first Phase III clinical trial for a product that modulates such collaboration target.

The activities under the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement are governed by a joint steering committee and joint project team each formed by an equal number of representatives from our company and AstraZeneca. The joint steering committee oversees and reviews each research program and the activities of the joint program team. Among other responsibilities, the joint steering committee monitors the research progress and ensures open and frequent exchange between the parties regarding research program activities.

AstraZeneca receives development and commercialization licenses associated with each designated drug candidate, and owes a milestone fee of $8 million for the first drug candidate selected from each research program. In addition, AstraZeneca is required to make certain other milestone payments to us upon the achievement of specified development, regulatory and commercial milestones. More specifically, for each research program, we are eligible to receive, in addition to the milestone fee described above, up to $162 million in development, regulatory and commercial milestones on a research program by research program basis, for a total of up to $170 million in milestone payments per research program. We are eligible to receive these milestone payments for up to six research programs. In addition, to the extent any of the drug candidates covered by the licenses conveyed to AstraZeneca are commercialized, we would be entitled to receive tiered royalty payments of mid‑single digits based on a percentage of net sales. Royalty payments are subject to certain reductions, including in certain countries where AstraZeneca faces generic competition. In total, we could receive more than $1 billion in milestone payments and royalties under the collaboration agreement.

Either party may terminate the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement if the other party has materially breached or defaulted in the performance of any of its material obligations and such breach or default continues after the specified cure period. In the event of a breach, the collaboration agreement may be terminated in its entirety, or, if the breach is limited to a country or countries, with respect to the country or countries to which the breach applies. Either party may terminate the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement in the event of the commencement of any proceeding in or for bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution or winding up by or against the other party that is not dismissed or otherwise disposed of within a specified time period. AstraZeneca may terminate the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement, entirely or on a licensed product by licensed product or country by country basis, for convenience.

Under the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement, AstraZeneca was granted an option to nominate additional targets on the same contractual terms as the initial targets. In May 2018, AstraZeneca made an irrevocable election to exercise the additional target option, giving AstraZeneca the option to designate additional targets, for $5.0 million that was paid by AstraZeneca to us in January 2019.

Oxurion (formerly ThromboGenics)

In August 2013, we entered into a research collaboration and license agreement with Oxurion NV (formerly ThromboGenics NV), or Oxurion. Under the Oxurion collaboration agreement, we are responsible for identifying Bicycle peptides related to the collaboration target, human plasma kallikrein, for use in various ophthalmic indications. Oxurion is responsible for further development and product commercialization after the defined research screening is performed by us.

The collaboration includes two stages. During Stage I, which has been completed, we were obligated to perform specific research activities in accordance with the research plan focused on screening the target using our Bicycle platform to identify compounds that meet the criteria set by the parties. During Stage II, which is ongoing, Oxurion has continued research activities on selected Bicycle peptides with the goal of identifying compounds for further development and commercialization. We are not obligated or expected to perform any research services during Stage II of the research plan. THR‑149 has been selected as a development compound under the Oxurion collaboration agreement.

We granted certain worldwide intellectual property rights to Oxurion for the development, manufacture and commercialization of licensed compounds associated with plasma kallikrein.

The Oxurion collaboration agreement provided an upfront payment of €1.0 million and potential additional research and development funding, at an agreed upon FTE rate, should the research effort require more than one FTE or the research plan be amended or extended by Oxurion. In addition, Oxurion is required to make certain milestone payments to us upon the achievement of specified research, development, regulatory and commercial milestones. More specifically, for each collaboration compound, we are eligible to receive up to €8.3 million in research and development milestone payments, from which we have received €1.8 million as of December 31, 2019, in connection with the development of THR‑149, and up to €16.5 million in regulatory milestone payments (e.g., €5 million for granting of first regulatory approval in either the US or EU for the first indication). In addition, to the extent any of the collaboration products covered by the licenses granted to Oxurion are commercialized, we would be entitled to receive tiered royalty payments of mid‑single digits based on a percentage of net sales. Royalty payments are subject to certain reductions. Also, if Oxurion grants a sublicense to a third party for rights to the program for non‑ophthalmic use prior to the filing of an IND, we would be entitled to receive payments in the double digits (no higher than first quartile) based on a percentage of non‑royalty sublicensing income. If Oxurion grants a sublicense to a third party for rights to the program for non‑opthalmic use after the filing of an IND, we would be entitled to receive payments of mid‑single digits to low teen‑digits.

Either party may terminate the Oxurion collaboration agreement if the other party has breached any of its material obligations and such breach continues after the specified cure period. Either party may terminate the Oxurion collaboration agreement in the event of the commencement of any proceeding in or for bankruptcy, insolvency, dissolution or winding up by or against the other party. Oxurion may terminate the Oxurion collaboration agreement for convenience. We may terminate the Oxurion collaboration agreement if Oxurion challenges the validity of any licensed patents or opposes the grant of a licensed patent.

In November 2017, we entered into an amendment to the Oxurion collaboration agreement. This amendment provides for additional research services to be performed by us related to the identification of additional Bicycles binding to the target for Oxurion, in its discretion, to select as development compounds. We were obligated to perform the work in accordance with an amended research plan under Stage I of the collaboration and were funded at a specified FTE rate, plus any direct out of pocket expenses, and Oxurion will be responsible for Stage II research and any development after the selection of a development compound. We completed Stage I of the research plan during 2018. Additional milestones were added for the potential additional licensed compounds, consistent with those of the initial Oxurion collaboration agreement. Additionally, the tiered royalty rates for all licensed compounds other than THR‑149 was increased by one percentage point. We are not obligated or expected to perform any research services during Stage II of the collaboration.

Founder Royalty Arrangements

We have entered into two royalty agreements with our founders, Christian Heinis, John Tite, and Sir Greg Winter, and our initial investors, Atlas Venture Fund VIII LP, Novartis Bioventures LTD. Pursuant to the first royalty agreement, we are obligated to pay an aggregate royalty percentage in the low single digits on net sales arising from products licensed under the Oxurion collaboration agreement. Pursuant to the second royalty agreement, we are obligated to pay an aggregate royalty percentage in the low single digits on net sales arising from products licensed under the AstraZeneca collaboration agreement.

Intellectual Property

Overview

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including our Bicycle platform. This includes seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties, which are directed to the use of our Bicycle platform and composition of matter involved in the platform, composition of matter and use of product candidates, and other inventions that are important to our business. We have four patent families directed to novel scaffolds, and 16 patent families directed to our platform technology, including the composition of matter of Bicycle binders and method of treatment of related indications, including cancer. For example, a patent family directed to the composition of matter of Bicycle binders and method of treatment of related indications, including cancer, was issued in the United States and Europe, and is pending in several other jurisdictions.  The issued patents from this family, and the pending patent applications if issued, are expected to expire in 2034, before patent term extensions, if any. We have 69 patent families directed to the composition of matter of bicyclic peptides and related conjugates, and seven patent families directed to methods of using bicyclic peptide conjugates for treating various indications. For example, two patent families directed to the composition of matter of one of our product candidates, BT1718, and methods of use for treating cancer are pending in certain jurisdictions, which if issued, would expire in 2035 and 2037, respectively. We also rely on trade secrets and know‑how that may be important for the development of our business. This includes aspects of our proprietary technology platform and our continuing technological innovation to develop, maintain, and strengthen our position in the field of peptide, peptidomimetic, and small molecule‑based therapeutics. We additionally may rely on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our product candidates, technology and know‑how, defend and enforce our patents; prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights, preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others.

Our ability to stop third parties from making, having made, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable licenses, patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. In some cases, these rights may need to be enforced by third party licensors. With respect to both licensed and company‑owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same. For more information, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

We seek to protect our proprietary position in a variety of ways, including by pursuing patent protection in certain jurisdictions where it is available. For example, we file U.S. and certain foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development of our business. We also intend to seek patent protection or rely upon trade secret rights to protect other technologies that may be used to discover and validate targets and that may be used to identify and develop novel products. We seek protection, in part, through confidentiality and proprietary information agreements. We are a party to various other license agreements that give us rights to use specific technologies in our research and development.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non‑provisional patent application related to the patent. A U.S. patent also may be accorded a patent term adjustment, or PTA, under certain circumstances to compensate for delays in obtaining the patent caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In some instances, such a PTA may result in a U.S. patent term extending beyond 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non‑provisional patent application related to the U.S. patent. In addition, in the United States, the term of a U.S. patent that covers an FDA‑approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch‑Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. Patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our products receive FDA approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those products. We plan to seek patent term extensions to any of our issued patents in any jurisdiction where these are available, however there is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the FDA in the United States, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

Company‑Owned Intellectual Property

As of December 31, 2019, our patent portfolio included four patent families directed to novel scaffolds, 16 patent families directed to our platform technology, 69 patent families directed to bicyclic peptides and related conjugates, and seven patent families directed to clinical indications and other properties of development assets. In total, as of December 31, 2019, we owned 90 patents in the U.S. and in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and Singapore, with terms expiring at various dates in February 2029 to November 2037 exclusive of potential patent term adjustment and/or patent term extension.

In addition, as of December 31, 2019, we had 162 patent applications pending in the U.S. and in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Russia,  Singapore, Taiwan, and Venezuela, as well as pending international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT),  and any patents that may be issued from these patent applications are generally expected to have terms that will expire at various dates in February 2029 to December 2040 subject to possible patent term extensions and/or patent term adjustments.

Trade Secret Protection

Finally, we may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. We anticipate relying on trade secrets to protect the know‑how behind our Bicycle platform. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our technology and processes, in part, by entering 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. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants, contractors or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know‑how and inventions. For further information, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technologies, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we

successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

There are a number of currently marketed products and product candidates in preclinical research and clinical development by third parties for the various oncology applications that we are targeting. For example, a number of multinational companies as well as large biotechnology companies, including Astellas Pharma, Inc., Seattle Genetics, Inc., AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline plc, are developing programs for the targets that we are exploring for our BTC programs. Furthermore, Agenus Inc., Bristol‑Myers Squibb Company, Pfizer Inc., and Roche Holding AG, or Roche, have or are developing programs for CD137, and Amgen Inc., Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  and Roche are developing bi‑specifics. In addition, we are aware that technologies for drug discovery, including peptide‑based medicines, continue to advance rapidly, which may compete with our own screening technology or render it obsolete.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we may be in discovering product candidates, obtaining approval for drugs and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ drugs may be more effective, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any drug we may commercialize and may render our product candidates obsolete or non‑competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our product candidates. We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs enter the market and advanced technologies become available.

Sales and Marketing

Subject to receiving marketing approval, we intend to pursue the commercialization of our product candidates either by building internal sales and marketing capabilities or through opportunistic collaborations with others.

We plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force. The responsibilities of the marketing organization would include developing educational initiatives with respect to approved products and establishing relationships with researchers and practitioners in relevant fields of medicine.

Manufacturing

Each of our Bicycles is entirely synthetic. We believe the synthetic nature of our product candidates allow for a more cost effective and scalable manufacturing process compared to biologics. In addition, this property of Bicycles allows for the manufacturing of product candidates of consistent pharmaceutical quality with favorable stability characteristics. Based on our experience, we believe that the manufacturing of Bicycles can be made to be well controlled, reproducible and scalable.

We operate an outsourced model for the manufacture of our product candidates, and contract with good manufacturing practice, or GMP, licensed pharmaceutical contract development and manufacturing organizations, both for the synthesis of each drug substance component, and the formulation and packaging of the finished drug product. We selected these organizations based on their experience, capability, capacity and regulatory status. We do not own or operate GMP manufacturing facilities, nor do we currently plan to build our own GMP manufacturing capabilities for the production of candidates for clinical or commercial use.

We currently engage five third‑party manufacturers to provide clinical supplies of our product candidates, three third‑party manufacturers to provide non‑clinical supplies of our product candidates and three third‑party manufacturers to provide fill‑finish services. Projects are managed by a specialist team of our internal staff, which is designed to promote compliance with the technical aspects and regulatory requirements of the manufacturing process.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries and jurisdictions, including the European Union, extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, post‑approval monitoring and reporting, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the United States and in foreign countries and jurisdictions, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations and other regulatory authorities, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

Review and Approval of Drugs in the United States

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs and devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and implementing regulations. The failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant and/or sponsor to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, including refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, imposition of a clinical hold, issuance of warning letters and other types of letters, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal investigations and penalties brought by the FDA and the Department of Justice or other governmental entities. In addition, an applicant may need to recall a product.

An applicant seeking approval to market and distribute a new drug product in the United States must typically undertake the following:

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated drug or drug product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical trials, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long‑term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

Human Clinical Trials in Support of an NDA

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements, which include, among other things, the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing before their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A protocol for each clinical trial and any subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time the FDA raises concerns or questions related to a proposed clinical trial and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA can place an IND on full or partial clinical hold at any point in development, and depending upon the scope of the hold, clinical trial(s) may not restart until resolution of the outstanding concerns to the FDA’s satisfaction.

In addition, an IRB representing each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial before it commences at that institution, and the IRB must conduct a continuing review and reapprove the study at least annually. The IRB must review and approve, among other things, the study protocol and informed consent information to be provided to study subjects. An IRB must operate in compliance with FDA regulations. Information about certain clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes to the National Institutes of Health for public dissemination on their ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. In addition, IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA for any of the following: serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions; findings from other studies or animal or in vitro

testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug; and any clinically important increase in the case of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. Phase I, Phase II and Phase III clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution, or an institution it represents, if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. The FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP and the integrity of the clinical data submitted.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies often complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the applicant must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, purity, and potency of the final drug. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Review of an NDA by the FDA

Assuming successful completion of required clinical testing and other requirements, the results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacture, controls and proposed labeling, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the drug product for one or more indications. Under federal law, the submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to substantial user fees, and the sponsor of an approved NDA is also subject to annual program user fees. These fees are typically increased annually.

The FDA conducts a preliminary review of an NDA within 60 days of its receipt and informs the sponsor whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the application must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application is also subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in‑depth substantive review. The FDA has agreed to specified performance goals in the review process of NDAs. Most such applications are meant to be reviewed within ten months from the date of filing, and most applications for “priority review” products are meant to be reviewed within six months of filing. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider new information or clarification provided by the applicant to address an outstanding deficiency identified by the FDA following the original submission.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA typically will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is or will be manufactured. These pre‑approval inspections may cover all facilities associated with an NDA submission, including drug component manufacturing (such as active pharmaceutical ingredients), finished drug product manufacturing, and control testing laboratories. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.

In addition, as a condition of approval, the FDA may require an applicant to develop a REMS. REMS use risk minimization strategies beyond the professional labeling to ensure that the benefits of the product outweigh the potential risks. To determine whether a REMS is needed, the FDA will consider the size of the population likely to use the product, seriousness of the disease, expected benefit of the product, expected duration of treatment, seriousness of known or potential adverse events, and whether the product is a new molecular entity. REMS can include medication guides, physician communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU may include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring, and the use of patient registries. The FDA may require a REMS

before approval or post‑approval if it becomes aware of a serious risk associated with use of the product. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of a product.

The FDA is required to refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee or explain why such referral was not made. Typically, an advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy and Priority Review Designations

The FDA is authorized to designate certain products for expedited review if they are intended to address an unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition. These programs are Fast Track designation, Breakthrough Therapy designation and priority review designation.

Specifically, the FDA may designate a product for Fast Track review if it is intended, whether alone or in combination with one or more other products, for the treatment of a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition, and it demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. For Fast Track products, sponsors may have greater interactions with the FDA and the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track product’s application before the application is complete. This rolling review may be available if the FDA determines, after preliminary evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor, that a Fast Track product may be effective. The sponsor must also provide, and the FDA must approve, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the sponsor must pay applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing a Fast Track application does not begin until the last section of the application is submitted. In addition, the Fast Track designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Second, a product may be designated as a Breakthrough Therapy if it is intended, either alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life‑threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The FDA may take certain actions with respect to Breakthrough Therapies, including holding meetings with the sponsor throughout the development process; providing timely advice to the sponsor regarding development and approval; involving more senior staff in the review process; assigning a cross‑disciplinary project lead for the review team; and taking other steps to design the clinical trials in an efficient manner.

Third, the FDA may designate a product for priority review if it is a product that treats a serious condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness. The FDA determines, on a case‑by‑case basis, whether the proposed product represents a significant improvement when compared with other available therapies. Significant improvement may be illustrated by evidence of increased effectiveness in the treatment of a condition, elimination or substantial reduction of a treatment‑limiting adverse reaction, documented enhancement of patient compliance that is expected to lead to improvement in serious outcomes, and evidence of safety and effectiveness in a new subpopulation. A priority designation is intended to direct overall attention and resources to the evaluation of such applications, and to shorten the FDA’s goal for taking action on a marketing application from ten months to six months.

Accelerated Approval Pathway

The FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product for a serious or life‑threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic advantage to patients over existing treatments based upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA may also grant accelerated approval for such a condition when the product has an effect on an intermediate clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality, or IMM, and that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the

condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. Products granted accelerated approval must meet the same statutory standards for safety and effectiveness as those granted traditional approval.

For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a measurement of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a product, such as an effect on IMM. The FDA has limited experience with accelerated approvals based on intermediate clinical endpoints, but has indicated that such endpoints generally may support accelerated approval where the therapeutic effect measured by the endpoint is not itself a clinical benefit and basis for traditional approval, if there is a basis for concluding that the therapeutic effect is reasonably likely to predict the ultimate clinical benefit of a product.

The accelerated approval pathway is most often used in settings in which the course of a disease is long and an extended period of time is required to measure the intended clinical benefit of a product, even if the effect on the surrogate or intermediate clinical endpoint occurs rapidly. Thus, accelerated approval has been used extensively in the development and approval of products for treatment of a variety of cancers in which the goal of therapy is generally to improve survival or decrease morbidity and the duration of the typical disease course requires lengthy and sometimes large trials to demonstrate a clinical or survival benefit.

The accelerated approval pathway is usually contingent on a sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post‑approval confirmatory studies to verify and describe the product’s clinical benefit. As a result, a product candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post‑marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase IV or post‑approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post‑approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post‑marketing studies, would allow the FDA to withdraw the product from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

The FDA’s Decision on an NDA

On the basis of the FDA’s evaluation of the NDA and accompanying information, including the results of the inspection of the manufacturing facilities, the FDA may issue an approval letter or a complete response letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the product with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing or information in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If and when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, 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. Even with submission of this additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

If the FDA approves a product, it may limit the approved indications for use for the product, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, require that post‑approval studies, including Phase IV clinical trials, be conducted to further assess the drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms, including REMS, which can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the product. The FDA may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post‑market studies or surveillance programs. After approval, many types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements and FDA review and approval.

Post‑Approval Requirements

Drugs manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting,

product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program user fee requirements for any marketed products, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

In addition, drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and these state agencies for compliance with cGMP requirements. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated and often require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting and documentation requirements upon the NDA holder and any third‑party manufacturers that the NDA holder may decide to use. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance.

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post‑market studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs generally may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off‑label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off‑label uses may be subject to significant liability.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Companion Diagnostics

We may employ companion diagnostics to help us to more accurately identify patients within a particular subset, both during our clinical trials and in connection with the commercialization of our product candidates that we are developing or may in the future develop. Companion diagnostics can identify patients who are most likely to benefit from a particular therapeutic product; identify patients likely to be at increased risk for serious side effects as a result of treatment with a particular therapeutic product; or monitor response to treatment with a particular therapeutic product for

the purpose of adjusting treatment to achieve improved safety or effectiveness. Companion diagnostics are regulated as medical devices by the FDA and, as such, require either clearance or approval prior to commercialization. The level of risk combined with available controls to mitigate risk determines whether a companion diagnostic device requires Premarket Approval Application, or PMA, approval or is cleared through the 510(k) premarket notification process. For a novel therapeutic product for which a companion diagnostic device is essential for the safe and effective use of the product, the companion diagnostic device should be developed and approved or 510(k)‑cleared contemporaneously with the therapeutic. The use of the companion diagnostic device will be stipulated in the labeling of the therapeutic product.

Abbreviated New Drug Applications for Generic Drugs

In 1984, with passage of the Hatch‑Waxman Amendments to the FDCA, Congress authorized the FDA to approve generic drugs that are the same as drugs previously approved by the FDA under the NDA provisions of the statute. To obtain approval of a generic drug, an applicant must submit an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, to the agency. In support of such applications, a generic manufacturer may rely on the preclinical and clinical testing previously conducted for a drug product previously approved under an NDA, known as the reference‑listed drug, or RLD.

Specifically, in order for an ANDA to be approved, the FDA must find that the generic version is identical to the RLD with respect to the active ingredients, the route of administration, the dosage form, and the strength of the drug. At the same time, the FDA must also determine that the generic drug is “bioequivalent” to the innovator drug. Under the statute, a generic drug is bioequivalent to a RLD if “the rate and extent of absorption of the drug do not show a significant difference from the rate and extent of absorption of the listed drug.”

Upon approval of an ANDA, the FDA indicates whether the generic product is “therapeutically equivalent” to the RLD in its publication “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” also referred to as the “Orange Book.” Physicians and pharmacists consider a therapeutic equivalent generic drug to be fully substitutable for the RLD. In addition, by operation of certain state laws and numerous health insurance programs, the FDA’s designation of therapeutic equivalence often results in substitution of the generic drug without the knowledge or consent of either the prescribing physician or patient.

Under the Hatch‑Waxman Amendments, the FDA may not approve an ANDA until any applicable period of non‑patent exclusivity for the RLD has expired. The FDCA provides a period of five years of non‑patent data exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity. For the purposes of this provision, a new chemical entity, or NCE, is a drug that contains no active moiety that has previously been approved by the FDA in any other NDA. An active moiety is the molecule or ion responsible for the physiological or pharmacological action of the drug substance. In cases where such NCE exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification, which states the proposed generic drug will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following the original product approval.

The FDCA also provides for a period of three years of exclusivity if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the application. This three‑year exclusivity period often protects changes to a previously approved drug product, such as a new dosage form, route of administration, combination or indication. Three‑year exclusivity would be available for a drug product that contains a previously approved active moiety, provided the statutory requirement for a new clinical investigation is satisfied. Unlike five‑year NCE exclusivity, an award of three‑year exclusivity does not block the FDA from accepting ANDAs seeking approval for generic versions of the drug as of the date of approval of the original drug product. The FDA typically makes decisions about awards of data exclusivity shortly before a product is approved.

the NDA sponsor is published in the Orange Book. When an ANDA applicant files its application with the FDA, the applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the reference product in the Orange Book, except for patents covering methods of use for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval. An applicant who submits a section 505(b)(2) NDA, which is for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved drug products and where at least one or more of the investigations relied upon by the applicant for approval were 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, also must certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the Orange Book to the same extent that an ANDA applicant would.

Specifically, the applicant must certify with respect to each patent that:

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents or that such patents are invalid or unenforceable is called a Paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired (other than method of use patents involving indications for which the ANDA applicant is not seeking approval).

If the ANDA applicant has provided a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must also send notice of the Paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the ANDA has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the Paragraph IV certification. The filing of a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days after the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months after the receipt of the Paragraph IV notice, expiration of the patent, or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

Orphan Drug Designation and Exclusivity

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a drug product available in the United States for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). A company must request orphan product designation before submitting an NDA. If the request is granted, the FDA will disclose the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential use. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation or for a select indication or use within the rare disease or condition for which it was designated, the product generally will be receiving orphan product exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity means that the FDA may not approve any other applications for the same product for the same indication for seven years, except in certain limited circumstances. Competitors may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity and may obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication. If a drug or drug product designated as an orphan product ultimately receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what was designated in its orphan product application, it may not be entitled to exclusivity.

Pediatric Studies and Exclusivity

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that are adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric study plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric study or studies the applicant plans to conduct, including study objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The applicant, the FDA, and the FDA’s internal review committee must then review the information submitted, consult with each other, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the applicant may request an amendment to the plan at any time.

The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements. Additional requirements and procedures relating to deferral requests and requests for extension of deferrals are contained in FDASIA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the pediatric data requirements do not apply to products with orphan designation.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non‑patent marketing exclusivity in the United States and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non‑patent and orphan exclusivity. This six‑month exclusivity may be granted if an NDA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data. The data do not need to show the product to be effective in the pediatric population studied; rather, if the clinical trial is deemed to fairly respond to the FDA’s request, the additional protection is granted. If reports of requested pediatric studies are submitted to and accepted by the FDA within the statutory time limits, whatever statutory or regulatory periods of exclusivity or patent protection cover the product are extended by six months. This is not a patent term extension, but it effectively extends the regulatory period during which the FDA cannot approve another application.

Patent Term Restoration and Extension

A patent claiming a new drug product may be eligible for a limited patent term extension under the Hatch‑Waxman Amendments, which permits a patent restoration of up to five years for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review. The restoration period granted is typically one‑half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA, plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the ultimate approval date. Patent term restoration cannot be used to extend the remaining term of a patent past a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug product is eligible for the extension, and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent in question. A patent that covers multiple drugs for which approval is sought can only be extended in connection with one of the approvals. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration in consultation with the FDA.

Europe/Rest of World Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, there are a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials, commercial sales and distribution of medicinal products. Even if FDA approval of a particular product is obtained, it must still obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. Currently in the European Union, for example, a clinical trial application must be submitted to each country’s national regulatory authority in which the clinical trial is to take place, together with an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. It is expected, however, that the Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014 shall start to apply during the course of 2020.  This new Regulation takes direct effect in each European Union Member State and seeks to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the European Union, for example, by allowing the clinical trial sponsor to submit a single application for approval of a

clinical trial across the EU via a new EU Portal.  The new Regulation also aims to streamline and simplify the rules on safety reporting and introduces enhanced transparency requirements, such as mandatory submission of a summary of the clinical trial results to a new EU Database.

Medicinal products can only be commercialized in the European Economic Area after a marketing authorization, or MA, has been obtained. There are two types of marketing authorizations:

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk‑benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

The European Union also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. For example, in the European Union, upon receiving marketing authorization, innovative medicinal products generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the European Union from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. Products receiving orphan designation, can receive ten years of market exclusivity, during which time no similar medicinal product for the same indication may be placed on the market. An orphan product’s market exclusivity may be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the criteria for orphan drug designation are no longer met, in other words, when it is shown on the basis of available evidence that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Additionally, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar product for the same indication at any time if:

The criteria for designating an “orphan medicinal product” in the European Union are similar in principle to those in the United States. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if (1) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (2) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the European Union when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the European Union to justify investment; and (3) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention

or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the European Union, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and scientific assistance for study proposals. The application for orphan drug designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan drug designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan drug designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

In the European Union, companies developing a new medicinal product must agree to a Paediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, with the EMA and must conduct pediatric clinical trials in accordance with that PIP, unless a deferral or waiver applies, (e.g., because the relevant disease or condition occurs only in adults). The MA application for the product must include the results of pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP, unless a waiver applies, or a deferral has been granted, in which case the pediatric clinical trials must be completed at a later date. Products that are granted a marketing authorization on the basis of the pediatric clinical trials conducted in accordance with the PIP are eligible for a six month extension of the protection under a supplementary protection certificate (if any is in effect at the time of approval) or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two year extension of the orphan market exclusivity. This pediatric reward is subject to specific conditions and is not automatically available when data in compliance with the PIP are developed and submitted. For other countries outside of the European Union, such as certain countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product approval, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical trials are to be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of products approved by the FDA and other government authorities. Sales of products 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, such products. The process for determining whether a 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, or formulary, which might not include all of the approved products for a particular indication.

In order to secure coverage and reimbursement for any product 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. Nonetheless, product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. Additionally, a payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, no uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement exists in the United States. Third‑party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, but also have their own methods and approval process apart from Medicare determinations. Therefore one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a drug product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the drug product. Third‑party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments and the prices of drugs 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 our net revenue and results. Coverage policies and

third‑party 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.

Additionally, we may develop companion diagnostic tests for use with our product candidates. Companion diagnostic tests require coverage and reimbursement separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement for their companion pharmaceutical or biological products. Similar challenges to obtaining coverage and reimbursement, applicable to pharmaceutical products, will apply to companion diagnostics.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for our product candidates will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates or products to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts.

In the European Union, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries provide that drug 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 drug candidate to currently available therapies. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. European Union member states may approve a specific price for a drug product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs in general, particularly prescription drugs, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross‑border imports from low‑priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

Other Healthcare Laws and Regulations

Healthcare providers and third‑party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted regulatory approval. Arrangements with providers, consultants, third‑party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain our business and/or financial arrangements. Such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include, without limitation, state and federal anti‑kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, price reporting and physician sunshine laws. Some of our pre‑commercial activities are subject to some of these laws.

The federal Health Care Program Anti‑Kickback Statute, or Anti‑Kickback Statute, prohibits any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer or a party acting on its behalf, from, among other things, knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, soliciting, receiving, offering, or providing any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchase, order or recommendation or arranging of, any good or service for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Anti‑Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers, and beneficiaries on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Anti‑Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case‑by‑case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent

requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the Anti‑Kickback Statute has been violated. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the Anti‑Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

The federal civil False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to, or approval by, federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent or not provided as claimed. Persons and entities can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off‑label. In addition, any of our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and other third‑party payor reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny under this law. Penalties for federal civil False Claims Act violations may include up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus significant mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, False Claims Act violations may also implicate various federal criminal statutes.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third‑party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Like the Anti‑Kickback Statute a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Additionally, to the extent that any of our product candidates, if approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, mandates, among other things, the adoption of uniform standards for the electronic exchange of information in common healthcare transactions, as well as standards relating to the privacy and security of individually identifiable health information, which require the adoption of administrative, physical and technical safeguards to protect such information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates, defined as independent contractors or agents of certain healthcare providers, healthcare clearinghouses and health plans, known as covered entities, that create, receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities and business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce HIPAA and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, certain state and foreign laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The U.S. federal transparency requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, ACA, including the provision commonly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposed, among other things, new annual reporting requirements for covered manufacturers for certain payments and other transfers of value provided to physicians, as defined by such law, and teaching hospitals, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, covered manufacturers also will be required to report information regarding payments and transfers of value provided to, as well as ownership and investment interests held by, during the previous year,  

physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse‑midwives.

In addition, we may be subject to certain analogous state and foreign laws of each of the above federal healthcare laws. In some instances, such laws may be broader in scope than its federal counterpart, such as certain state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party payors, including private insurers. In addition, certain states and local jurisdictions also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on drug manufacturer marketing practices or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation or other remuneration to physicians and other healthcare professionals. Additionally, we may be subject to state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because we intend to commercialize products that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs, we intend to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal control to facilitate adherence to the rules and program requirements to which we will or may become subject. Although the development and implementation of compliance programs designed to establish internal control and facilitate compliance can mitigate the risk of investigation, prosecution, and penalties assessed for violations of these laws, the risks cannot be entirely eliminated.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non‑compliance with these laws, and individual imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Healthcare Reform

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system in the United States.

By way of example, the United States and state governments continue to propose and pass legislation designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. In March 2010, the United States Congress passed the ACA, which, among other things, includes changes to the coverage and payment for drug products under government health care programs. Among the provisions of the ACA of importance to our potential drug candidates are:

There remain judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, as well as efforts by the Trump administration to repeal or replace certain aspects of the ACA. Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing or delaying penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to carry health insurance, eliminating the implementation of certain ACA‑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 Act.  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. It is unclear how this decision, future decisions, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, in August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2012 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. In January 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, 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.

Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state 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 drug products. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2020 contained further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients.  For example, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase 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. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy 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 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.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenues from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom voted in favor of leaving the European Union, commonly referred to as Brexit, and the United Kingdom officially withdrew from the European Union on January 31, 2020.  The United Kingdom and the European Union are currently in a transition period during which the United Kingdom and the European Union are negotiating additional arrangements, including their future trading arrangement.  The United Kingdom has stated that it wants the transition period to expire, and the future trading terms to be agreed, by December 31, 2020.

Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the United Kingdom covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU directives and regulations, immediately following Brexit, it is expected that the United Kingdom’s regulatory regime will remain aligned with EU regulations. It remains to be seen how, if at all, Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the United Kingdom. In the longer term, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the United Kingdom.

Employees

As of December 31, 2019, we had 72 full‑time or part‑time employees, including 31 with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Of these employees, 58 employees are engaged in research and development activities and 14 employees are engaged in general and administrative activities. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider the relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

In 2009, we were incorporated as a limited liability company under the laws of England and Wales. In 2017, we effected a reorganization to create a new holding company which, in connection with our IPO, was re-registered as a public limited company named Bicycle Therapeutics plc. Bicycle Therapeutics plc is the parent company of three wholly owned subsidiaries, two of which are based in Cambridge, England and one of which has its principal office in Lexington, Massachusetts, that will carry on our business.

The English subsidiaries are BicycleTx Limited and BicycleRD Limited, and the U.S. subsidiary is Bicycle Therapeutics Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at B900, Babraham Research Campus, Cambridge, CB22 3AT, United Kingdom, and our phone number is +44 1223 261503.

Available Information

Our website address is http://www.bicycletherapeutics.com. We make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and our Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at www.sec.gov. The information

found on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

Our ability to become and remain profitable depends on our ability to generate revenue.  Generating product revenue will depend on our or any of our collaborators’ ability to obtain marketing approval for, and successfully commercialize, one or more of our product candidates.  Successful commercialization will require achievement of key milestones, including completing clinical trials of our product candidates, obtaining marketing approval for these product candidates, manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we, or any of our collaborators, may obtain marketing approval, satisfying any post-marketing requirements and obtaining reimbursement for our products from private insurance or government payors.  Because of the uncertainties and risks associated with these activities, we are unable to accurately predict the timing and amount of revenues, and if or when we might achieve profitability.  We and any collaborators may never succeed in these activities and, even if we do, or any collaborators do, we may never generate revenues that are large enough for us to achieve profitability.  Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Our revenue to date has been primarily generated from our research collaborations with AstraZeneca AB, or AstraZeneca, Bioverativ Inc. (acquired by Sanofi), or Bioverativ, Oxurion NV (formerly ThromboGenics NV), or Oxurion, and Dementia Discovery Fund, or DDF.  There can be no assurance that we will generate revenue from these collaborations in the future.

Our failure to become and remain profitable would depress the market price of our ADSs and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, diversify our product offerings or continue our operations.  If we continue to suffer losses, investors may not receive any return on their investment and may lose their entire investment.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for holders of our ADSs or ordinary shares to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our business commenced operations in 2009. Our operations to date have been limited to financing and staffing our company, developing our technology, conducting preclinical research and early-stage clinical trials for our product candidates and pursuing strategic collaborations to advance our product candidates. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully conduct late-stage clinical trials, obtain marketing approvals, manufacture a commercial-scale product, or arrange for a third party to do so on our behalf, or conduct sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Accordingly, any current or prospective holder of our ADSs or ordinary shares should consider our prospects in light of the costs, uncertainties, delays and difficulties frequently encountered by companies in the early stages of development, especially clinical-stage biopharmaceutical companies such as ours.  Any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they would be if we had a longer operating history or a history of successfully developing and commercializing pharmaceutical products.

We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other known or unknown factors in achieving our business objectives. We will eventually need to transition from a company with a development focus to a company capable of supporting commercial activities. We may not be successful in such a transition.

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

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

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is a very time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete. For example, in the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017, we used $28.6 million, $26.1 million, and $1.4 million, respectively, in net cash for our operating activities, substantially all of which related to research and development activities. We expect our expenses to increase in connection with our ongoing activities, particularly as we initiate new clinical trials of, initiate new research and preclinical development efforts for and seek marketing approval for, our current product candidates or any future product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we may incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution to the extent that such sales, marketing, manufacturing and distribution are not the responsibility of a collaborator.  Furthermore, we expect to incur significant additional costs associated with operating as a public company.  Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations.  If we are unable to raise capital when needed or on attractive terms, we may be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development programs or any future commercialization efforts.

We will be required to expend significant funds in order to advance the development of the product candidates in our pipeline, as well as other product candidates we may seek to develop.  In addition, while we may seek one or more collaborators for future development of our product candidates, we may not be able to enter into a collaboration for any of our product candidates for such indications on suitable terms, on a timely basis or at all. In any event, our existing cash will not be sufficient to fund all of the efforts that we plan to undertake or to fund the completion of development of any of our product candidates. Accordingly, we will be required to obtain further funding through public or private equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations and licensing arrangements or other sources.  We do not have any committed external source of funds. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategy.

We believe that our existing cash of $92.1 million as of December 31, 2019, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements for at least 12 months from the date of filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our estimate may prove to be wrong, and we could use our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect.  Further, changing circumstances, some of which may be beyond our control, could cause us to consume capital significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements, both short-term and long-term, will depend on many factors, including:

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing shareholders or holders of our ADSs,  restrict our operations or cause us to relinquish valuable rights.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances, licensing arrangements or monetization transactions. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity, convertible debt securities or other equity-based derivative securities, the ownership interest of existing holders of our ADSs or ordinary shares will be diluted and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect existing holders’ rights. Any indebtedness we incur would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Furthermore, the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us, or the possibility of such issuance, may cause the market price of our ADSs to decline and existing shareholders may not agree with our financing plans or the terms of such financings. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances, licensing arrangements or monetization transactions with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, or our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.  If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development or future commercialization efforts or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Risks Related to the Discovery,  Development and Regulatory Approval of Our Product Candidates

We are substantially dependent on the success of our internal development programs and of our product candidates from our BTC and tumor-targeted immune cell agonist programs which may not successfully complete clinical trials,  receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized.

Our future success will depend heavily on the success of our internal development programs and of product candidates from our BTC and tumor-targeted immune cell agonist programs.

Within our BTC program, we are investigating BT1718 for safety, tolerability and efficacy in an ongoing Phase I/IIa clinical trial in collaboration with the Centre for Drug Development of Cancer Research UK, or CRUK.  Upon the completion of the Phase I/IIa clinical trial for BT1718, we have the right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial from CRUK upon the payment of a milestone, in cash and ordinary shares with a combined value in a mid-six digit dollar amount.  If we do not exercise our right to obtain a license to the results of the clinical trial or we fail to obtain a license, our ability to continue development of BT1718 would be negatively impacted.  BT1718 is designed to target tumors that express MT1-MMP.  In addition, we are evaluating BT5528, our first second-generation BTC that targets EphA2 and carries a monomethyl auristatin E, or MMAE cytotoxin payload, in an ongoing, company-sponsored Phase I/II clinical trial to assess safety, tolerability and efficacy in patients with solid tumors. We are also developing BT8009, targeting Nectin-4, and BT7480, which is a tumor-targeted immune cell agonist targeting Nectin-4 and agonizing CD137, for oncology indications.  These target proteins have an established role in cell invasion and metastasis and are overexpressed in many solid tumors. There can be no assurance our BTCs or Bicycle tumor-targeted immune cell agonists will ever demonstrate evidence of safety or effectiveness for any use or receive U.S. or E.U. regulatory approval in any indication.  Even if clinical trials show positive results, there can be no assurance that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in the U.S., European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in Europe or similar regulatory authorities will approve our BTCs or any of our other product candidates for any given indication for several potential reasons, including the failure to follow Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, a negative assessment of the risks and

benefits, insufficient product quality control and standardization, failure to have Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP, compliant manufacturing facilities, or the failure to agree with regulatory authorities on clinical endpoints.

Our ability to successfully commercialize our BTCs, tumor-targeted immune cell agonists, and our other product candidates will depend on, among other things, our ability to:

Of the large number of drugs in development in the pharmaceutical industry, only a small percentage result in the submission of a new drug application, or NDA, to the FDA and even fewer are approved for commercialization.  Furthermore, even if we do receive regulatory approval to market our product candidates, any such approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses or patient populations for which we may market the product.  Accordingly, even if we are able to obtain the requisite financing to continue to fund our development programs, we cannot provide assurance that our product candidates will be successfully developed or commercialized.  If we are unable to develop, or obtain regulatory approval for, or, if approved, to successfully commercialize our product candidates, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to continue our business.

We are at a very early stage in our development efforts,  our product candidates and those of our collaborators represent a new category of medicines and may be subject to heightened regulatory scrutiny until they are established as a therapeutic modality.

Bicycles® represent a new therapeutic modality of peptide compounds intended to combine targeting abilities of antibodies with performance of small molecules.  Our product candidates may not demonstrate in patients any or all of the pharmacological benefits we believe they may possess.  We have not yet succeeded and may never succeed in demonstrating efficacy and safety for these or any other product candidates in clinical trials or in obtaining marketing approval thereafter.

Regulatory authorities do not have experience with Bicycles and may require evidence of safety and efficacy that goes beyond what we and our collaborators have included in our development plans.  In such a case, development of Bicycle product candidates may be more costly or time-consuming than expected, and our candidate products and those of our collaboration partners may not prove to be viable.

If we are unsuccessful in our development efforts, we may not be able to advance the development of our product candidates, commercialize products, raise capital, expand our business or continue our operations.

Our product candidates and those of our collaborators will need to undergo preclinical and clinical trials that are time consuming and expensive,  the outcomes of which are unpredictable,  and for which there is a high risk of failure.  If preclinical or clinical trials of our or their product candidates fail to satisfactorily demonstrate safety and efficacy to the FDA,  the EMA and any other comparable regulatory authority,  additional costs may be incurred or delays experienced in completing,  the development of these product candidates,  or their development may be abandoned.

The FDA in the United States, the EMA in the European Union and the European Economic Area, and any other comparable regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions must approve new product candidates before they can be marketed, promoted or sold in those territories.  We have not previously submitted an NDA to the FDA or similar drug approval filings to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any of our product candidates.  We must provide these regulatory authorities with data from preclinical studies and clinical trials that demonstrate that our product candidates are safe and effective for a specific indication before they can be approved for commercial distribution.  We cannot be certain that our clinical trials for our product candidates will be successful or that any of our other product candidates will receive approval from the FDA, the EMA or any other comparable regulatory authority.

Preclinical studies and clinical trials are long, expensive and unpredictable processes that can be subject to extensive delays.  We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all.  It may take several years and require significant expenditures to complete the preclinical studies and clinical trials necessary to commercialize a product candidate, and delays or failure are inherently unpredictable and can occur at any stage.  We may also be required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond the trials and testing that we contemplate, which may lead to us incurring additional unplanned costs or result in delays in clinical development.  In addition, we may be required to redesign or otherwise modify our plans with respect to an ongoing or planned clinical trial, and changing the design of a clinical trial can be expensive and time consuming.  An unfavorable outcome in one or more trials would be a major setback for our product candidates and for us.  An unfavorable outcome in one or more trials may require us to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more product development programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and future growth prospects.

Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval for our product candidates.  The FDA, EMA or any other comparable regulatory authority may disagree with our clinical trial design and our interpretation of data from clinical trials, or may change the requirements for approval even after it has reviewed and commented on the design for our clinical trials.

In connection with clinical trials of our product candidates, we face a number of risks, including risks that:

Furthermore, we sometimes estimate for planning purposes the timing of the accomplishment of various scientific, clinical, regulatory and other product development objectives.  These milestones may include our expectations regarding the commencement or completion of scientific studies, clinical trials, the submission of regulatory filings or commercialization objectives.  From time to time, we may publicly announce the expected timing of some of these milestones, such as the completion of an ongoing clinical trial, the initiation of other clinical programs, the receipt of marketing approval or a commercial launch of a product.  The achievement of many of these milestones may be outside of our control.  All of these milestones are based on a variety of assumptions, which may cause the timing of achievement of the milestones to vary considerably from our estimates.  If we fail to achieve milestones in the timeframes we expect, the commercialization of our product candidates may be delayed, we may not be entitled to receive certain contractual payments, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and future growth prospects.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials,  which could delay or prevent us from proceeding with clinical trials of our product candidates.

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success.  The timing of our clinical trials depends on our ability to recruit patients to participate as well as the completion of required follow-up periods.  Patients may be unwilling to participate in our clinical trials because of negative publicity from adverse events related to novel therapeutic approaches, competitive clinical trials for similar patient populations, the existence of current treatments or for other reasons.  Enrollment risks are heightened with respect to certain indications that we may target for one or more of our product candidates that may be rare diseases, which may limit the pool of patients that may be enrolled in our planned clinical trials.  The timeline for recruiting patients, conducting trials and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed, which could result in increased costs, delays in advancing our product candidates, delays in testing the effectiveness of our product candidates or termination of the clinical trials altogether.

We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll a sufficient number of patients, or those with the required or desired characteristics, to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner.  For example, due to the nature of the indications that we are initially targeting, patients with advanced disease progression may not be suitable candidates for treatment with our product candidates and may be ineligible for enrollment in our clinical trials.  Therefore, early diagnosis in patients with our target diseases is critical to our success.  Patient enrollment and trial completion is affected by factors including the:

In addition, clinical testing of BT1718 is currently taking place outside of the United States. Our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical trial in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate ongoing or planned clinical trials, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of results of future clinical trials.

The outcome of preclinical studies and early clinical trials may not be predictive of the success of later clinical trials, and interim results of clinical trials do not necessarily predict success in the results of completed clinical trials.  Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical trials after achieving positive results in earlier development, and we could face similar setbacks.  For example, the Phase I/IIa trial of BT1718 is being conducted by CRUK at up to seven sites in the United Kingdom, and the findings may not be replicated in future trials at global clinical trial sites in a later stage clinical trial conducted by us or our collaborators.  The design of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support approval of a product and flaws in the design of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced.  We have limited experience in designing clinical trials and may be unable to design and execute a clinical trial to support marketing approval.

Preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses.  Many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval for the product candidates.  Even if we, or any collaborators, believe that the results of clinical trials for our product candidates warrant marketing approval, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree and may not grant marketing approval of our product candidates.

In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants.  If we fail to receive positive results in clinical trials of our product candidates, the development timeline and regulatory approval and commercialization prospects for our most advanced product candidates, and, correspondingly, our business and financial prospects would be negatively impacted.

Failure to successfully validate,  develop and obtain regulatory approval for companion diagnostics could harm our drug development strategy.

We may employ companion diagnostics to help us more accurately identify patients within a particular subset, both during our clinical trials and in connection with the commercialization of our product candidates that we are developing or may in the future develop.  Companion diagnostics are subject to regulation by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities as medical devices and require separate regulatory approval prior to commercialization.  We do not develop companion diagnostics internally and thus we will be dependent on the sustained cooperation and effort of our third-party collaborators in developing and obtaining approval for these companion diagnostics.  There can be no guarantees that we will successfully find a suitable collaborator to develop companion diagnostics.  We and our collaborators may encounter difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for the companion diagnostics, including issues relating to selectivity/specificity, analytical validation, reproducibility, or clinical validation.  Any delay or failure by our collaborators to develop or obtain regulatory approval of the companion diagnostics could delay or prevent approval of our product candidates.  In addition, our collaborators may encounter production difficulties that could constrain the supply of the companion diagnostics, and both they and we may have difficulties gaining acceptance of the use of the companion diagnostics in the clinical community.  If such companion diagnostics fail to gain market acceptance, our ability to derive revenues from sales of any products, if approved, will be adversely affected.  In addition, the diagnostic company with whom we contract may decide to discontinue selling or manufacturing the companion diagnostic that we anticipate using in connection with development and commercialization of our product candidates or our relationship with such diagnostic company may otherwise terminate.  We may not be able to enter into arrangements with another diagnostic company to obtain supplies of an alternative diagnostic test for use in connection with the development and commercialization of our product candidates or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could adversely affect and/or delay the development or commercialization of our product candidates.

Our current or future product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties when used alone or in combination with other approved products or investigational new drugs that could halt their clinical development,  prevent their marketing approval,  limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

Undesirable or clinically unmanageable side effects could occur and cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of marketing approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities.  Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics.  As of February 13, 2020, the most recent date for which information has been provided by the CRUK, the most common treatment-related adverse events (>15%, n=39) in subjects exposed to BT1718 in the ongoing Phase I/IIa clinical trial were anemia, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, alanine aminotransferase increase, aspartate aminotransferase increase, gamma-glutamyltransferase increase, decreased appetite, lethargy, peripheral neuropathy, and weight decrease.

If unacceptable side effect profiles arise in the development of our product candidates, we, the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the Institutional Review Boards, or IRBs, or independent ethics committees at the institutions in which our studies are conducted, or the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications.  Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial, or result in potential product liability claims.  In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff.  We may be required to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates.  Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death.  Any of these occurrences may prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Our product candidates are currently undergoing safety testing in the form of Phase I/IIa clinical trials.  None of our products have completed this testing to date.  While our current and future product candidates will undergo safety

testing to the extent possible and, where applicable, under such conditions discussed with regulatory authorities, not all adverse effects of drugs can be predicted or anticipated.  Unforeseen side effects could arise either during clinical development or, if such side effects are rarer, after our products have been approved by regulatory authorities and the approved product has been marketed, resulting in the exposure of additional patients.  So far, we have not demonstrated, and we cannot predict if ongoing or future clinical trials will demonstrate, that BT1718, or any other of our product candidates are safe in humans.

Moreover, clinical trials of our product candidates are conducted in carefully defined sets of patients who have agreed to enter into clinical trials.  Consequently, it is possible that our clinical trials may indicate an apparent positive effect of a product candidate that is greater than the actual positive effect, if any, or alternatively fail to identify undesirable side effects.  If, following approval of a product candidate, we, or others, discover that the product is less effective than previously believed or causes undesirable side effects that were not previously identified, any of the following consequences could occur:

If any of our current or future product candidates fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials or do not gain marketing approval, we will not be able to generate revenue and our business will be harmed.  Any of these events could harm our business and operations, and could negatively impact the price of our ADSs.

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify or discover additional product candidates.

Although we intend to utilize our Bicycle screening platform to explore other therapeutic opportunities in addition to the product candidates that we are currently developing, we may fail to identify other product candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons.  For example, our research methodology may not be successful in identifying potential product candidates or those we identify may be shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that make them unmarketable or unlikely to receive regulatory approval.  A key part of our strategy is to utilize our screening technology to identify product candidates to pursue in clinical development.  Such product candidates will require additional, time-consuming development efforts prior to commercial sale, including preclinical studies, clinical trials and approval by the FDA and/or applicable foreign regulatory authorities.  All product candidates are prone to the risks of failure that are inherent in pharmaceutical product development.  If we fail to identify and develop additional potential product candidates, we may be unable to grow our business and our results of operations could be materially harmed.

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

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we intend to focus on developing product candidates for specific indications that we identify as most likely to succeed, in terms of both their potential for marketing approval and commercialization.  As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates or for other indications that may prove to have greater commercial potential.

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

We face potential product liability,  and,  if successful claims are brought against us,  we may incur substantial liability and costs.  If the use of our product candidates harms patients,  or is perceived to harm patients even when such harm is unrelated to our product candidates,  our regulatory approvals could be revoked or otherwise negatively impacted and we could be subject to costly and damaging product liability claims.

The use of our product candidates in clinical trials and the sale of any products for which we obtain marketing approval expose us to the risk of product liability claims.  Product liability claims might be brought against us by patients, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our products.  There is a risk that our product candidates may induce adverse events.  If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we could incur substantial liability and costs.  In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

We believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current commercial and clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability.  We intend to expand our insurance coverage each time we commercialize an additional product; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts.  On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs or medical treatments that had unanticipated adverse effects.  A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our ADS price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Patients with the diseases targeted by certain of our product candidates, such as our lead indications in oncology, are often already in severe and advanced stages of disease and have both known and unknown significant pre-existing and potentially life-threatening health risks.  During the course of treatment, patients may suffer adverse events, including death, for reasons that may be related to our product candidates.  Such events could subject us to costly

litigation, require us to pay substantial amounts of money to injured patients, delay, negatively impact or end our opportunity to receive or maintain regulatory approval to market our products, or require us to suspend or abandon our commercialization efforts.  Even in a circumstance in which we do not believe that an adverse event is related to our products, the investigation into the circumstance may be time-consuming or inconclusive.  These investigations may interrupt our sales efforts, delay our regulatory approval process, or impact and limit the type of regulatory approvals our product candidates receive or maintain.  As a result of these factors, a product liability claim, even if successfully defended, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We may seek designations for our product candidates with the FDA and other comparable regulatory authorities that are intended to confer benefits such as a faster development process or an accelerated regulatory pathway,  but there can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain such designations.  In addition,  even if one or more of our product candidates are granted such designations,  we may not be able to realize the intended benefits of such designations.

The FDA and other comparable regulatory authorities offer certain designations for product candidates that are intended to encourage the research and development of pharmaceutical products addressing conditions with significant unmet medical need.  These designations may confer benefits such as additional interaction with regulatory authorities, a potentially accelerated regulatory pathway and priority review.  There can be no assurance that we will successfully obtain such designation for any of our other product candidates.  In addition, while such designations could expedite the development or approval process, they generally do not change the standards for approval.  Even if we obtain such designations for one or more of our product candidates, there can be no assurance that we will realize their intended benefits.

For example, we may seek a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for one or more of our product candidates.  A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development.  For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens.  Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval.  Designation as a breakthrough therapy is within the discretion of the FDA.  Accordingly, even if we believe one of our product candidates meets the criteria for designation as a breakthrough therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation.  In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for a product candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to therapies considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA.  In addition, even if one or more of our product candidates qualify as breakthrough therapies, the FDA may later decide that such product candidates no longer meet the conditions for qualification.

We may also seek Fast Track Designation for some of our product candidates.  If a therapy is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the therapy demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the therapy sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation.  The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it.  Even if we do receive Fast Track Designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures, and receiving a Fast Track Designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval.  The FDA may withdraw Fast Track Designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may seek priority review designation for one or more of our product candidates,  but we might not receive such designation,  and even if we do,  such designation may not lead to a faster regulatory review or approval process.

If the FDA determines that a product candidate offers a treatment for a serious condition and, if approved, the product would provide a significant improvement in safety or effectiveness, the FDA may designate the product

candidate for priority review.  A priority review designation means that the goal for the FDA to review an application is six months, rather than the standard review period of ten months.  We may request priority review for our product candidates.  The FDA has broad discretion with respect to whether or not to grant priority review status to a product candidate, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designation or status, in particular if such product candidate has received a Breakthrough Therapy Designation, the FDA may decide not to grant it.  Moreover, a priority review designation does not result in expedited development and does not necessarily result in expedited regulatory review or approval process or necessarily confer any advantage with respect to approval compared to conventional FDA procedures.  Receiving priority review from the FDA does not guarantee approval within the six-month review cycle or at all.

Obtaining and maintaining marketing approval of our current and future product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining marketing approval of our current and future product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining marketing approval of our current and future product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain marketing approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining marketing approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the marketing approval process in others.  For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries.  Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions.  In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction.  In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.  We do not have experience in obtaining reimbursement or pricing approvals in international markets.

Obtaining marketing approvals and compliance with regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries outside of the United Kingdom and the United States.  If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, commonly referred to as “Brexit,” may adversely impact our ability to obtain regulatory approvals of our product candidates in the European Union, result in restrictions or imposition of taxes and duties for importing our product candidates into the European Union, and may require us to incur additional expenses in order to develop, manufacture and commercialize our product candidates in the European Union.

Following the result of a referendum in 2016, the United Kingdom left the European Union on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit.  Pursuant to the formal withdrawal arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, the United Kingdom will be subject to a transition period until December 31, 2020, or the Transition Period, during which European Union rules will continue to apply.  Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are expected to continue in relation to the customs and trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union following the expiry of the Transition Period.

The potential impact on our results of operations and liquidity resulting from Brexit remains unclear. The actual effects of Brexit will depend upon many factors and significant uncertainty remains with respect to the terms of the ultimate resolution of the Brexit negotiations.

Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom applicable to our business and our product candidates is derived from European Union directives and regulations, Brexit, following the Transition Period, could materially impact the regulatory regime with respect to the development, manufacture, importation, approval and commercialization of our product candidates in the United Kingdom or the European Union. For example, as a result of

the uncertainty surrounding Brexit, the EMA relocated to Amsterdam from London. Following the Transition Period, the United Kingdom will no longer be covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining European Union-wide marketing authorization from the EMA and, unless a specific agreement is entered into, a separate process for authorization of drug products, including our product candidates, will be required in the United Kingdom, the potential process for which is currently unclear. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates in the United Kingdom and/or the European Union and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability.  If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or European Union for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates and Other Regulatory Compliance Matters

Even if we complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials,  the marketing approval process is expensive,  time consuming and uncertain and may prevent us or any collaborators from obtaining approvals for the commercialization of some or all of our product candidates.  As a result,  we cannot predict when or if,  and in which territories,  we,  or any collaborators,  will obtain marketing approval to commercialize a product candidate.

The process of obtaining marketing approvals, both in the United States and abroad, is lengthy, expensive and uncertain.  It may take many years, if approval is obtained at all, and can vary substantially based upon a variety of factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved.  Securing marketing approval requires the submission of extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to regulatory authorities for each therapeutic indication to establish the product candidate’s safety and efficacy.  Securing marketing approval also requires the submission of information about the product manufacturing process to, and inspection of manufacturing facilities by, the regulatory authorities.  The FDA or other regulatory authorities may determine that our product candidates are not safe and effective, only moderately effective or have undesirable or unintended side effects, toxicities or other characteristics that preclude our obtaining marketing approval or prevent or limit commercial use.  Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

In addition, changes in marketing approval policies during the development period, changes in or the enactment or promulgation of additional statutes, regulations or guidance or changes in regulatory review for each submitted product application, may cause delays in the approval or rejection of an application.  Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies.  Varying interpretations of the data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent marketing approval of a product candidate.  We cannot commercialize a product until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate.  Even if our product candidates demonstrate safety and efficacy in clinical trials, the regulatory agencies may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, or we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval.  Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval.  In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative action, or changes in regulatory agency policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process.  Any marketing approval we ultimately obtain may be limited or subject to restrictions or post-approval commitments that render the approved product not commercially viable.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services.  Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or other regulatory authority.  The FDA or other regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected interpretation of the study.  The FDA or other regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized.  This could result in a delay in approval, or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or other regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of one or more of our product candidates.

In addition, regulatory agencies may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates.  For example, regulatory agencies may approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than requested or may grant approval subject to the performance of post-marketing studies.  Regulators may approve a product candidate for a smaller patient population, a different drug formulation or a different manufacturing process, than we are seeking.  If we are unable to obtain necessary regulatory approvals, or more limited regulatory approvals than we expect, our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations may suffer.

Any delay in obtaining or failure to obtain required approvals could negatively impact our ability to generate revenue from the particular product candidate, which likely would result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely impact the price of our ADSs.

We currently have no marketing,  sales or distribution infrastructure with respect to our product candidates.  If we are unable to develop our sales,  marketing and distribution capability on our own or through collaborations with marketing partners,  we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

We currently have no marketing, sales or distribution capabilities and have limited sales or marketing experience within our organization.  If one or more of our product candidates is approved, we intend either to establish a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize that product candidate, or to outsource this function to a third party.  There are risks involved with either establishing our own sales and marketing capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services.

Recruiting and training an internal commercial organization is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch.  Some or all of these costs may be incurred in advance of any approval of any of our product candidates.  If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses.  This may be costly and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our sales and marketing personnel.  In addition, we may not be able to hire a sales force in the United States or other target market that is sufficient in size or has adequate expertise in the medical markets that we intend to target.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize our product candidates on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability to us from these revenue streams is likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any product candidates that we develop ourselves.  In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to sell and market our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us.  We likely will have little control over such third parties and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our product candidates effectively.  If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we may not be successful in commercializing our product candidates.

The market opportunities for any current or future product candidate we develop,  if and when approved,  may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for established therapies or for whom prior therapies have failed,  and may be small.

Cancer therapies are sometimes characterized as first-line, second-line, or third-line, and the FDA often approves new therapies initially only for third-line use.  When cancer is detected early enough, first-line therapy, usually chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery, radiation therapy, immunotherapy or a combination of these, is sometimes adequate to cure the cancer or prolong life without a cure.  Second- and third-line therapies are administered to patients when prior therapy is not effective.  We may initially seek approval of BT1718, BT5528, and any other product candidates we develop as a therapy for patients who have received one or more prior treatments.  Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval potentially as a first-line therapy, but there is no guarantee that product candidates we develop, even if approved, would be approved for first-line therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we may have to conduct additional clinical trials.

The number of patients who have the cancers we are targeting may turn out to be lower than expected.  Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our current programs or future product candidates may be limited, if and when approved.  Even if we obtain significant market share for any product candidate, if and when approved, if the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining marketing approval for additional indications, including use as first- or second-line therapy.

Even if we receive marketing approval of a product candidate,  we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review,  which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our products,  if approved.

Any marketing approvals that we receive for any current or future product candidate may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate.  The FDA may also require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, as a condition of approval of any product candidate, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.  If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves a product candidate, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import and export and record keeping for the product candidate will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements.  These requirements include, among others, submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, and Good Clinical Practice, or GCP, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, and prohibitions on the promotion of an approved product for uses not included in the product’s approved labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments but the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Later discovery of previously unknown problems with any approved candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay marketing approval of a product.  We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad.  If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

We face significant competition and if our competitors develop and market products that are more effective,  safer or less expensive than the product candidates we develop,  our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.

The life sciences industry is highly competitive.  We are currently developing therapeutics that will compete, if approved, with other products and therapies that currently exist, are being developed or will in the future be developed, some of which we may not currently be aware.

We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, universities and other research institutions.  Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, product development, technical and human resources than we do.  Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining marketing approvals, recruiting patients and manufacturing pharmaceutical products.  These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development, and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions.  Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete.  Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors.  As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection and/or marketing approval or discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.

There is a large number of companies developing or marketing treatments for cancer, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.  These treatments consist both of small molecule drug products, such as traditional chemotherapy, as well as novel immunotherapies.  For example, a number of multinational companies as well as large biotechnology companies, including Astellas Pharma Inc., Seattle Genetics, Inc., AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline plc, are developing programs for the targets that we are exploring for our BTC programs.  Furthermore, Agenus Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Pfizer Inc., Roche Holding AG, or Roche, have or are developing programs for CD137, and Amgen Inc., Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Roche are developing bi-specific antibodies.

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 effects, are more convenient, have a broader label, are marketed more effectively, are reimbursed or are less expensive than any products that we may develop.  Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA or other marketing 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.  Even if the product candidate we develop achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive products if any have been approved by then, resulting in reduced competitiveness.

Smaller and other early stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors.  These third parties compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.  In addition, the biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid technological change.  If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively.  Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.

The commercial success of any current or future product candidate will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians,  patients,  payors and others in the medical community.

We have never commercialized a product, and even if we obtain any regulatory approval for our product candidates, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the medical community, patients, and payors accepting products based on our Bicycle peptides in general, and our product candidates in particular, as effective, safe and cost-effective.  Any product that we bring to the market may not gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, payors and others in the medical community.  Physicians are often reluctant to switch their patients from existing therapies even when new and potentially more effective or convenient treatments enter the market.  Further, patients often acclimate to the therapy that they are currently taking and do not want to switch unless their physicians recommend switching products or they are required to switch therapies due to lack of reimbursement for existing therapies.

The degree of market acceptance of these product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Even if a product candidate displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product, if approved for commercial sale, will not be known until after it is launched.  Our efforts to educate the medical community and payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require

significant resources and may never be successful.  Such efforts to educate the marketplace may require more resources than are required by the conventional technologies marketed by our competitors, particularly due to the novelty of our Bicycle approach.  If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable.

If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we believe they are,  our product revenues may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We currently focus our research and product development on treatments for oncology indications and our product candidates are designed to target specific tumor antigens.  Our understanding of both the number of people who have these diseases, as well as the subset of people with these diseases who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on estimates.  These estimates may prove to be incorrect and new studies may reduce the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases.  Patient identification efforts also influence the ability to address a patient population.  If efforts in patient identification are unsuccessful or less impactful than anticipated, we may not address the entirety of the opportunity we are seeking.

In addition, the tumor antigens that our product candidates target may not be expressed as broadly as we anticipate.  Further, if companion diagnostics are not developed alongside our product candidates, testing patients for the tumor antigens may not be possible, which would hamper our ability to identify patients who could benefit from treatment with our product candidates.

As a result, the number of patients we are able to identify in the United States, the European Union and elsewhere may turn out to be lower than expected, may not be otherwise amenable to treatment with our products or patients may become increasingly difficult to access, all of which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain.  Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for any of our product candidates,  if approved,  could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

We expect the cost of our product candidates to be substantial, when and if they achieve market approval.  The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments.  Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid by private payors, such as private health coverage insurers, health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.  We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement.  If reimbursement is not available, or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, even if approved.  Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products.  In the United States, the principal decisions about coverage and reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as the CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare.  Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree.  It is difficult to predict what CMS will decide with respect to coverage and reimbursement for novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products.  Coverage and reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:  (1) a covered benefit under its health plan; (2) safe, effective and medically necessary; (3) appropriate for the specific patient; (4) cost-effective; and (5) neither experimental nor investigational.  In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors.  As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied

consistently or obtained in the first instance.  Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high.  Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the approved drugs for a particular indication.

Additionally, third-party payors may not cover, or provide adequate reimbursement for, long-term follow-up evaluations required following the use of product candidates.  Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates.  Because our product candidates may have a higher cost of goods than conventional therapies, and may require long-term follow-up evaluations, the risk that coverage and reimbursement rates may be inadequate for us to achieve profitability may be greater.  There is significant uncertainty related to insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products.  It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our product candidates.

We or our collaborators will be required to obtain coverage and reimbursement for companion diagnostic tests separate and apart from the coverage and reimbursement we seek for our product candidates, once approved. There is significant uncertainty regarding our and our collaborators ability to obtain coverage and adequate reimbursement for any companion diagnostic test for the same reasons applicable to our product candidates.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates.  There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices.  Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs.  We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations, cost containment initiatives and additional legislative changes.

Outside the United States, certain countries, including a number of member states of the European Union, set prices and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products, or medicinal products, as they are commonly referred to in the European Union.  These countries have broad discretion in setting prices and we cannot be sure that such prices and reimbursement will be acceptable to us or our collaborators.  If the regulatory authorities in these jurisdictions set prices or reimbursement levels that are not commercially attractive for us or our collaborators, our revenues from sales by us or our collaborators, and the potential profitability of our drug products, in those countries would be negatively affected.  An increasing number of countries are taking initiatives to attempt to reduce large budget deficits by focusing cost-cutting efforts on pharmaceuticals for their state-run health care systems.  These international price control efforts have impacted all regions of the world, but have been most drastic in the European Union.  Additionally, some countries require approval of the sale price of a product before it can be lawfully marketed.  In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted.  To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we, or any collaborators, may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product to other available therapies.  As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then may experience delays in the reimbursement approval of our product or be subject to price regulations that would delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, which could negatively impact the revenues we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that particular country.

Moreover, efforts by governments and payors, in the United States and abroad, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate reimbursement for our product candidates.  There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug practices.  Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement

methodologies for drugs.  We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes.  The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and other treatments, has become very intense.  As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

If reimbursement of our products is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, our business could be harmed.

If the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic versions of any of our product candidates that receive marketing approval,  or such authorities do not grant such products appropriate periods of data exclusivity before approving generic versions of such products,  the sales of such products could be adversely affected.

Once a NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “reference-listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or the Orange Book.  Manufacturers may seek approval of generic versions of reference-listed drugs through submission of abbreviated new drug applications, or ANDAs, in the United States.  In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration and conditions of use or labeling as the reference-listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference-listed drug, meaning, in part, that it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent.  Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference-listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices.  Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference-listed drug may be typically lost to the generic product, and the price of the branded product may be lowered.

The FDA may not accept for review or approve an ANDA for a generic product until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity for the reference-listed drug has expired.  The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, provides a period of five years of non-patent exclusivity for a new drug containing a new chemical entity, or NCE.  Specifically, in cases where such exclusivity has been granted, an ANDA may not be filed with the FDA until the expiration of five years unless the submission is accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification that a patent covering the reference-listed drug is either invalid or will not be infringed by the generic product, in which case the applicant may submit its application four years following approval of the reference-listed drug.  It is unclear whether the FDA will treat the active ingredients in our product candidates as NCEs and, therefore, afford them five years of NCE data exclusivity if they are approved.  If any product we develop does not receive five years of NCE exclusivity, the FDA may approve generic versions of such product three years after its date of approval, subject to the requirement that the ANDA applicant certifies to any patents listed for our products in the Orange Book.  Three year exclusivity is given to a non-NCE drug if the NDA includes reports of one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted by or for the applicant and are essential to the approval of the NDA.  Manufacturers may seek to launch these generic products following the expiration of the applicable marketing exclusivity period, even if we still have patent protection for our product.

Competition that our products may face from generic versions of our products could negatively impact our future revenue, profitability and cash flows and substantially limit our ability to obtain a return on our investments in those product candidates.

We may be subject,  directly or indirectly,  to federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws,  false claims laws health information privacy and security laws,  and other health care laws and regulations.  If we are unable to comply,  or have not fully complied,  with such laws,  we could face substantial penalties.

If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our operations will be directly, or indirectly through our prescribers, customers and purchasers, subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Health Care Program Anti-Kickback Statute, or Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal civil and criminal False Claims Act and Physician Payments Sunshine Act and regulations.  These laws will impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and

educational programs.  In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy laws by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business.  The laws that will affect our operations include, but are not limited to:

Additionally, we are subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws and regulations described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of the payer.  Many U.S. states have adopted laws similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute and FCA, and may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental payors, including private insurers.  In addition, some states have passed laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the April 2003 Office of Inspector General Compliance Program Guidance for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and/or the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s Code on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals.  Several states also impose other marketing restrictions or require pharmaceutical companies to make marketing or price disclosures to the state.  There are ambiguities as to what is required to comply with these state requirements and if we fail to comply with an applicable state law requirement we could be subject to significant penalties.  Finally, there are state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.  Law enforcement authorities are increasingly focused on enforcing fraud and abuse laws, and it is possible that some of our practices may be challenged under these laws.  Efforts to ensure that our current and future business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs.  If our operations, including our arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom receive share options as compensation for services provided, are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs (such as Medicare and Medicaid), additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and individual imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Any action for violation of these laws, even if successfully defended, could cause a pharmaceutical manufacturer to incur significant legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of the business.  Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future marketed products could materially affect business in an adverse way.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a negative impact on our business and results of operations.

In the United States and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and continue to be, several legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities, and affect our ability to profitably sell any

product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. 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 arrangements, (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling, (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products, (iv) restriction on coverage, reimbursement, and pricing for our products, (v) transparency reporting obligations regarding transfers of value to health care professionals or (vi) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Among policy makers in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and/or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives. In March 2010, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both the government and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjected biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, created a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extended the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, established annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 70% point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D.

Since January 2017, President Trump has signed two Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA or otherwise circumvent some of the requirements for health insurance mandated by the ACA. One Executive Order directs federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the ACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the ACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The second Executive Order terminates the cost- sharing subsidies that reimburse insurers under the ACA. Several state Attorneys General filed suit to stop the administration from terminating the subsidies, but their request for a restraining order was denied by a federal judge in California on October 25, 2017. Further, on June 14, 2018, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the federal government was not required to pay more than $12 billion in ACA risk corridor payments to third-party payors who argued were owed to them. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in December 2019, but has not yet issued a ruling. The full effects of this gap in reimbursement on third-party payors, the viability of the ACA marketplace, providers, and potentially our business, are not yet known.

Concurrently, Congress has considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, several bills affecting implementation of certain taxes under the ACA have been signed into law. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, or the Tax Act, includes a provision that repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the Affordable Care Act on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” In addition, the 2020 federal spending package permanently eliminates, effective January 1, 2020, the ACA-mandated “Cadillac” tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health coverage and medical device tax and, effective January 1, 2021, also eliminates the health insurer tax. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, or the BBA, among other things, amended the Affordable Care Act, effective January 1, 2019, to close the coverage gap in most Medicare drug plans, commonly referred to as the “donut hole.” In December 2018, CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain Affordable Care Act qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the Affordable Care Act risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas, or the Texas District Court Judge, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the Affordable Care Act, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid as well. 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. It is unclear how this decision, future decisions, subsequent appeals, and other efforts to repeal and replace the ACA will impact the ACA and our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the BBA, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. At the federal level, the Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2020 contained further drug price control measures that could be enacted during the budget process or in other future legislation, including, for example, measures to permit Medicare Part D plans to negotiate the price of certain drugs under Medicare Part B, to allow some states to negotiate drug prices under Medicaid, and to eliminate cost sharing for generic drugs for low-income patients. Additionally, the Trump administration released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase 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. The Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, has solicited feedback on some of these measures and, at the same, has implemented others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage plans the option to use step therapy for Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. While some 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, administrative and executive measures, including the President’s issuance of future executive orders, to control drug costs. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological 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.

Further, on May 30, 2018, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, or 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 pharmaceutical manufacturer to make its drug products available to eligible patients as a result of the Right to Try Act.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation, administrative or executive action. We expect that these and other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved drug, which could have an adverse effect on customers for our product candidates. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our products. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated

revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

We are subject to the U.K.  Bribery Act 2010,  or the Bribery Act,  the U.S.  Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977,  as amended,  or the FCPA,  and other anti-corruption laws,  as well as export control laws,  import and customs laws,  trade and economic sanctions laws and other laws governing our operations.

Our operations are subject to anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. §201, the U.S. Travel Act, and other anti-corruption laws that apply in countries where we do business.  The Bribery Act, the FCPA and these other laws generally prohibit us, our employees and our intermediaries from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper or prohibited payments, or anything else of value, to government officials or other persons to obtain or retain business or gain some other business advantage.  Under the Bribery Act, we may also be liable for failing to prevent a person associated with us from committing a bribery offense.  We and our commercial partners operate in a number of jurisdictions that pose a high risk of potential Bribery Act or FCPA violations, and we participate in collaborations and relationships with third parties whose corrupt or illegal activities could potentially subject us to liability under the Bribery Act, FCPA or local anti-corruption laws, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities.  In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope or effect of future regulatory requirements to which our international operations might be subject or the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted.

We are also subject to other laws and regulations governing our international operations, including regulations administered by the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, and authorities in the European Union, including applicable export control regulations, economic sanctions and embargoes on certain countries and persons, anti-money laundering laws, import and customs requirements and currency exchange regulations, collectively referred to as the Trade Control laws.

There is no assurance that we will be completely effective in ensuring our compliance with all applicable anti-corruption laws, including the Bribery Act, the FCPA or other legal requirements, including Trade Control laws.  If we are not in compliance with the Bribery Act, the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other sanctions and remedial measures, and legal expenses, which could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.  Likewise, any investigation of any potential violations of the Bribery Act, the FCPA, other anti-corruption laws or Trade Control laws by the United Kingdom, United States or other authorities could also have an adverse impact on our reputation, our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our activities in the United States subject us to various laws relating to foreign investment and the export of certain technologies,  and our failure to comply with these laws or adequately monitor the compliance of our suppliers and others we do business with could subject us to substantial fines,  penalties and even injunctions,  the imposition of which on us could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

Because we have a U.S. subsidiary and substantial operations in the United States, we are subject to U.S. laws that regulate foreign investments in U.S. businesses and access by foreign persons to technology developed and produced in the United States.  These laws include section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018, and the regulations at 31 C.F.R.  Parts 800 and 801, as amended, administered by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States; and the Export Control Reform Act of 2018, which is being implemented in part through Commerce Department rulemakings to impose new export control restrictions on “emerging and foundational technologies” yet to be fully identified.  Application of these laws, including as they are implemented through regulations being developed, may negatively impact our business in various ways, including by restricting our access to capital and markets; limiting the collaborations we may pursue; regulating the export our products, services, and technology from the United States and abroad; increasing our costs and the time necessary to obtain required authorizations and to ensure compliance; and threatening monetary fines and other penalties if we do not.

If we fail to comply with environmental,  health and safety laws and regulations,  we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, including those governing laboratory procedures and the handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes.  Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological materials.  Our operations also produce hazardous waste products.  We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes.  We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials.  In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources.  We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.  Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent.  We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance.  In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations.  These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.  Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions.

Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials or other work-related injuries, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities.  In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations.  These current or future laws and regulations may impair our research, development or production efforts.  Failure to comply with these laws and regulations also may result in substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions or liabilities, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our International Operations

As a company based outside of the United States,  we are subject to economic,  political,  regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

As a company based in the United Kingdom, our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business outside of the United States.  Many of our suppliers and clinical trial relationships are located outside the United States.  Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

Any or all of these factors could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The novel coronavirus outbreak could impact our business. 

In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus was reported in China. This virus has now spread to numerous other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States. While we do not currently have significant operations in geographical locations where the coronavirus was initially reported to be most prevalent, we source certain research and development, consulting and other services and supplies from vendors in Asia and in Italy, where the coronavirus has become increasingly prevalent. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the impact, if any, that the coronavirus may have on our business or operations. The extent to which the coronavirus impacts our business will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the coronavirus and the actions to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact including on financial markets or otherwise.

European data collection is governed by restrictive regulations governing the use,  processing,  and cross-border transfer of personal information.

The collection and use of personal health data in the European Union is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which became effective and enforceable across all then-current member states of the European Union on May 25, 2018. In the United Kingdom, the Data Protection Act 2018 complements the GDPR. Following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on January 31, 2020, pursuant to the transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and European Union, the GDPR will continue to have effect in United Kingdom law until December 31, 2020 in the same fashion as was the case prior to that withdrawal as if the United Kingdom remained a member state of the European Union for such purposes. Following December 31, 2020, it is likely that the data protection obligations of the GDPR will continue to apply to United Kingdom-based organization’s processing of personal data in substantially unvaried form and fashion, for at least the

short term thereafter.  The GDPR enhances data protection obligations for both processors and controllers of personal data, including by materially expanding the definition of what is expressly noted to constitute personal data, requiring additional disclosures about how personal data is to be used, imposing limitations on retention of personal data, creating mandatory data breach notification requirements in certain circumstances, and establishing onerous new obligations on services providers who process personal data simply on behalf of others, as well as obligations regarding the security and confidentiality of the personal data.  The GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the European Economic Area to third countries (including the United States).  The GDPR has expanded its reach to include any business, regardless of its location, that processes personal data in relation to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the European Union and/or the monitoring of their behavior.  This expansion would incorporate any potential clinical trial activities in European Union member states.  The GDPR imposes special protections for “sensitive information” which includes health and genetic information of data subjects residing in the European Union. The GDPR grants individuals the opportunity to object to the processing of their personal information, allows them to request deletion of personal information in certain circumstances, and provides the individual with an express right to seek legal remedies in the event the individual believes his or her rights have been violated.  Failure to comply with the requirements of the GDPR may result in fines of up to 4% of an undertaking’s total global annual turnover for the preceding financial year, or € 20,000,000, whichever is greater.   In addition to administrative fines, a wide variety of other potential enforcement powers are available to competent authorities in respect of potential and suspected violations of the GDPR, including extensive audit and inspection rights, and powers to order temporary or permanent bans on all or some processing of personal data carried out by noncompliant actors. While we have taken steps to comply with the GDPR, and implementing legislation in applicable member states, including by seeking to establish appropriate lawful bases for the various processing activities we carry out as a controller, reviewing our security procedures, and entering into data processing agreements with relevant customers and business partners, we cannot assure you that our efforts to achieve and remain in compliance have been, and/or will continue to be, fully successful.

Legal, political and economic uncertainty surrounding the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union may be a source of instability in international markets, create significant currency fluctuations, adversely affect our operations in the United Kingdom and pose additional risks to our business, revenue, financial condition, and results of operations.

Pursuant to the formal withdrawal arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom will be subject to a Transition Period during which EU rules will continue to apply.  Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are expected to continue in relation to the customs and trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union following the expiry of the Transition Period. 

The lack of clarity over which EU laws and regulations will continue to be implemented in the United Kingdom  after the Transition Period (including financial laws and regulations, tax and free trade agreements, intellectual property rights, data protection laws, supply chain logistics, environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, immigration laws and employment laws) may negatively impact foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom, increase costs, depress economic activity and restrict access to capital.

The uncertainty concerning the United Kingdom’s legal, political and economic relationship with the European Union after the Transition Period may be a source of instability in the international markets, create significant currency fluctuations, and/or otherwise adversely affect trading agreements or similar cross-border co-operation arrangements (whether economic, tax, fiscal, legal, regulatory or otherwise).

These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, have had, and may continue to have, a significant adverse effect on global economic conditions and the stability of global financial markets, and could significantly reduce global market liquidity and limit the ability of key market participants to operate in certain financial markets. In particular, it could also lead to a period of considerable uncertainty in relation to the United Kingdom’s financial and banking markets, as well as on the regulatory process in Europe. Asset valuations, currency exchange rates and credit ratings may also be subject to increased market volatility.

If the United Kingdom and the European Union are unable to negotiate acceptable trading and customs terms or if other EU Member States pursue withdrawal, barrier-free access between the United Kingdom and other EU Member States or among the European Economic Area, or EEA, overall could be diminished or eliminated. The long-term effects of Brexit will depend on any agreements (or lack thereof) between the United Kingdom and the European Union and, in particular, any arrangements for the United Kingdom to retain access to EU markets after the Transition Period.

Such a withdrawal from the European Union is unprecedented, and it is unclear how the United Kingdom’s access to the European single market for goods, capital, services and labor within the European Union, or single market, and the wider commercial, legal and regulatory environment, will impact our U.K. operations and customers. Our U.K. operations service customers in the United Kingdom as well as in other countries in the European Economic Area, or EEA,  and these operations could be disrupted by Brexit, particularly if there is a change in the United Kingdom’s relationship to the single market.

There may continue to be economic uncertainty surrounding the consequences of Brexit which could adversely impact customer confidence resulting in customers reducing their spending budgets on our solutions, which could adversely affect our business, revenue, financial condition, results of operations and could adversely affect the market price of our ADSs.

Exchange rate fluctuations may materially affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Owing to the international scope of our operations, fluctuations in exchange rates, particularly between the pound sterling and the U.S. dollar, may adversely affect us.  Although we are based in the United Kingdom, we source research and development, manufacturing, consulting and other services from the United States and the European Union and Asia that are billed in U.S. dollars.  Further, potential future revenue may be derived from abroad, particularly from the United States.  As a result, our business and the price of our ADSs may be affected by fluctuations in foreign exchange rates not only between the pound sterling and the U.S. dollar, but also the euro, which may have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows from period to period.  Currently, we do not have any exchange rate hedging arrangements in place.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

For certain product candidates,  we depend,  or will depend,  on development and commercialization collaborators to develop and conduct clinical trials with,  obtain regulatory approvals for,  and if approved,  market and sell product candidates.  If such collaborators fail to perform as expected,  the potential for us to generate future revenue from such product candidates would be significantly reduced and our business would be harmed.

For certain products candidates, we depend, or will depend, on our development and commercial collaborators to develop, conduct clinical trials of, and, if approved, commercialize product candidates.

Under our collaborations with AstraZeneca, Oxurion, and DDF, we are responsible for identifying and optimizing Bicycle peptides related to collaboration targets and our collaborators are responsible for further development and product commercialization after we complete the defined research screening and compound optimization.  As part of our collaboration with Cancer Research Technology Limited and CRUK, CRUK’s Centre for Drug Development is sponsoring and funding a Phase I/IIa clinical trial of our lead product candidate, BT1718, in patients with advanced solid tumors, and will sponsor and fund a Phase I/IIa study for BT7401.  We depend on these collaborators to develop and, where applicable, commercialize products based on Bicycle peptides, and the success of their efforts directly impacts the milestones and royalties we will receive.  We cannot provide assurance that our collaborators will be successful in or that they will devote sufficient resources to the development or commercialization of their products.  If our current or future collaboration and commercialization partners do not perform in the manner we expect or fail to fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner, or at all, if our agreements with them terminate or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised, the clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization efforts related to their and our product candidates and products could be delayed or terminated and it could become necessary for us to assume the responsibility at our own expense for the clinical development of such product candidates.

Our current collaborations and any future collaborations that we enter into are subject to numerous risks, including:

In addition, certain collaboration and commercialization agreements provide our collaborators with rights to terminate such agreements, which rights may or may not be subject to conditions, and which rights, if exercised, would adversely affect our product development efforts and could make it difficult for us to attract new collaborators.  In that event, we would likely be required to limit the size and scope of efforts for the development and commercialization of such product candidates or products; we would likely be required to seek additional financing to fund further development or identify alternative strategic collaborations; our potential to generate future revenue from royalties and milestone payments from such product candidates or products would be significantly reduced, delayed or eliminated; and it could have an adverse effect on our business and future growth prospects.  Our rights to recover tangible and intangible assets and intellectual property rights needed to advance a product candidate or product after termination of a collaboration may be limited by contract, and we may not be able to advance a program post-termination.

If conflicts arise with our development and commercialization collaborators or licensors,  they may act in their own self-interest,  which may be adverse to the interests of our company.

We may in the future experience disagreements with our development and commercialization collaborators or licensors.  Conflicts may arise in our collaboration and license arrangements with third parties due to one or more of the following:

For example, we are involved in ongoing litigation with Pepscan Systems B.V., and its affiliates, or Pepscan, related to a non-exclusive patent license agreement that our subsidiary, BicycleRD Limited, or BicycleRD, entered into with Pepscan in 2009.  Pursuant to the patent license agreement, BicycleRD licensed rights related to the scaffold used for Bicycles contained in certain of our product candidates, including our lead product candidate, BT1718, which is currently in clinical trial sponsored by CRUK, and in THR-149, which has been licensed to Oxurion.  The agreement required BicycleRD to enter into a framework services agreement with Pepscan under which Pepscan would provide certain Bicycles not produced by BicycleRD.  In 2010, BicycleRD entered into such a framework services agreement.  In 2015, BicycleRD terminated the framework services agreement in accordance with its terms. Since 2015, we have ceased using the scaffolds claimed by Pepscan in our new product candidates and have instead developed  proprietary scaffold technology of our own.  

In 2016, Pepscan terminated the patent license agreement.  BicycleRD instituted proceedings in the District Court of The Hague, or the District Court, to contest the right of Pepscan to terminate the patent license agreement. BicycleRD included a conditional claim for a ruling that the licensed patent relevant to BicycleRD’s activities is invalid. In response, Pepscan claimed, among other things, that the termination of the framework services agreement and alleged breaches by BicycleRD of confidentiality obligations constituted grounds for the termination of the patent license agreement.  In an interlocutory judgement delivered in April 2018, the District Court rejected Pepscan’s claim that it was entitled to terminate the patent license agreement on the basis of a breach of a purported exclusive supply obligation.  The District Court reserved for further proceedings a decision on both the validity of the Pepscan patent and the question of whether BicycleRD breached its confidentiality obligations. 

In July 2018, Pepscan appealed the decision of the District Court and the proceedings before the District Court were stayed pending a decision in that appeal.

On February 18, 2020, the Court of Appeal of The Hague, or the Court of Appeal, ruled that Pepscan was entitled to terminate the license agreement and granted a worldwide injunction against BicycleRD exploiting the licensed Pepscan patents and any related know-how, subject to a civil daily fine of EUR 25,000 in the event of non-compliance. BicycleRD intends to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court and is preparing for further proceedings before the District Court, in particular concerning BicycleRD’s invalidity claim, the claim related to know-how and the assessment of damages should a proceeding for such an assessment be initiated by Pepscan.

There can be no assurance that BicycleRD will prevail in any future proceedings. While we do not believe the injunction applies to entities other than BicycleRD, including our collaboration partners, there can be no assurance that Pepscan will not allege that the injunction applies to other entities.

In addition, in January 2013, Pepscan filed a notice of opposition in respect of European patent 2 257 624, which is a foundational patent that is directed to our technology platform.  In April 2015, Pepscan filed a notice of opposition in respect of European patent 2 474 613, which is a divisional patent that is directed to extensions of our technology platform.  As of December 31, 2019, no final decision has been issued by the European Patent Office.  If we are unable to prevail against these challenges, our intellectual property estate may be materially harmed, which would impair our ability to establish competitive barriers to entry in the form of intellectual property protections.

Conflicts with our development and commercialization collaborators or licensors could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations and future growth prospects.

We rely on third parties,  including independent clinical investigators and CROs,  to conduct and sponsor some of the clinical trials of our product candidates.  Any failure by a third party to meet its obligations with respect to the clinical development of our product candidates may delay or impair our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including independent clinical investigators, academic partners, regulatory affairs consultants and third-party CROs, to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials, including in some instances sponsoring such clinical trials, and to engage with regulatory authorities and monitor and manage data for our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs.  For example, CRUK currently sponsors and funds the Phase I/IIa clinical trial of our lead product candidate, BT1718, in patients with advanced solid tumors.  We also utilize CROs to perform toxicology studies related to our preclinical activities.  While we will have agreements governing the activities of such third parties, we will control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance.  Given the breadth of clinical therapeutic areas for which we believe Bicycles may have utility, we intend to continue to rely on external service providers rather than build internal regulatory expertise.

Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us under certain circumstances.  We may not be able to enter into alternative arrangements or do so on commercially reasonable terms.  In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new contract research organization begins work.  As a result, delays would likely occur, which could negatively impact our ability to meet our expected clinical development timelines and harm our business, financial condition and prospects.