PART I

Assessment, or IGA, scale from baseline to week 12. We have developed our product portfolio using our HyantX topical drug delivery system. The following chart presents a summary of our product candidates:

HyantX Topical Drug Delivery System

We have developed our product portfolio using our HyantX topical drug delivery system, which is an anhydrous, hydrophilic, non-oily, non-occlusive gel vehicle that allows for the stabilization and solubilization of APIs with the aim to improve bioavailability and therefore lower the required dose of the drug. The system is designed for rapid absorption of API into the skin rather than remaining on the surface as this may cause irritation, a common problem with oil‑based ointments and suspensions. The delivery system is particularly suitable for APIs, or a combination of APIs, that undergo degradation by hydrolysis or oxidation. Our lead product candidates are minocycline formulations delivered topically using the HyantX system.

BPX01 (minocycline) gel, 2% — Acne

BPX-01 is a topical antibiotic gel for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of acne, which combines the most widely used oral antibiotic drug (minocycline) for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of acne vulgaris with a proprietary anhydrous hydrophilic topical delivery system, the HyantX delivery system, specifically designed to localize the delivery of the drug while minimizing systemic exposure and the resultant side effects. Our proprietary HyantX topical delivery system allows for a lower dosage of drug by improving the bioavailability with targeted delivery of fully solubilized minocycline. In addition to its bacteriostatic properties, the API, minocycline, also has anti‑inflammatory properties, which may help to reduce the inflammation and redness commonly associated with acne.

We completed a Phase 2b randomized, double‑blind, three‑arm, vehicle‑controlled, dose‑finding study to assess the efficacy and safety of BPX-01 for the treatment of acne. The multi‑center study evaluated two concentrations of BPX-01 (1% and 2% minocycline) and vehicle in 226 subjects, aged 9 to 40, with moderate‑to‑severe inflammatory, non‑nodular acne. The study showed the 2% concentration was statistically superior in reducing the number of inflammatory lesions in patients with moderate‑to‑severe acne, compared to vehicle (58.5% reduction vs. 43.8%, respectively, at week 12, p=0.03).

This Phase 2b study also measured, as a secondary endpoint, improvement on a five‑point investigator’s global assessment, or IGA, scale. The observed difference between BPX-01 2% versus vehicle in achieving a two-grade improvement and an IGA score of 0 or 1 at week 12 using the Last-Observation-Carried-Forward method for study participants with missing data was 25.0% (18/72) vs. 17.6% (13/74) producing a chi-square p-value of 0.27 (without Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparison). As a Phase 2b clinical trial, the trial was not powered to measure statistical significance for the secondary endpoint, however, a clear numerical trend was observed in the BPX-01 2% arm compared to vehicle. IGA was included as a secondary endpoint in our Phase 2b study as this information is necessary to calculate sample size estimates to adequately power the Phase 3 studies for success. Since FDA guidance for the approval of topical prescription acne products recommends IGA as a co‑primary endpoint along with a reduction in absolute lesion counts for Phase 3 trials to support a New Drug Application, or NDA, the planned Phase 3 studies will be powered to demonstrate statistical significance of IGA improvement with at least a two‑grade improvement and a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) for drug compared to vehicle as well as being powered to show a reduction in inflammatory lesion counts.

The safety results of the study showed that no subjects experienced serious treatment‑related adverse side effects. As cutaneous tolerability of a topical therapy is a significant driver in patient compliance, we are encouraged that 97% of cutaneous tolerability signs or symptoms were “none” or “mild” at week 12.

Blood draws in this study showed that plasma minocycline levels following topical use were undetectable in all but a single subject, whose level – 42 ng/mL – was less than one‑tenth of that measured after a single standard adult dosage of oral minocycline.

BPX04 (minocycline) gel, 1% — Rosacea

BPX-04 is a novel topical gel formulation of fully solubilized minocycline for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea. The product candidate leverages the HyantX™ topical delivery system, an anhydrous hydrophilic gel formulation, designed for rapid absorption of active pharmaceutical ingredients into the skin rather than remaining on the surface, a common problem with oil‑based ointments and suspensions.

We completed a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled Phase 2b trial, which enrolled 206 subjects aged 18 years and above with moderate-to-severe papulopustular rosacea across 11 sites in the United States. The study evaluated the safety and efficacy of once daily application of BPX-04, a 1% minocycline gel, versus a vehicle control over a 12-week treatment period.

The study was designed to demonstrate a statistically significant mean change in the number of facial inflammatory lesions from baseline to week 12. The secondary endpoint, the proportion of subjects with a two-grade improvement to clear or almost clear on the IGA scale from baseline to week 12, was included to collect sufficient data to design a Phase 3 program with co-primary efficacy endpoints, however, as is standard in a Phase 2 trial, the study was not designed to demonstrate statistical significance on the secondary endpoint.

Baseline Severity

The mean inflammatory lesion count at baseline was 23.9 and 24.0 for the BPX-04 and vehicle treatment groups, respectively.

The proportion of subjects with an IGA score of 3 ("moderate") and 4 ("severe") at baseline was 92.7% and 7.3% for the BPX-04 treatment group, respectively, and 91.1% and 8.9% for the vehicle treatment group, respectively.

Safety and Tolerability

BPX-04 appeared to be generally well-tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse events across both treatment groups were upper respiratory tract infection (5.3%), gastroenteritis (2.4%) and headache (2.4%) with the majority of these adverse events determined to be not treatment-related. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events.

Bausch Health Companies Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Mayne Pharma Group Limited.

The Rosacea Market

Rosacea is a chronic dermatologic condition characterized by redness, stinging and inflammatory lesions primarily on the face. It has four subtypes including erythematotelangiectatic rosacea, papulopustular rosacea, phymatous rosacea, and ocular rosacea. Symptoms include dilated blood vessels, redness, swelling, and acne‑like papules and pustules on the face. Although the biology of rosacea remains unclear, it is thought to be an inflammatory disorder that involves immune responses and microorganisms.

Rosacea is estimated to affect more than 16 million people in the United States alone, according to the National Rosacea Society. The rosacea market is estimated to be greater than $1.0 billion in the United States according to Symphony Health Services. Branded prescription product revenue was $590.0 million in 2017 according to SSR Health, with more than 90% of this revenue being generated by three brands. The leading manufacturers are Galderma S.A. and LEO Pharma A/S.

Competitive Strengths

We believe that the strengths and differentiating benefits of our HyantX topical delivery system and the expertise of our team in the areas of product development and commercialization for prescription products are the core elements driving our Company. The key elements of our competitive strengths include the following:

Technology and Intellectual Property

Overview

Our success, in large part, depends upon our ability to obtain and protect our proprietary products and platform technologies. Our goal is to develop an intellectual property portfolio that enables us to capitalize on the research and development that we have performed to date, particularly for each of the products in our development pipeline. We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret laws in the United States and other countries to protect our intellectual property.

We also rely on a combination of non‑disclosure, confidentiality and other contractual restrictions to protect our technologies and intellectual property. We require our employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements in connection with their employment or consulting relationships with us. We also require them to agree to disclose and assign to us all inventions conceived in connection with the relationship.

Patents

Patent protection is an important aspect of our product development process and we are actively developing intellectual property in‑house. We have a total of six U.S. provisional and utility patent applications pending related to our topical compositions for dermatological conditions. We have seven issued U.S. patents. Four of these patents relate to a microparticle drug delivery technology. Two of these relate to BPX-01, BPX-04 and the HyantX topical delivery system. We also have one issued international patent and 18 pending international patent applications. Of the 18 pending international applications, 16 relate to BPX-01, BPX-04 and the HyantX topical delivery system and two relate to a microparticle drug delivery technology.  These international patent applications resulted from development of our unique

formulations, for example with minocycline, and were filed according to local laws of the Patent Cooperation Treaty. Generally, a patent application filed according to the Patent Cooperation Treaty enables us to apply for patent protection for the invention(s) described in the application in individual countries within a specified period after filing the application. Generally, patents issued in the United States are effective for 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date, if the application from which the patent issues was filed on or after June 8, 1995 (otherwise the term is the longer of 17 years from the issue date and 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date). The duration of patent terms for non-U.S. patents is typically 20 years from the earliest corresponding national or international filing date.

Trademarks

We have applied for trademark protection for several trademarks in the United States. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, has registered several of our trademarks: “BIOPHARMX,”  “HYANTX” and “SMARTER DRUG DELIVERY”.

We have also applied for trademark protection in three markets outside the United States. In the European Union and China, we have a registered trademark for “BIOPHARMX”. 

Research and Development

A core competency is providing the link between concept and commercialization through focused, practical product development based on innovative research. We employ highly‑qualified scientists and utilize consultants specializing in our various product development areas. Research and development expenses for the years ended January 31, 2020 and 2019 were $4.7 million and $9.1 million, respectively.

As a Campbell‑based company, we are located in a region with many strong biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, which have drawn a high caliber of scientists and scientific support staff to the region. While there is intense competition for this type of personnel, we believe our location enables us to expand our product development and consultant resources as our business grows. Our location also provides us with convenient access to local formulation resources and preclinical testing facilities.

Manufacturing, Supply and Production

We utilize contract manufacturers to produce our products for clinical development and commercial distribution. We have no plans to establish in‑house manufacturing capabilities for large‑scale production at this time.

Marketing, Sales & Distribution

Our team has experience in the commercialization of prescription products across several different therapeutic areas. While BPX-01 and BPX-04 continue through clinical development, we have commenced our go‑to‑market strategic planning for these products including, but not limited to, organizing a medical advisory board of dermatologists in the United States, educating physicians through publishing our preclinical and clinical results at several industry conferences and developing our market access and pricing strategy. Our commercialization plans will largely depend on whether we enter into a strategic partnership for one or both of the product candidates and the nature of such partnership.

Customers

Potential customers for our product candidates include pharmaceutical companies, physician’s practices, dermatologists and general practitioners.

Competition

Acne

While the acne market has a number of competitive products, BPX-01 is being developed to combine the most successful oral antibiotic drug (minocycline) for the treatment of moderate to severe acne with a targeted topical antibiotic technology specifically designed to localize the delivery of the drug while minimizing systemic side effects. At the present time, there is no FDA‑approved topical solution for this drug.

A number of approved prescription acne products currently exist in oral form such as isotretinoins, antibiotics, antimicrobials and oral contraceptives. These treatments are marketed by a number of large pharmaceutical and specialty pharmaceutical companies including, but not limited to: Almirall S.A., Bausch Health Companies Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., and Mayne Pharma Group Limited. Additionally, there are several prescription acne products that exist in topical form such as antibiotics, antimicrobials, azelaic acids, retinoids, or some combination of the two. These topical solutions are marketed by companies such as Galderma S.A., Almirall S.A., Bausch Health Companies Inc., and Mayne Pharma Group Limited. In addition to prescription acne therapies discussed above, there are numerous over-the-counter, or OTC, products in the form of benzoyl peroxide and salicylic acid topical solutions available from various cosmetic and cosmeceutical companies such as Aveeno, Clean & Clear, Clearasil, Neutrogena and Proactiv.

Energy‑based devices have also been widely used by dermatologists, such as intense pulsed light, or IPL, and a device called elos, by Syneron Medical Ltd. and Candela Corporation, that uses a combination of IPL and radiofrequency technologies. Combination drug‑device treatments, such as fractional lasers and photodynamic therapy, or PDT, with blue light, such as BLU-U by Dusa Pharmaceuticals, have been used to treat acne.

While there historically has been no FDA‑approved topical minocycline solution for acne or otherwise, on October 18, 2019, Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. announced FDA approval of AMZEEQTM, a 4% topical minocycline foam.

Rosacea

Unlike the acne market, the rosacea market has a relatively limited number of available therapies. The challenge with current topical treatments is that skin with rosacea is easily aggravated by too much drug or an irritating vehicle.  BPX-04 is designed to deliver the active, minocycline, into the skin without further irritating the skin. While the cause of rosacea is unclear, there are various oral and topical medications to treat the condition, such as antibiotics, anti-parasitics, azelaic acid and alpha-A agonists. Current treatments are marketed by companies such as Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc., LEO Pharma A/S, and Galderma S.A. In addition to prescription rosacea therapies, devices such as IPL and the pulsed dye laser can be helpful in treating other rosacea symptoms, such as telangiectasia and vascular erythema. 

While there is no FDA-approved topical minocycline solution for rosacea or otherwise, we are aware of two competitive products which have completed Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials, respectively, with the competitive product having completed Phase 3 clinical trials having submitted an NDA for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea.

Government Regulation

In the United States, foods, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, tobacco products and radiation‑emitting products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDC Act and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, the manufacture, distribution and sale of these products. These laws and regulations prescribe criminal and civil penalties that can be assessed, and violation of these laws and regulations can result in enforcement action by the FDA and other regulatory agencies.

FDA Regulation of Drugs

New Drug Approval Process

Pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The FDC Act, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post‑approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending NDAs,  warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the United States typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an investigational new

drug, or IND, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre‑market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls, and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted.

A 30‑day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30‑day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the IND to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators, and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time, or impose other sanctions, if it believes that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board, or IRB, for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements, or may impose other conditions.

Clinical trials to support NDAs for marketing approval are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap. In Phase 1, after the initial introduction of the drug into healthy human subjects or patients, the drug is tested to assess metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacological actions, side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, early evidence on effectiveness. Phase 2 usually involves trials in a limited patient population to determine the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication, dosage tolerance, and optimum dosage, and to identify common adverse effects and safety risks. If a compound demonstrates evidence of effectiveness and an acceptable safety profile in Phase 2 evaluations, Phase 3 trials are undertaken to obtain the additional information about clinical efficacy and safety in a larger number of patients, typically at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites, to permit the FDA to evaluate the overall benefit‑risk relationship of the drug and to provide adequate information for the labeling of the drug. In most cases the FDA requires two adequate and well‑controlled Phase 3 clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of the drug. A single Phase 3 trial with other confirmatory evidence may be sufficient in  instances where the study is a large multicenter trial demonstrating internal consistency and a statistically persuasive finding of a clinically meaningful effect on mortality, irreversible morbidity or prevention of a disease with a potentially serious outcome and confirmation of the result in a second trial would be practically or ethically impossible.

In addition, the manufacturer of an investigational drug in a Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trial for a serious or life-threatening disease is required to make available, such as by posting on its website, its policy on evaluating and responding to requests for expanded access.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the United States. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, currently approximately $2,943,000 for fiscal year 2020.  Under an approved NDA, the applicant is subject to an annual program fee, currently approximately $325,000 per prescription product for fiscal year 2020. These fees typically increase annually.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be filed based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. If the NDA submission is filed, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs. Most such applications for standard review drug products are reviewed within ten to twelve months; most applications for priority review drugs are reviewed in six to eight months. Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines offer major advances in treatment, or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late‑submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee – typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts – for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMPs is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. 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, or 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.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals, and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can 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 requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post‑approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

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

Pediatric Information

Under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, NDAs, or supplements to NDAs, must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the drug is safe and effective. The FDA may grant full or partial waivers, or deferrals, for submission of data. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted, except a product with a new active ingredient that is a molecularly targeted cancer product intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and directed at a molecular target determined by FDA to be substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer that is subject to an NDA submitted on or after August 18, 2020.

The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, or BPCA, provides NDA holders a six‑month extension of any exclusivity – patent or non‑patent – for a drug if certain conditions are met. Conditions for exclusivity include the FDA’s determination that information relating to the use of a new drug in the pediatric population may produce health benefits in that population, the FDA making a written request for pediatric studies, and the applicant agreeing to perform, and

reporting on, the requested studies within the statutory timeframe. Applications under the BPCA are treated as priority applications, with all of the benefits that designation confers.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

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

The Hatch‑Waxman Amendments

Orange Book Listing

In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims covering the applicant’s product or method of using the product. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential generic competitors in support of approval of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA. An ANDA provides for marketing of a drug product that has the same active ingredients in the same strengths and dosage form as the listed drug and has been shown to be bioequivalent to the listed drug. Other than the requirement for bioequivalence testing, ANDA applicants are not required to conduct, or submit results of, preclinical or clinical tests to prove the safety or effectiveness of their drug product. Drugs approved in this way are commonly referred to as “generic equivalents” to the listed drug, and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the original listed drug.

The ANDA applicant is required to certify to the FDA concerning any patents listed for the approved product in the FDA’s Orange Book. Specifically, the applicant must certify that: (i) the required patent information has not been filed; (ii) the listed patent has expired; (iii) the listed patent has not expired, but will expire on a particular date and approval is sought after patent expiration; or (iv) the listed patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the new product. The ANDA applicant may also elect to submit a section viii statement certifying that its proposed ANDA labeling does not contain (or carves out) any language regarding the patented method‑of‑use rather than certify to a listed method‑of‑use patent. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents, the ANDA application will not be approved until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired.

A certification that the new product will not infringe the already approved product’s listed patents, or that such patents are invalid, is called a Paragraph IV certification. 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 received 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 of the receipt of a Paragraph IV certification automatically prevents the FDA from approving the ANDA until the earlier of 30 months, expiration of the patent, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the ANDA applicant.

The ANDA application also will not be approved until any applicable non‑patent exclusivity listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired.

Exclusivity

Exclusivity provisions under the FDC Act also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDC Act provides a five‑year period of non‑patent exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity, or NCE. A drug is entitled to NCE exclusivity if it contains a drug substance no active moiety of which has been previously approved by the FDA. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or file a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a Paragraph IV certification. The FDC Act also provides three years of market exclusivity for an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new

clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example, for new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three‑year exclusivity covers only the conditions for use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs for the original conditions of use, such as the originally approved indication. Five‑year and three‑year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all the non‑clinical studies and adequate and well‑controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, the owner of relevant drug patent may apply for up to a five year patent term extension. Only one patent may be extended for each regulatory review period, which is composed of two parts: a testing phase and an approval phase. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase – the time between the day the IND becomes effective and NDA submission – and all of the review phase – the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years and only one patent may be extended.

For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post‑approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the USPTO must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted.

Section 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications

Most drug products obtain FDA marketing approval pursuant to an NDA or an ANDA. A third alternative is a special type of NDA, commonly referred to as a Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2), NDA, which enables the applicant to rely, in part, on studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use, such as the FDA’s findings of safety and/or effectiveness for a similar previously approved product, or published literature, in support of its application.

505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. Section 505(b)(2) permits the filing of an NDA where at least some of the information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by, or for, the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. If the 505(b)(2) applicant can establish that reliance on the FDA’s previous approval is scientifically appropriate, it may eliminate the need to conduct certain preclinical or clinical studies of the new product. The FDA may also require companies to perform additional studies or measurements to support the change from the approved product. The FDA may then approve the new product candidate for all, or some, of the label indications for which the referenced product has been approved, as well as for any new indication sought by the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

To the extent that the Section 505(b)(2) applicant is relying on studies conducted for an already approved product, the applicant is required to 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. Thus approval of a 505(b)(2) NDA can be stalled until all the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired, until any non‑patent exclusivity, such as exclusivity for obtaining approval of a new chemical entity, listed in the Orange Book for the referenced product has expired, and, in the case of a Paragraph IV certification and subsequent patent infringement suit, until the earlier of 30 months, settlement of the lawsuit or a decision in the infringement case that is favorable to the Section 505(b)(2) applicant.

Post‑Approval Requirements

Once an NDA is approved, a product will be subject to certain post‑approval requirements. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post‑approval marketing and promotion of drugs, including standards and regulations for direct‑to‑consumer advertising, off‑label promotion, industry‑sponsored scientific and educational activities and

promotional activities involving the internet. Drugs may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling.

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of an NDA. The FDA also may require post‑marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, quality‑control, drug manufacture, packaging and labeling procedures must continue to conform to cGMPs after approval. Drug manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality‑control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals or request product recalls if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered. In addition, prescription drug manufacturers in the United States must comply with applicable provisions of the Drug Supply Chain Security Act and provide and receive product tracing information, maintain appropriate licenses, ensure they only work with other properly licensed entities, and have procedures in place to identify and properly handle suspect and illegitimate products.

Regulation Outside the United States

In order to market any product outside of the United States, a company must also comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries and jurisdictions regarding quality, safety and efficacy and governing, among other things, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of drug products. Whether or not it obtains FDA approval for a product, BioPharmX would need to obtain the necessary approvals by the comparable foreign regulatory authorities before it can commence clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries or jurisdictions. The approval process ultimately varies between countries and jurisdictions and can involve additional product testing and additional administrative review periods. The time required to obtain approval in other countries and jurisdictions might differ from and be longer than that required to obtain FDA approval. Regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction does not ensure regulatory approval in another, but a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one country or jurisdiction may negatively impact the regulatory process in others.

Regulation and Marketing Authorization in the European Union

The process governing approval of medicinal products in the European Union, or E.U., follows essentially the same lines as in the United States and, likewise, generally involves satisfactorily completing each of the following:

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animal studies, in order to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests and formulation of the compounds for testing must comply with the relevant E.U. regulations and requirements. The results of the preclinical tests, together with relevant manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted as part of the CTA.

Clinical Trial Approval

Requirements for the conduct of clinical trials in the European Union including GCP are implemented in the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the GCP Directive 2005/28/EC. Pursuant to Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC, as amended, a system for the approval of clinical trials in the European Union has been implemented through national legislation of the member states. Under this system, approval must be obtained from the competent national authority of an E.U. member state in which a study is planned to be conducted, or in multiple member states if the clinical trial is to be conducted in a number of member states. To this end, a CTA is submitted, which must be supported by an investigational medicinal product dossier, or IMPD, and further supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC and Directive 2005/28/EC and other applicable guidance documents. Furthermore, a clinical trial may only be started after a competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion on the clinical trial application in that country.

In April 2014, the E.U. legislators passed the new Clinical Trials Regulation, (EU) No 536/2014, which will replace the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. To ensure that the rules for clinical trials are identical throughout the E.U., the new E.U. clinical trials legislation was passed as a regulation that is directly applicable in all E.U. member states. All clinical trials performed in the European Union are required to be conducted in accordance with the Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC until the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 becomes applicable.  According to the current plans of the EMA, the new Clinical Trials Regulation became applicable in 2019. The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC will, however, still apply three years from the date of entry into application of the Clinical Trials Regulation to (i) clinical trials applications submitted before the entry into application and (ii) clinical trials applications submitted within one year after the entry into application if the sponsor opts for old system.

The new Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trial in the E.U. The main characteristics of the regulation include:

Marketing Authorization

Authorization to market a product in the member states of the European Union proceeds under one of four procedures: a centralized authorization procedure, a mutual recognition procedure, a decentralized procedure or a national procedure.

Centralized Authorization Procedure

The centralized procedure enables applicants to obtain a marketing authorization that is valid in all E.U. member states based on a single application. Certain medicinal products, including products developed by means of biotechnological processes, must undergo the centralized authorization procedure for marketing authorization, which, if granted by the European Commission, is automatically valid in all 28 E.U. member states. The EMA and the European Commission administer this centralized authorization procedure pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, this procedure is mandatory for:

cancer;

neurodegenerative disorder;

diabetes;

auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions; and

viral diseases;

The centralized authorization procedure is optional for other medicinal products if they contain a new active substance or if the applicant shows that the medicinal product concerned constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of authorization is in the interest of patients in the European Union.

Administrative Procedure

Under the centralized authorization procedure, the EMA’s Committee for Human Medicinal Products, or CHMP, serves as the scientific committee that renders opinions about the safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products for human use on behalf of the EMA. The CHMP is composed of experts nominated by each member state’s national authority for medicinal products, with expert appointed to act as Rapporteur for the co‑ordination of the evaluation with the possible assistance of a further member of the Committee acting as a Co‑Rapporteur. After approval, the Rapporteur(s) continue to monitor the product throughout its life cycle. The CHMP has 210 days to adopt an opinion as to whether a marketing authorization should be granted. The process usually takes longer in case additional information is requested, which triggers clock‑stops in the procedural timelines. The process is complex and involves extensive consultation with the regulatory authorities of member states and a number of experts. When an application is submitted for a marketing authorization in respect of a drug that is of major interest from the point of view of public health and in particular from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation, the applicant may pursuant to Article 14(9) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 request an accelerated assessment procedure. If the CHMP accepts such request, the time‑limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days but it is possible that the CHMP can revert to the standard time‑limit

for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. Once the procedure is completed, a European Public Assessment Report, or EPAR, is produced. If the opinion is negative, information is given as to the grounds on which this conclusion was reached. After the adoption of the CHMP opinion, a decision on the MAA must be adopted by the European Commission, after consulting the E.U. member states, which in total can take more than 60 days.

Conditional Approval

In specific circumstances, E.U. legislation (Article 14(7) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on Conditional Marketing Authorizations for Medicinal Products for Human Use) enables applicants to obtain a conditional marketing authorization prior to obtaining the comprehensive clinical data required for an application for a full marketing authorization. Such conditional approvals may be granted for product candidates (including medicines designated as orphan medicinal products) if (1) the risk‑benefit balance of the product candidate is positive, (2) it is likely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the required comprehensive clinical trial data, (3) the product fulfills unmet medical needs and (4) the benefit to public health of the immediate availability on the market of the medicinal product concerned outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. A conditional marketing authorization may contain specific obligations to be fulfilled by the marketing authorization holder, including obligations with respect to the completion of ongoing or new studies, and with respect to the collection of pharmacovigilance data. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, and may be renewed annually, if the risk‑benefit balance remains positive, and after an assessment of the need for additional or modified conditions and/or specific obligations. The timelines for the centralized procedure described above also apply with respect to the review by the CHMP of applications for a conditional marketing authorization.

Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances

Under Article 14(8) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, products for which the applicant can demonstrate that comprehensive data (in line with the requirements laid down in Annex I of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended) cannot be provided (due to specific reasons foreseen in the legislation) might be eligible for marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances. This type of authorization is reviewed annually to reassess the risk‑benefit balance. The fulfillment of any specific procedures/obligations imposed as part of the marketing authorization under exceptional circumstances is aimed at the provision of information on the safe and effective use of the product and will normally not lead to the completion of a full dossier/approval.

Market Authorizations Granted by Authorities of E.U. Member States

In general, if the centralized procedure is not followed, there are three alternative procedures as prescribed in Directive 2001/83/EC:

A marketing authorization may be granted only to an applicant established in the European Union.

Pediatric Studies

Prior to obtaining a marketing authorization in the European Union, applicants have to demonstrate compliance with all measures included in an EMA‑approved Pediatric Investigation Plan, or PIP, covering all subsets of the pediatric population, unless the EMA has granted a product‑specific waiver, a class waiver, or a deferral for one or more of the measures included in the PIP. The respective requirements for all marketing authorization procedures are set forth in Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006, which is referred to as the Pediatric Regulation. This requirement also applies when a

company wants to add a new indication, pharmaceutical form or route of administration for a medicine that is already authorized. The Pediatric Committee of the EMA, or PDCO, may grant deferrals for some medicines, allowing a company to delay development of the medicine in children until there is enough information to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety in adults. The PDCO may also grant waivers when development of a medicine in children is not needed or is not appropriate, such as for diseases that only affect the elderly population.

Before a marketing authorization application can be filed, or an existing marketing authorization can be amended, the EMA determines that companies actually comply with the agreed studies and measures listed in each relevant PIP.

Periods of Authorization and Renewals

A marketing authorization is valid for five years in principle and the marketing authorization may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re‑evaluation of the risk‑benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. To this end, the marketing authorization holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the file in respect of quality, safety and efficacy, including all variations introduced since the marketing authorization was granted, at least six months before the marketing authorization ceases to be valid. Once renewed, the marketing authorization is valid for an unlimited period, unless the European Commission or the competent authority decides, on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one additional five‑year renewal. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the drug on the E.U. market (in case of centralized procedure) or on the market of the authorizing member state within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so‑called sunset clause).

Regulatory Data Protection

E.U. legislation also provides for a system of regulatory data and market exclusivity. According to Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, as amended, and Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, upon receiving marketing authorization, new chemical entities approved on the basis of complete independent data package benefit from eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the E.U. from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic (abbreviated) application. During the additional two‑year period of market exclusivity, a generic marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic medicinal product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten‑year period will be extended to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if a compound is considered to be a new chemical entity and the innovator is able to gain the period of data exclusivity, another company nevertheless could also market another version of the drug if such company obtained marketing authorization based on an MAA with a complete independent data package of pharmaceutical test, preclinical tests and clinical trials. However, products designated as orphan medicinal products enjoy, upon receiving marketing authorization, a period of ten years of orphan market exclusivity. Depending upon the timing and duration of the E.U. marketing authorization process, products may be eligible for up to five years’ supplementary protection certificates, or SPCs, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 469/2009. Such SPCs extend the rights under the basic patent for the drug.

Regulatory Requirements After a Marketing Authorization has been Obtained

If we obtain authorization for a medicinal product in the E.U., we will be required to comply with a range of requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products.

Pharmacovigilance and other requirements

We will, for example, have to comply with the E.U.’s stringent pharmacovigilance or safety reporting rules, pursuant to which post‑authorization studies and additional monitoring obligations can be imposed. Other requirements relate, for example, to the manufacturing of products and APIs in accordance with good manufacturing practice standards. E.U. regulators may conduct inspections to verify our compliance with applicable requirements, and we will have to continue to expend time, money and effort to remain compliant. Non‑compliance with E.U. requirements regarding safety monitoring or pharmacovigilance, and with requirements related to the development of products for the pediatric population, can also result in significant financial penalties in the E.U. Similarly, failure to comply with the

E.U.’s requirements regarding the protection of individual personal data can also lead to significant penalties and sanctions. Individual E.U. member states may also impose various sanctions and penalties if we do not comply with locally applicable requirements.

The manufacturing of authorized drugs, for which a separate manufacturer’s license is mandatory, must be conducted in strict compliance with the EMA’s Good Manufacturing Practices, or GMP, requirements and comparable requirements of other regulatory bodies in the E.U., which mandate the methods, facilities and controls used in manufacturing, processing and packing of drugs to assure their safety and identity. The EMA enforces its current GMP requirements through mandatory registration of facilities and inspections of those facilities. The EMA may have a coordinating role for these inspections while the responsibility for carrying them out rests with the member states competent authority under whose responsibility the manufacturer falls. Failure to comply with these requirements could interrupt supply and result in delays, unanticipated costs and lost revenues, and could subject the applicant to potential legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to warning letters, suspension of manufacturing, seizure of product, injunctive action or possible civil and criminal penalties.

Marketing and Promotion

The marketing and promotion of authorized drugs, including industry‑sponsored continuing medical education and advertising directed toward the prescribers of drugs and/or the general public, are strictly regulated in the European Union under Directive 2001/83/EC. The applicable regulations aim to ensure that information provided by holders of marketing authorizations regarding their products is truthful, balanced and accurately reflects the safety and efficacy claims authorized by the EMA or by the competent authority of the authorizing member state. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties.

In order to compensate the patentee for delays in obtaining a marketing authorization for a patented product, a supplementary certificate, or SPC, may be granted extending the exclusivity period for that specific product by up to five years. Applications for SPCs must be made to the relevant patent office in each E.U. member state and the granted certificates are valid only in the member state of grant. An application has to be made by the patent owner within six months of the first marketing authorization being granted in the European Union (assuming the patent in question has not expired, lapsed or been revoked) or within six months of the grant of the patent (if the marketing authorization is granted first). In the context of SPCs, the term “product” means the active ingredient or combination of active ingredients for a medicinal product and the term “patent” means a patent protecting such a product or a new manufacturing process or application for it. The duration of an SPC is calculated as the difference between the patent’s filing date and the date of the first marketing authorization, minus five years, subject to a maximum term of five years.

A six month pediatric extension of an SPC may be obtained where the patentee has carried out an agreed pediatric investigation plan, the authorized product information includes information on the results of the studies and the product is authorized in all member states of the European Union.

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

On June 23, 2016, the electorate in the United Kingdom, or U.K. voted in favor of leaving the E.U., which is commonly referred to as “Brexit.” Thereafter, on March 29, 2017, the country formally notified the E.U. of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The U.K. left the E.U. effective at 11 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time on January 31, 2020. This began a transition period that is set to end on December 31, 2020, during which the U.K. and the E.U. will negotiate their future relationship. Since the regulatory framework for pharmaceutical products in the U.K. covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from E.U. directives and regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the U.K. It remains to be seen how, if at all, Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the U.K.

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 the costs of the products will be covered by third‑party payors, including government health programs in the United States such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers and managed care organizations. 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 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 that might be approved for sale, a company may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost‑effectiveness of the product, in addition to the costs required to obtain FDA or other comparable regulatory approvals. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Third‑party reimbursement may not be sufficient to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on investment in product development.

In the E.U., 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 our drug candidate to currently available therapies (so called health technology assessment) in order to obtain reimbursement or pricing approval. For example, the E.U. 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. E.U. 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 BioPharmX placing the drug product on the market. Other member states allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. The downward pressure on health care costs in general has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, there can be considerable pressure by governments and other stakeholders on prices and reimbursement levels, including as part of cost containment measures. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. Reference pricing used by various E.U. member states, and parallel distribution (arbitrage between low‑priced and high‑priced member states), can further reduce prices. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for drug products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements.

Healthcare Law and Regulation

Healthcare providers, physicians and third‑party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of drug products that are granted marketing approval. Arrangements with third‑party payors and customers are subject to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. Such restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations, include the following:

An increasing number of states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to file periodic reports of expenses relating to the marketing and promotion of drug products and gifts and payments to individual healthcare practitioners in these states; to make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities; to report information pertaining to and justifying price increases; or to register their sales representatives.  Other states prohibit various marketing-related activities, such as the provision of certain kinds of gifts or meals; price gouging; or pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing. In addition, states such as California, Connecticut, Nevada, and Massachusetts require pharmaceutical companies to implement compliance programs and/or marketing codes. State and foreign laws also govern the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, further complicating compliance efforts.

Environmental, Health and Safety Matters

The manufacturing facilities of the third‑parties that develop our product candidates are subject to extensive environmental, health and safety laws and regulations in a number of jurisdictions, governing, among other things: the use, storage, registration, handling, emission and disposal of chemicals, waste materials and sewage; chemicals, air, water and ground contamination; and air emissions and the cleanup of contaminated sites, including any contamination that results from spills due to our failure to properly dispose of chemicals, waste materials and sewage.

These laws, regulations and permits could potentially require the expenditure by us of significant amounts for compliance or remediation. If the third‑party manufacturers fail to comply with such laws, regulations or permits, we may be subject to fines and other civil, administrative or criminal sanctions, including the revocation of permits and licenses necessary to continue our business activities. In addition, we may be required to pay damages or civil judgments in respect of third‑party claims, including those relating to personal injury (including exposure to hazardous substances we use, store, handle, transport, manufacture or dispose of), property damage or contribution claims. Some environmental, health and safety laws allow for strict, joint and several liability for remediation costs, regardless of comparative fault. We may be identified as a responsible party under such laws. Such developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, laws and regulations relating to environmental, health and safety matters are often subject to change. In the event of any changes or new laws or regulations, we could be subject to new compliance measures or to penalties for activities that were previously permitted.

Employees

As of January 31, 2020, we had 3 employees, all of whom were full time located in the United States. We also retain independent contractors to support our organization. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement. We have not experienced any work stoppages and we consider our relations with our employees to be good.

Other Information

We file periodic reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Such reports, proxy statements and other information may be obtained, free of charge, by visiting the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov that contains all of the reports, proxy and information statements, and other information that we electronically file or furnish to the SEC.

enhance stockholder value. If we are unable to consummate the Merger, our Board may elect to pursue an alternative strategy, one of which may be a strategic transaction similar to the Merger. Attempting to complete an alternative transaction like the Merger will be costly and time consuming, and we can make no assurances that such an alternative transaction would occur at all. Alternatively, our Board may elect to continue our operations by starting a Phase 3 clinical trial for BPX-01 or BPX-04, which would require that we obtain additional funding, which we do not currently believe could be completed on a timely basis, or our Board could instead decide to pursue a dissolution and liquidation of the company. In such an event, the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders will depend heavily on the timing of such decision, as with the passage of time the amount of cash available for distribution will be reduced as we continue to fund our operations. In addition, if our Board were to approve and recommend, and our stockholders were to approve, a dissolution and liquidation of the company, we would be required under Delaware corporate law to pay our outstanding obligations, as well as to make reasonable provision for contingent and unknown obligations, prior to making any distributions in liquidation to our stockholders. Our commitments and contingent liabilities may include severance obligations, regulatory, clinical and preclinical obligations, lease obligations and fees and expenses related to the Merger, dissolution or liquidation. As a result of this requirement, a portion of our assets would need to be reserved pending the resolution of such obligations. In addition, we may be subject to litigation or other claims related to a dissolution and liquidation. If a dissolution and liquidation were pursued, our Board, in consultation with its advisors, would need to evaluate these matters and make a determination about a reasonable amount to reserve. Accordingly, holders of our common stock could lose all or a significant portion of their investment in the event of a liquidation or dissolution of the company.

The issuance of shares of our common stock to Timber stockholders in the Merger will significantly dilute the voting power of our current stockholders.

If the Merger is completed, each outstanding share of Timber common stock will be converted into the right to receive a number of shares of our common stock equal to the exchange ratio. Immediately following the Merger, the former Timber securityholders (including holders of VARs and any investors providing the Timber Funding) immediately before the Merger are expected to own (or have the right to receive) approximately 88.5% of the our common stock, and our securityholders immediately before the Merger are expected to own, or hold rights to acquire, approximately 11.5% of our common stock. The issuance of shares of our common stock to Timber stockholders in the Merger will significantly reduce the relative voting power of each share of our common stock held by our current stockholders. Consequently, our stockholders as a group will have significantly less influence over the management and policies of the combined company after the Merger than prior to the Merger.

If we are unable to repay the Bridge Loan, the ownership of the secured assets held as collateral for the Bridge Loan could be transferred to Timber.

In connection with the Merger Agreement, we entered into a Credit Agreement with Timber, dated as of January 28, 2020 (the “Credit Agreement”), pursuant to which Timber has agreed to make a bridge loan (the “Bridge Loan”) to us in an aggregate amount of $2.5 million, of which $700,000 is currently outstanding. The Bridge Loan is secured by a lien on all of our assets, and if we are unable repay the Bridge Loan, the ownership of the secured assets held as collateral could be transferred to Timber.

We have experienced losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses, which makes it difficult to assess our future prospects and financial results.

We are a specialty pharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Pharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative and costly undertaking and involves a substantial degree of uncertainty. We have never been profitable and, as of January 31, 2020, it had an accumulated deficit of $88.2 million and incurred net losses of $9.7 million and $17.3 million for the years ended January 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

If the Merger is not consummated, we will likely be required to wind-down and dissolve and we would be required to pay all our debts and contractual obligations, including the Bridge Loan, and set aside certain reserves for potential future claims. While we will also attempt to consummate a financing to allow it to continue as a going concern, based on our recent strategic process, we do not believe that we would be able to consummate a financing on reasonable terms sufficient to obtain such additional financial resources.

If the Merger is not completed and we are unable to raise sufficient additional funds for the development of our product candidates, whether through potential partnering or other strategic arrangements or otherwise, which we do not believe we would be able to do on reasonable terms, we will likely determine to cease operations, wind-down and dissolve (whether in or out of a bankruptcy or court proceeding to do so).

If we do not successfully complete the Merger, we will need substantial additional funding, and will likely be unable to raise the capital necessary to complete a Phase 3 clinical trial, which would likely cause us to wind down and dissolve.

We incurred a net loss of $9.7 million and $17.3 million for the years ended January 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. As of January 31, 2020, we had cash and cash equivalents of $0.7 million and significant liabilities and obligations. If the Merger is not completed, based on our current operating plan, we expect to fund operations only for a relatively short period of time.

We presented comprehensive BPX-01 Phase 2b clinical data for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of acne and received positive FDA feedback regarding our BPX-01 Phase 3 clinical trial plans. We have completed a Phase 2b clinical trial for BPX-04 for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea. The development of our business will require substantial additional capital in the future to fund our ongoing operations and satisfy our obligations and liabilities. We have historically relied upon both private and public sales of equity or debt securities to fund our operations. We do not believe we can raise the significant capital required to continue operations, and we could be required to seek bankruptcy protection or other alternatives that would likely result in our stockholders losing some or all of their investment.

Future discovery and preclinical development collaborations are important to us. If we are unable to enter into or maintain these collaborations, or if these collaborations are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

For some of the our product candidates, we may decide to collaborate with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for development of products in the future. We may seek to enter into enter into a strategic collaboration to fund the continued development of BPX-01 or BPX-04. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for any collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the collaborator's resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed collaborator's evaluation of a number of factors. We may not succeed in our efforts to establish a development collaboration or other alternative arrangements for BPX-01 or BPX-04 because third parties may not view these product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy or profitability. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay our development program on one or more of our other development programs, delay our potential development schedule or reduce the scope of research activities, or decrease our expenditures and undertake discovery or preclinical development activities at our own expense. If we fail to enter into collaborations and does not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or continue to develop our product candidates and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

Future collaborations we may enter into may involve the following risks:

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

If we are unable to maintain our collaborations, development of our product candidates could be delayed, and we may need additional resources to develop them. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this report also apply to the activities of our collaborators.

We have deemed there to be substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, and in order to fund our operations and execute our business plan we will require additional financing.

Since inception, we have experienced recurring operating losses and negative cash flows and we expect to continue to generate operating losses and consume significant cash resources for the foreseeable future. Without additional financing, these conditions raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern, meaning that we may be unable to continue operations for the foreseeable future or realize assets and discharge liabilities in the ordinary course of operations. As a result, our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in their report on our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 31, 2020 and 2019 with

respect to this uncertainty. Such an opinion may materially and adversely affect the price per share of our common stock and/or otherwise limit our ability to raise additional funds through the issuance of debt or equity securities or otherwise. Further, the perception that we may be unable to continue as a going concern may impede our ability to raise additional funds or operate our business due to concerns regarding our ability to discharge our contractual obligations.

We have prepared our condensed consolidated financial statements on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities and commitments in the normal course of business. Our consolidated financial statements for the years ended January 31, 2020 and 2019 do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Without additional funds, however, we may be unable to continue as a viable entity, in which case our stockholders may lose all or some of their investment in the company.

The terms of certain of our prior registered direct offerings may materially and adversely impact our ability to obtain additional financing in the future.

We are subject to certain restrictions and obligations in connection with our registered direct offerings, or RDOs, that were consummated in September 2016, April 2017, July 2017, November 2017 and November 2018, which may materially and adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing in the future. These restrictions and obligations include:

We have also made various representations and warranties to the RDO investors in connection with the RDO Transaction Documents, including those related to solvency, no integrated offerings, maintenance of our stock exchange listing, internal controls, and absence of liens, among others. In the event any of our representations or warranties in the RDO Transaction Documents are determined to be inaccurate, or if we are deemed to have otherwise violated any provisions of the RDO Transaction Documents, we may be found to be in breach of the RDO Transaction Documents. This in turn may result in litigation against us, which could be costly and time-consuming, divert management’s attention and resources, damage our reputation and otherwise harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our business is dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, in particular BPX-01 and BPX-04.

Our portfolio of product candidates includes two clinical-stage drug product candidates, BPX-01, a topical antibiotic for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of acne vulgaris, and BPX-04, a topical antibiotic for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea. The success of our business, including our ability to finance the company, form strategic partnerships and generate revenues in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of these product candidates. In the future, we may become dependent on one or more of

our early-stage product candidates or any of our product candidates that we may in-license, acquire or develop. The clinical and commercial success of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

If we are unable to achieve any of the above factors, many of which are beyond our control, in a timely manner or at all, we could experience significant delays or fail to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize our product

candidates. Even if we obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, we may never successfully commercialize any of our product candidates. Accordingly, we may not generate revenue through the sale of our product candidates or any future product candidates sufficient to continue operations.

We have a limited operating history and have yet to obtain regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates, which makes it difficult to evaluate our future prospects and viability.

Our operations to date have been primarily limited to researching and developing our product candidates and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates. We have also not yet obtained regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates. Consequently, the ability to accurately assess and predict our future operating results or business prospects is more limited than if we had a longer operating history or FDA-approved products on the market. In November 2018, we divested our VI₂OLET dietary supplement, which was our only source of revenue to date.

We have experienced significant turnover in our senior management, and if we fail to attract and retain management and other key personnel, we may be unable to continue to develop successfully or commercialize our product candidates or otherwise implement our business plan.

Our ability to compete in the highly-competitive pharmaceutical industry depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly-qualified managerial, scientific, medical, sales and marketing and other personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, including: our Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, Steven Bosacki, and our Chief Accounting Officer, Joyce Goto. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. The loss of the services of any of these individuals, along with other key executives or employees, could impede, delay or prevent the successful development of our product pipeline, completion of our planned clinical trials, commercialization of our product candidates or in-licensing or acquisition of new assets and could negatively impact our ability to successfully implement our business plan. If we lose the services of any of these individuals, we might not be able to find suitable replacements on a timely basis or at all, and our business could be harmed as a result. In order to retain valuable employees at the company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we provide stock options that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time will be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract offers from other companies.

In addition, over the past couple years, we experienced significant turnover in our senior management ranks, including the departure of our former President, Anja Krammer in October 2018, the departure of former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Greg Kitchener, in October 2018 and the departure of Kin Chan, Executive Vice President of Research and Technology in July 2019. In September 2018, we appointed David S. Tierney, MD, to serve as President and Chief Executive Officer, in October 2018, we appointed Joyce Goto, Vice President and Controller, to serve as our Principal Accounting Officer, and in July 2019, we appointed Steven Bosacki to serve as Chief Operating Officer. In January 2020, Dr. Tierney resigned and Mr. Bosacki was named as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer. This lack of management continuity could adversely affect our ability to successfully manage our clinical trials and execute our growth strategy, as well as result in operational and administrative inefficiencies and added costs and may make recruiting for future management positions more difficult.

We might not be able to attract or retain qualified management and other key personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses, particularly in Campbell, California where we are headquartered. We could have difficulty attracting experienced personnel to the company and may be required to expend significant financial resources in our employee recruitment and retention efforts. Many of the other pharmaceutical companies with whom we compete for qualified personnel have greater and other resources, different risk profiles and longer histories in our industry than we do. They may also provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will harm our ability to implement our business strategy and achieve our business objectives.

In addition, we have scientific and clinical advisors who assist us in formulating our development and clinical strategies. These advisors are not our employees and may have commitments to, or consulting or advisory contracts

with, other entities that may limit their availability to us. In addition, our advisors may have arrangements with other companies to assist those companies in developing products or technologies that may compete with it.

We currently have limited marketing and sales capabilities. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities on our own or through third parties, we will be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved, or generate product revenue.

To successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved, in the United States, Canada, the European Union and other jurisdictions we seek to enter, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. Although our employees have experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products from prior employment at other companies, we, as a company have limited prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products, and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may choose to collaborate with additional third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. If we are unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates, either on our own or through collaborations with one or more third parties, our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects would suffer.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations.

Our operating results may fluctuate due to a variety of other factors, many of which are outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including the following:

In addition, we measure compensation cost for stock-based awards made to employees at the grant date of the award, based on the fair value of the award as determined by our board of directors, and recognize the cost as an expense over the employee’s requisite service period. As the variables that we use as a basis for valuing these awards change over time, including our underlying stock price and stock price volatility, the magnitude of the expense that we must recognize may vary significantly.

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss, or NOL, carryforwards and research and development income tax credit carryforwards may be limited.

We have significant NOL carryforwards available to reduce future taxable income, if any, for federal and California state income tax purposes. If not utilized, both the federal and California state NOL carryforwards will begin expiring in 2030. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset its post-change income may be limited. We believe that, with the transactions that have occurred over the past three years, we may have triggered an “ownership change” limitation. We have not conducted a formal NOL carryforward analysis. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOL carryforwards to offset U.S. federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOL carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.

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

We rely on a single, qualified supplier to manufacture each of our product candidates.

We rely on one third-party manufacturer for our product and product candidate manufacturing needs. We are working towards qualifying a second vendor to carry out the manufacturing and testing of our clinical and commercial supplies, however there can be no assurance that we will be able to qualify a second vendor in a timely manner or at all. 

Each of these third-party manufacturers is required by law to comply with the FDA’s regulations, including the applicable cGMP regulations for the type of product manufactured. These regulations set forth standards for both quality assurance and quality control. Third-party manufacturers also must maintain records and other documentation as required by applicable laws and regulations. In addition to a legal obligation to comply, the manufacturer is contractually obligated to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. However, although we are responsible for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including cGMPs, we cannot guarantee that each of our manufacturing partners will so comply. Failure of these manufacturers to maintain compliance with applicable laws and regulations could result in delayed or rejected clinical studies, decreased sales of our products, decreased revenues and reputational harm to us and may subject us to sanctions by the FDA, including a request for a voluntary recall, warning letter, seizure of products, injunctions prohibiting some or all further sales and/or recalling product already on the market, possible decree imposing substantial fines, preclusion of government contracts, import alerts and criminal liability for us and our individual employees. In addition, failure of a contract manufacturer for a product undergoing review by the FDA to maintain an acceptable cGMP compliance status could result in a decision by the FDA not to approve any pending NDA.

Our manufacturing contract is a short-term agreement. We are dependent upon renewing agreements with each of our third-party manufacturers or finding replacement manufacturers to satisfy our requirements. If we do not renew our agreements with our manufacturing partners, there can be no assurance that we will be able to find or engage a replacement manufacturer on a timely basis on acceptable terms, if at all. As a result, we cannot be certain that manufacturing sources will continue to be available or that we can continue to outsource the manufacturing of our products on commercially reasonable or acceptable terms. Further, due to the short-term nature of our agreements, our expenses for manufacturing are not fixed and may change from contract to contract. If the cost of production increases, our gross margins could be negatively affected.

In addition, we rely on our outside manufacturers to provide us with an adequate and reliable supply of our products on a timely basis and in accordance with good manufacturing standards and applicable product specifications. As a result, we are subject to and have little or no control over delays and quality control lapses that our third-party manufacturers may suffer.

We and our third-party manufacturers rely on a limited number of suppliers of the raw materials and other components of our products. A disruption in supply of raw material and other components would be disruptive to our inventory supply.

We and the manufacturers of our products rely on suppliers of raw materials and other components used in the production of our products. Some of these materials are available from only one source. We try to maintain inventory levels that are no greater than necessary to meet our current projections, which could have the effect of exacerbating supply problems. Any interruption in the supply of finished products could hinder our ability to distribute timely our finished products. If we are unable to obtain adequate product supplies to satisfy our customers’ orders, we may lose such orders and, possibly, our customers. This, in turn, could result in a loss of our market share and a corresponding reduction in our revenues. In addition, any disruption in the supply of raw materials or an increase in the cost of raw materials to our manufacturers could have a significant effect on their ability to supply us with our products, which would adversely affect our financial condition and operating results.

Clinical drug development is costly, time-consuming and uncertain, and we may suffer setbacks in our clinical development program that could harm our business.

Clinical drug development for our product candidates is costly, time-consuming and uncertain. Our product candidates are in various stages of development and while we expect that clinical trials for these product candidates will continue for several years, such trials may take significantly longer than expected to complete. In addition, we, the FDA,

an IRB, or other regulatory authorities, including state and local agencies and counterpart agencies in foreign countries, may suspend, delay, require modifications to or terminate our clinical trials at any time, for various reasons, including:

As with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, we may suffer significant setbacks in our clinical trials despite promising results in earlier trials. In the event that we abandon or experience delays in the clinical development efforts related to our product candidates, we may not be able to execute on our business plan effectively and our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects may be harmed.

We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our clinical-stage product candidates or other early-stage product candidates under applicable regulatory requirements. The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have substantial discretion in the approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of product candidates. The delay, limitation or denial of any regulatory approval would adversely impact commercialization, our potential to generate revenue, our business and our operating results.

We are not permitted to market any of our current product candidates in the United States until we receive approval of a NDA from the FDA. We are also not permitted to market any of our current product candidates in any foreign countries until we receive the requisite approval from the applicable regulatory authorities of such countries. Failure to obtain such regulatory approvals will delay or prevent us from commercializing any of our current or future product candidates.

To gain approval to market a new drug, we must provide the FDA and/or foreign regulatory authorities with, among other things, extensive preclinical and clinical data that adequately demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the drug in our intended indication and information to demonstrate the adequacy of the manufacturing methods to assure the drug’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The development and approval of new drug product candidates involves a long, expensive and uncertain process, and delay or failure can occur at any stage. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, including in Phase 3 clinical development, even after promising results in earlier preclinical studies or clinical trials. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, observations during clinical trials regarding safety or efficacy, such as previously unreported adverse events. Success in preclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure success in later clinical trials, and the results of clinical trials by other parties may not be indicative of the results in trials it may conduct. Further, different results may be achieved depending upon which analysis population is used to analyze results. Regardless of the outcome of any Phase 2 trials, our Phase 3 trials, if commenced, may not be successful. For example, we reported that findings on a secondary endpoint in our Phase 2b clinical trial of BPX-01, the reduction in Investigator’s Global Assessment, or IGA, which was defined as the proportion of subjects with at least a two-grade reduction in IGA to clear “0” or almost clear “1”, were not statistically significant. While the BPX-01 2% arm demonstrated a clear numerical trend compared to vehicle, the BPX-01 1% arm showed a smaller separation from vehicle. While this trial was not powered to demonstrate statistical significance for IGA and, therefore, IGA was not expected to be statistically significant, there is no guarantee that our Phase 3 trial, if commenced, will produce statistically significant results on IGA, which will serve as a co-primary endpoint with inflammatory lesion reduction despite our plans to adequately power the Phase 3 study to achieve this endpoint. In addition, topline results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results. For example, the topline results of the Phase 2b clinical study of BPX-01 1% and 2% reported that both concentrations statistically significantly reduced inflammatory lesions, the primary endpoint. The information reflected our preliminary review of the topline primary efficacy results based solely upon information available to it at that time. Since topline reporting, adjustments for multiple comparisons were made, resulting in a change to the p-value for the 1% and 2% concentrations, rendering the results of the 1% concentration no longer statistically significant. It is always a risk that further review of results may change the conclusions drawn from the preliminary review to less positive results than it anticipated. 

In the case of our topical product candidates, BPX-01 and BPX-04, we are seeking to deliver sufficient concentrations of the API through the skin barrier to the targeted dermal tissue to achieve the intended therapeutic effect. The topical route of administration may involve new dosage forms, which can be difficult to develop and manufacture and may raise novel regulatory issues and result in development or review delays. For example, the antibiotic delivered in BPX-01 and BPX-04 is difficult to stabilize and prone to epimerization in most formulations and delivery systems and, as such, presents great challenges for transepidermal delivery. We believe potential competitors have attempted to resolve these problems by stabilizing the antibiotic in certain lipophilic formulation, but the solutions either failed to adequately deliver the antibiotic or required overly high concentration (i.e., dosage) for clinical efficacy. As a result, safety and efficacy of BPX-01 and BPX-04 may be difficult to establish.

The FDA and foreign regulatory bodies have substantial discretion in the drug approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of product candidates for many reasons. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory body may:

Any delay, limitation or denial of any regulatory approval would adversely impact commercialization, our potential to generate revenue, our business and our operating results.

Delays or difficulties in the enrollment of patients in clinical trials may result in additional costs and delays in our ability to generate significant revenues, and may delay or prevent our receipt of any regulatory approvals necessary to commercialize our planned and future products.

We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials for our product candidates if we are unable to locate and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States. In addition, some of our competitors have completed clinical trial and product registration for product candidates that treat the same indications as our product candidates, and patients who are otherwise eligible for our clinical trials may instead enroll in clinical trials of our competitors’ product candidates.

Patient enrollment is affected by other factors including:

Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials would result in significant delays, could require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether and could delay or prevent our receipt of necessary regulatory approvals. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, which would cause the value of the company to decline and impede our ability to obtain additional financing.

We intend to pursue Section 505(b)(2) regulatory approval filings with the FDA for at least one of our product candidates. If the FDA concludes that certain of our product candidates fail to satisfy the requirements under Section 505(b)(2), or if the requirements for such product candidates under Section 505(b)(2) are not as we expect, the approval pathway for such product candidates may take significantly longer, cost substantially more and entail greater complications and risks than anticipated and, in either case, may not be successful. In addition, if under certain circumstances, exclusivity of competitors would delay approval of our product candidates, then we may pursue approval through the Section 505(b)(1) regulatory pathway, which may require us to conduct additional preclinical or clinical trials or obtain a right to reference the preclinical or clinical data of others.

We are currently developing two product candidates, BPX-01 and BPX-04, for which we intend to seek FDA approval through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, and may decide to seek FDA approval for other early-phase products through the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway in the future. A Section 505(b)(2) NDA is a special type of NDA that enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s findings of safety and efficacy of an existing previously approved product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(b)(2) NDAs often provide an alternate path to FDA approval for new or improved formulations or new uses of previously approved products. Such filings involve significant filing costs, including filing fees.

BPX-01 and BPX-04 are a topical formulations of minocycline (Solodyn), a previously approved oral antibiotic. Reliance on safety findings made by the FDA in approving Solodyn, the antibiotic we will reference in our NDA, could expedite the development program for our product candidates by decreasing the amount of preclinical or clinical data that we would need to generate in order to obtain FDA approval. BPX-01’s and BPX-04’s route of administration and dosage form, however, differ from Solodyn’s and, as a result, the FDA may not permit us to use this approach to regulatory approval. If the FDA does not allow us to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway as anticipated, or if the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway fails to significantly decrease the amount of testing we must conduct, we may need to conduct additional preclinical or clinical trials, provide additional data and information and meet additional standards to obtain regulatory approval. In such case, the time and financial resources required to obtain FDA approval for BPX-01 and BPX-04, or any other product candidate for which we seek approval pursuant to the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway in the future, and complications and risks associated with these product candidates, likely would increase substantially. Moreover, our inability to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway could prevent us from introducing our product candidates into the market prior to our competitors, which could harm our competitive position and prospects. Further, even if the FDA allows us to pursue the Section 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we cannot guarantee that we would ultimately lead to faster product development, and our product candidates may not receive the requisite approvals for commercialization.

In addition, notwithstanding the approval of a number of products by the FDA under Section 505(b)(2) over the last few years, certain competitors and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, the FDA may be required to change its

Section 505(b)(2) policies and practices, which could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2).

Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and Section 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs referenced in a Section 505(b)(2) NDA. As part of any NDA we would submit to the FDA, we would be required to make certifications to all patents listed in the Orange Book for Solodyn, the listed drug we intend to reference in our NDA. There are currently six patents listed in the Orange Book for Solodyn. If we make a Paragraph IV certification to any of the patents listed in the Orange Book, those patent certifications may give rise to patent litigation and mandatory delays in approval of our NDA for up to 30 months depending on the outcome of any litigation. It is not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved referenced product to file a citizen petition with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products. If successful, such petitions can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. However, even if the FDA ultimately denies such a petition, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition.

Furthermore, award of three-year exclusivity by FDA to a competitor with a Section 505(b)(2) NDA could delay approval of a product candidate we submitted pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) of the FDC Act if the FDA were to determine that the products have overlapping conditions of approval, even if our Section 505(b)(2) NDA does not rely on the competing Section 505(b)(2) NDA. Alternatively, we may pursue approval through the Section 505(b)(1) regulatory pathway, which may require us to conduct additional preclinical or clinical trials or obtain a right to reference the preclinical or clinical data of others. These alternatives may increase the time and/or financial resources required to obtain approval.

We have limited experience in the conduct of clinical trials and have never obtained approval of any product candidates and may be unable to do so successfully.

As a company, we have limited experience in conducting clinical trials or progressing a product candidate through to regulatory approval. In part because of this lack of experience, our clinical trials may require more time and incur greater costs than we anticipate. We cannot be certain that planned clinical trials will begin or conclude on time, if at all. Large-scale trials would require significant additional financial and management resources, and reliance on third-party clinical investigators, contract research organizations (“CROs”) and/or consultants. Any performance failure on the part of such third parties could delay clinical development or delay or prevent us from obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing our current or future product candidates, depriving us of potential product revenue and resulting in additional losses.

Any product candidates that we commercialize will be subject to ongoing and continued regulatory review.

Even after we achieve U.S. regulatory approval for a product candidate, if any, we will be subject to continued regulatory review and compliance obligations. For example, the FDA may impose significant restrictions on the approved indicated uses for which our product candidates may be marketed or on the conditions of approval. A product candidate’s approval may contain requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies and surveillance, including Phase 4 clinical trials or a REMS to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product. We will also be subject to ongoing FDA obligations and continued regulatory review with respect to, among other things, the manufacturing, processing, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for our product candidates. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, continued compliance with the FDA’s good clinical practice, or GCP, requirements and good laboratory practice requirements, which are regulations and guidelines the FDA would apply to all of our product candidates in clinical and preclinical development, along with any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval, and continued compliance with the FDA’s cGMP requirements pursuant to which manufacturing facilities are subject to continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA. To the extent that a product candidate is approved for sale in other countries, we may be subject to similar restrictions and requirements imposed by laws and government regulators in those countries.

If we, our product candidates or the manufacturing facilities for our product candidates fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency may:

The regulations, policies or guidance of the FDA and other applicable government agencies may change and new or additional statutes or government regulations may prevent or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates or further restrict or regulate post-approval activities. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of adverse government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are not able to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market our product candidates, which would materially and adversely affect our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability.

Our product candidates may cause serious or undesirable side effects or possess other unexpected properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of approved labeling or result in post-approval regulatory action.

Unforeseen side effects from any of our product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if approved, after marketing such product. Undesirable side effects caused by product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, modify, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign authorities. Results of clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects. In such an event, trials could be suspended or terminated and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny approval of product candidates for any or all targeted indications. The drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in product liability claims. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Additionally, if we or others identify undesirable side effects, or other previously unknown problems, caused by our product candidates after obtaining U.S. or foreign regulatory approval or other products with the same or related active ingredients, a number of potentially negative consequences could result, including:

Any of the above events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product candidate and could substantially increase the costs of commercializing our product candidates.

If any of our product candidates are approved for marketing and we are found to have improperly promoted off-label uses, or if physicians misuse our products or use our products off-label, we may become subject to prohibitions on the sale or marketing of our products, product liability claims and significant fines, penalties and sanctions, and our brand and reputation could be harmed.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the marketing and promotional claims that are made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses or indications that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we are found to have promoted off-label uses of any of our product candidates, we may receive warning or untitled letters and become subject to significant liability, which would materially harm our business. Both federal and state governments have levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and have enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. If we become the target of such an investigation or prosecution based on our marketing and promotional practices, we could face similar sanctions, which would materially harm our business. In addition, management’s attention could be diverted from our business operations, significant legal expenses could be incurred and our brand and reputation could be damaged. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we are deemed by the FDA to have engaged in the promotion of our products for off-label use, we could be subject to FDA regulatory or enforcement actions, including the issuance of an untitled letter, a warning letter, injunction, seizure, civil fine or criminal penalties. It is also possible that other federal, state or foreign enforcement authorities might take action if they determine our business activities constitute promotion of an off-label use, which could result in significant penalties, including criminal, civil or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

We cannot, however, prevent a physician from using our product candidates in ways that fall outside the scope of the approved indications, as he or she may deem appropriate in his or her medical judgment. Physicians may also

misuse our product candidates or use improper techniques, which may lead to adverse results, side effects or injury and, potentially, subsequent product liability claims. Furthermore, the use of our product candidates for indications other than those cleared by the FDA and/or other regulatory agencies may not effectively treat such conditions, which could harm our brand and reputation among both physicians and patients.

We may also be subject to healthcare laws, regulation and enforcement and our failure to comply with those laws could adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition.

Certain federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to fraud and abuse and patients’ rights are and will be applicable to our business. We are subject to regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include:

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent healthcare reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, the ACA, among other things, amended the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback statute and certain criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it. In addition, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

Achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws may prove costly. In addition, any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws or regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment or the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could materially and adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and CROs may become insolvent or engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and CROs may become insolvent or engage in fraudulent or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these persons could include intentional, reckless or negligent conduct or unauthorized activity that violates: laws or regulations, including those laws requiring the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities; manufacturing standards; federal, state and foreign healthcare fraud and abuse laws and data privacy; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. In particular, sales, marketing and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of business activities, including research, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, or illegal misappropriation of drug product, which could result in regulatory sanctions or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with such laws or regulations, and serious harm to our reputation. In addition, federal procurement laws impose substantial penalties for misconduct in connection with government contracts and require certain contractors to maintain a code of business ethics and conduct. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, FDA debarment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our operating results.

Even if our current product candidates or any future product candidates obtain regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption and use necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians and patients for approved indications, and may not be commercially successful. The degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of our current or future product candidates, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including:

If any of our current or future product candidates are approved for use but fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption necessary for commercial success, our operating results and financial condition will be adversely affected, which may delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue and continue our operations.

If we are unable to achieve and maintain coverage and adequate levels of reimbursement for any of our product candidates for which we receive regulatory approval, or any future products we may seek to commercialize, their commercial success may be severely hindered.

As to any of our product candidates that become available by prescription only, our success will depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement for our product from third-party payors. Patients who are prescribed medicine for the treatment of their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. The availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and private third-party payors is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. If any of our product candidates fail to demonstrate attractive efficacy profiles, they may not qualify for coverage and reimbursement. In addition, certain currently approved therapies for the treatment of dermatological-related issues have received limited or no reimbursement coverage by insurers and, accordingly, coverage for BPX-01

and BPX-04, if approved, may not be available. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our prescription-only products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

In addition, the market for certain of our product candidates will depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ drug formularies, or lists of medications for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. The industry competition to be included in such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug in their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available.

Further, third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In addition, in the United States, although private third-party payors tend to follow Medicare, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. 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 product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

Further, we believe that future coverage and reimbursement will likely be subject to increased restrictions in both the United States and in international markets. Third-party coverage and reimbursement for any of our product candidates for which we may receive regulatory approval may not be available or adequate in either the United States or international markets, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Our product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition and our failure to compete effectively may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration.

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, patenting, manufacturing and marketing of healthcare products competitive with those that we are developing. We face competition from a number of sources, such as pharmaceutical companies, including generic drug companies, biotechnology companies and academic and research institutions, many of which have greater financial resources, marketing capabilities, sales forces, manufacturing capabilities, research and development capabilities, clinical trial expertise, intellectual property portfolios, experience in obtaining patents and regulatory approvals for product candidates and other resources than us. Some of the companies that offer competing products also have a broad range of other product offerings, large direct sales forces and long-term customer relationships with our target physicians, which could inhibit our market penetration efforts. In addition, certain of our product candidates, if approved, may compete with other dermatological products, including OTC treatments, for a share of some patients’ discretionary budgets and for physicians’ attention within their clinical practices.

We anticipate that, if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will face significant competition from other approved therapies and may need to compete with unregulated, unapproved and off-label treatments. Certain of our product candidates, if approved, will present novel therapeutic approaches for the approved indications and will have to compete with existing therapies, some of which are widely known and accepted by physicians and patients. To compete successfully in this market, we will have to demonstrate that the relative cost, safety and efficacy of our approved products, if any, provide an attractive alternative to existing and other new therapies. Such competition could lead to reduced market share for our product candidates and contribute to downward pressure on the pricing of our product candidates, which could harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Due to less stringent regulatory requirements in certain foreign countries, there are many more dermatological products and procedures available for use in those international markets than are approved for use in the United States. In certain international markets, there are also fewer limitations on the claims that our competitors can make about the effectiveness of their products and the manner in which they can market them. As a result, we expect to face more competition in these markets than in the United States.

Our product candidates, including BPX-01 and BPX-04, if approved, will face intense competition and most of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do.

If approved for the treatment of inflammatory lesions of acne, BPX-01 will face direct competition from numerous other topical products such as antimicrobials, retinoids or some combination of the two, and the existence of these products may limit the market size for BPX-01. In addition, BPX-01 will compete against oral systemic treatments for acne, which include isotretinoins, antibiotics, antimicrobials and contraceptives, and against a number of approved topical treatments for acne, including branded drugs and generic versions where available as well as treatments for both inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions of acne. If approved for the treatment of rosacea, BPX-04 will face direct competition from numerous other topical products such as azelaic acids, brimonidine and ivermectin creams, and the existence of these products may limit the market size for BPX-04. In addition, BPX-04 will compete against oral systemic treatments for rosacea which include antibiotics and antimicrobials, and against a number of approved topical treatments for rosacea, including branded drugs and generic versions where available. Certain alternative treatments offered by competitors may be available at a lower price and may offer greater efficacy or a better safety profile. Even if a generic product or an OTC product is less effective than our product candidates, a less effective generic or OTC product may be more quickly adopted by health insurers, physicians and patients than our competing product candidates based upon cost or convenience.

We may face product liability exposure, and if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability if our insurance coverage for those claims is inadequate.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any products. This risk exists even if a product is approved for commercial sale by the FDA and manufactured in facilities regulated by the FDA or an applicable foreign regulatory authority. Our products and product candidates are designed to affect bodily functions and processes. Any side effects, manufacturing defects, misuse or abuse associated with our product candidates could result in injury and possibly death to a patient. An inability to obtain sufficient insurance coverage on commercially reasonable terms or otherwise to protect against potential product liability claims could inhibit our business.

In addition, a liability claim may be brought against us even if our product candidates merely appear to have caused an injury. Product liability claims may be brought against us by patients, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies or others selling or otherwise coming into contact with our product candidates, among others. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims we will incur substantial liabilities and reputational harm. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in:

Although we maintain product liability insurance coverage for clinical trials, our insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover all of our product liability-related expenses or losses and may not cover us for any expenses or losses we suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive, and, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost, in sufficient amounts or upon adequate terms to protect us against losses due to product liability, particularly if any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval. Further, a successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could decrease our cash and harm our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

If we suffer negative publicity concerning the safety of our products, our sales and our reputation and the reputation of our products may be harmed and we may be forced to withdraw products.

Physicians and potential patients may have a number of concerns about the safety of our products, whether or not such concerns have a basis in generally accepted science or peer-reviewed scientific research. Negative publicity concerning our products, whether accurate or inaccurate, could reduce market or governmental acceptance of our products and could result in decreased product demand or product withdrawal. In addition, significant negative publicity could result in an increased number of product liability claims, whether or not these claims are supported by applicable law.

We may choose not to continue developing or commercializing any of our product candidates at any time during development or after approval, which would reduce or eliminate our potential return on investment for those product candidates.

At any time, we may decide to discontinue the development or commercialization of any of our products or product candidates for a variety of reasons, including the appearance of new technologies that render our product obsolete, competition from a competing product or changes in or failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. If we terminate a program in which we have invested significant resources, we will not receive any return on our investment, and we will have missed the opportunity to allocate those resources to potentially more productive uses.

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

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

Risks Related to Dependence on Third Parties, Employee Matters, Managing Growth and Macroeconomic Conditions

We will need to further increase the size and complexity of our organization in the future, and we may experience difficulties in executing our growth strategy and managing our growth.

Our current management, personnel, systems and facilities are not adequate to support our future growth plans. We will need to further expand our scientific, sales and marketing, operational, financial and other resources to support our planned research, development and commercialization activities.

To manage our operations, growth and various projects effectively, we must:

In addition, we have utilized the services of part-time outside consultants to perform a number of tasks for us, including tasks related to preclinical and clinical testing. Our growth strategy may also entail expanding our use of consultants to implement these and other tasks going forward. We rely on consultants for certain functions of our business and will need to effectively manage these consultants to ensure that they successfully carry out their contractual obligations and meet expected deadlines. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside consultants, as needed, on economically reasonable terms, or at all. If we are not able to manage our growth effectively and expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our use of consultants, we might be unable to implement successfully the tasks necessary to execute effectively on our planned research, development and commercialization activities and, accordingly, might fail to achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.

Our failure to successfully in-license, acquire, develop and market additional product candidates or approved products would impair our ability to grow our business.

Our strategy is to in-license and acquire product candidates and we may in-license and acquire commercial-stage products or engage in other strategic transactions. Additional potential transactions that we may consider include a variety of different business arrangements, including spin-offs, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, restructurings, divestitures, business combinations and investments. We are currently exploring commercial growth opportunities, but there is no guarantee that such opportunities will materialize. The success of this strategy depends partly upon our ability to identify and select promising pharmaceutical product candidates and products, negotiate licensing or acquisition agreements with their current owners and finance these arrangements.

The process of proposing, negotiating and implementing a license or acquisition of a product candidate or approved product is lengthy and complex. Other companies, including some with substantially greater financial, marketing, sales and other resources, may compete with us for the license or acquisition of product candidates and approved products. We have limited resources to identify and execute the acquisition or in-licensing of third-party products, businesses and technologies and integrate them into our current infrastructure. Moreover, we may devote resources to potential acquisitions or licensing opportunities that are never completed, or we may fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such efforts. Any such transaction may require us to incur non-recurring or other charges, may increase our near- and long-term expenditures and may pose significant integration challenges or disrupt our management or business, which could adversely affect our operations and financial results. We may not be able to acquire the rights to additional product candidates on terms that we find acceptable, or at all.

Further, any product candidate that we acquire may require additional development efforts prior to commercial sale, including preclinical or clinical testing, and approval by the FDA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities. All

product candidates are prone to risks of failure typical of pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that a product candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that any approved products that we acquire will be manufactured or sold profitably or achieve market acceptance.

Business or economic disruptions or global health concerns could seriously harm our development efforts and increase our costs and expenses.

Broad-based business or economic disruptions could adversely affect our ongoing or planned research and development activities. For example, in December 2019 an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus originated in Wuhan, China and has since spread to a number of other countries, including the United States. To date, this outbreak has already resulted in extended shutdowns of certain businesses in the Wuhan region and has had ripple effects to businesses around the world. While we do not source any of our product candidates or their active pharmaceutical ingredients from China, global health concerns, such as coronavirus, could also result in social, economic, and labor instability in the countries in which we or the third parties with whom we engage operate. We cannot presently predict the scope and severity of any potential business shutdowns or disruptions, but if we or any of the third parties with whom we engage, including the suppliers, clinical trial sites, regulators and other third parties with whom we conduct business, were to experience shutdowns or other business disruptions, our ability to conduct our business in the manner and on the timelines presently planned could be materially and negatively impacted. It is also possible that global health concerns such as this one could disproportionately impact the hospitals and clinical sites in which we conduct any of our clinical trials, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and our results of operation and financial condition.

We may be adversely affected by natural disasters and other catastrophic events, and by man-made problems such as terrorism, that could disrupt our business operations and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster. If any future facility, or if we experience a significant disruption in our operations for any other reason, our ability to continue to operate our business would be materially harmed.

If any future facility were to be damaged, destroyed or otherwise become unable to operate, whether due to war, acts of hostility, earthquakes, fire, floods, hurricanes, storms, tornadoes, other natural disasters, employee malfeasance, terrorist acts, power outages or otherwise, or if performance of any of future facilities are disrupted for any other reason, such an event could delay our clinical trials or, if our product candidates are approved and we choose to manufacture all or any part of them internally, jeopardize our ability to timely manufacture our products, if at all. If we experience delays in achieving our development objectives, or if we are unable to manufacture an approved product within a timeframe that meets our prospective customers’ expectations, our business, prospects, financial results and reputation could be materially harmed.

Our contract manufacturers’ and suppliers’ facilities are located in multiple locations, where other natural disasters or similar events, such as blizzards, tornadoes, fires, explosions or large-scale accidents or power outages, could severely disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects. In addition, acts of terrorism and other geo-political unrest could cause disruptions in our business or the businesses of our partners, manufacturers or the economy as a whole. All of the aforementioned risks may be further increased if we do not implement a disaster recovery plan or our partners’ or manufacturers’ disaster recovery plans prove to be inadequate. To the extent that any of the above should result in delays in the regulatory approval, manufacture, distribution or commercialization of our product candidates, our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects would suffer.

Currently, we maintain insurance coverage totaling $10 million against product liability claims, $5 million against damage to our property and equipment and $1 million in worker’s compensation coverage, subject to deductibles and other limitations. If we have underestimated our insurance needs with respect to an interruption, or if an interruption is not subject to coverage under our insurance policies, we may not be able to cover our losses.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of failures in our internal computer systems or those of our collaborators.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future partners, contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access,

natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our manufacturing activities, development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of manufacturing records or clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Security breaches, loss of data and other disruptions to us or our third-party service providers could compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability, which could adversely affect our business and our reputation.

 In the ordinary course of our business, we and our third-party service providers collect and store sensitive data, including legally protected health information, personally identifiable information about our patients, credit card information, intellectual property, and our proprietary business and financial information. We manage and maintain our applications and data utilizing a combination of managed data center systems and cloud-based data center systems. We face a number of risks related to our protection of, and our service providers’ protection of, this critical information, including loss of access, inappropriate disclosure and inappropriate access, as well as risks associated with our ability to identify and audit such events.

The secure processing, storage, maintenance and transmission of this critical information is vital to our operations and business strategy, and we devote significant resources to protecting such information. Although we take measures to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access or disclosure, our information technology and infrastructure may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or viruses or otherwise breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other activities. While we are not aware of any such attack or breach, if such event would occur and cause interruptions in our operations, our networks would be compromised and the information we store on those networks could be accessed by unauthorized parties, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under federal, state, and international laws that protect the privacy of personal information, such as HIPAA, and regulatory penalties. Unauthorized access, loss or dissemination could also disrupt our ability to conduct our clinical trials, conduct research and development activities, collect, process and prepare company financial information, provide information about our product candidates and other patient and physician education and outreach efforts through our website, manage the administrative aspects of our business and damage our reputation, any of which could adversely affect our business.

In addition, the interpretation and application of consumer, health-related and data protection laws in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are often uncertain, contradictory and in flux. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. If so, this could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, which could adversely affect our business. In addition, we are subject to various state laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which was enacted in California in 2018 and components of which were effective on January 1, 2020. The CCPA will, among other things, require covered companies to provide disclosures to California consumers concerning the collection and sale of personal information, and will give such consumers the right to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. Amendments to the CCPA have been made since its enactment, and it remains unclear what, if any, further amendments will be made to this legislation or how it will be interpreted. We cannot yet predict the impact of the CCPA on our business or operations, but it may require us to modify our data processing practices and policies and to incur substantial costs and expenses in an effort to comply.

Recent developments in Europe have created compliance uncertainty regarding the processing of personal data from Europe. For example, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which became effective in the E.U. on May 25, 2018, applies to our activities conducted from an establishment in the EU or related to products and services that we offer to E.U. users. The GDPR creates new compliance obligations applicable to our business, which could cause us to change our business practices, and increases financial penalties for noncompliance (including possible fines of up to 4% of global annual turnover for the preceding financial year or €20 million (whichever is higher) for the most serious infringements). As a result, we may need to modify the way we treat such information.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may not be able to obtain or enforce patent rights or other intellectual property rights that cover our product candidates and technologies that are of sufficient breadth to prevent third parties from competing against us.

Our success with respect to our product candidates and technologies will depend in part upon our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in both the United States and other countries, to preserve and protect our trade secrets and to prevent third parties from infringing upon our proprietary rights. Our ability to protect any of our product candidates from unauthorized or infringing use by third parties depends in substantial part upon our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents.

Our patent portfolio includes patent applications in the United States and other countries. Any patents that we could obtain may be narrow in scope and thus more easily circumvented by competitors. Further, in countries where we do not have granted patents, third parties may be able to make, use or sell products identical to or substantially similar to, our product candidates. Additionally, restrictive regulations governing the precise labeling of ingredients and percentages for supplements, the large number of manufacturers that produce products with many active ingredients in common and the rapid change and frequent reformulation of products may make patent protection impractical.

The patent application process, also known as patent prosecution, is expensive and time-consuming, and we and any future licensors and licensees may not be able to prepare, file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we, or any future licensors or licensees, will fail to identify patentable aspects of inventions made in the course of development and commercialization activities before it is too late to obtain patent protection on them. Therefore, these and any of our patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. It is possible that defects of form in the preparation or filing of our patent applications may exist, or may arise in the future, such as with respect to proper priority claims, inventorship, claim scope or patent term adjustments. If any future licensors or licensees are not fully cooperative or disagree with us as to the prosecution, maintenance or enforcement of any patent rights, such patent rights could be compromised and we might not be able to prevent third parties from making, using and selling competing products. If there are material defects in the form or preparation of our patent applications, such applications may be invalid and unenforceable. Moreover, our  competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Due to legal standards relating to patentability, validity, enforceability and claim scope of patents covering pharmaceutical inventions, our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents is uncertain and involves complex legal and factual questions. Accordingly, rights under any patents we might obtain or license may not cover our product candidates, or may not provide us with sufficient protection for our  product candidates to afford a commercial advantage against competitive products or processes, including those from branded and generic pharmaceutical companies. In addition, we cannot guarantee that any patents will issue from any pending or future patent applications owned by or licensed to us. Even if patents issue, we cannot guarantee that the claims of these patents will be held valid or enforceable by a court of law or will provide us with any significant protection against competitive products or otherwise be commercially valuable to us.

Competitors in the fields of dermatologic therapeutics have created a substantial amount of prior art, including scientific publications, patents and patent applications. Our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our technology and the prior art allow our technology to be patentable over the prior art. Although we believe that our technology includes certain inventions that are unique and not duplicative of any prior art, we do not currently own or license issued patents covering all of the recent developments in our technology and we are unsure of the extent to which we will obtain adequate patent protection, if any. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may design around or challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of such issued patents or any other issued patents we own or license, which may result in such patents being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. In particular, due to the extensive prior art relating to antibiotics for topical acne and topical rosacea and because BPX-01 and BPX-04 represent forms of such therapies, respectively, the patent protection available for BPX-01 and BPX-04 may not prevent competitors from developing and commercializing similar products or products that otherwise target similar indications. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents we hold or

pursue with respect to our product candidates is challenged, companies may be dissuaded from collaborating with us to develop such products, or threaten our ability to advance and commercialize, our product candidates.

The degree of future protection of our proprietary rights is uncertain. Patent protection may be unavailable or severely limited in some cases and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. While various extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for our product candidates, however, we may be open to competition from generic versions of our product candidates. Further, the extensive period of time between patent filing and regulatory approval for a product candidate limits the time during which we can market a product candidate under patent protection, which may affect the profitability of our early-stage product candidates, in particular.

Proprietary trade secrets and unpatented know-how are also very important to our business. Although we have taken steps to protect our trade secrets and unpatented know-how by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and intellectual property protection agreements with certain employees, consultants and advisors, third parties may still obtain this information or we may be unable to protect our rights. We also have limited control over the protection of trade secrets used by our suppliers, manufacturers and other third parties. There can be no assurance that binding agreements will not be breached, that we would have adequate remedies for any breach or that our trade secrets and unpatented know-how will not otherwise become known or independently discovered by our competitors. If trade secrets are independently discovered, we would not be able to prevent their use. Further, enforcing a claim that a third-party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets or unpatented know-how is expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable.

Changes in patent law or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

The United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Further, recent United States Supreme Court rulings have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the scope and value of patents, once obtained.

For our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, also known as the America Invents Act, or AIA, was signed into law. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) is currently developing regulations and procedures to govern administration of the AIA, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the AIA. It is not clear what other, if any, impact(s) the AIA will have on the operation of our business. Moreover, the AIA and our

implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business. One important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third-party who files a patent application with the USPTO after such date but prior to us may therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of it even if we were the first to invent. This “first-inventor-to-file” system will require us both to remain cognizant, going forward, of the timing between invention and filing of a patent application.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are those that (i) limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and (ii) provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. Such changes apply to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued prior to March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings, as compared to the evidentiary standard applied in U.S. federal courts, necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third-party could potentially present evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to find a claim invalid, notwithstanding that the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate a claim first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third-party may attempt opportunistically to use USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims.

Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may weaken our and our licensors’ abilities to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents we and our licensors or partners may obtain in the future.

If we is unable to protect our trademarks from infringement, our business prospects may be harmed.

We have applied for trademark protection for, and registered, trademarks in the United States, the European Union and China. Although we take steps to monitor the possible infringement or misuse of our trademarks, it is possible that third parties may infringe, dilute or otherwise violate our trademark rights. Any unauthorized use of our trademarks could harm our reputation or commercial interests. In addition, our enforcement against third-party infringers or violators may be unduly expensive and time-consuming, and any remedy obtained may constitute insufficient redress relative to the damages we may suffer.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on our product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection insufficient to guard against such infringement. These products may compete with our products, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals. In such instances, we may be unable to enjoin or otherwise prevent infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights, generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could (i) result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, (ii) put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and (iii) provoke third parties to assert claims against it. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. In addition, certain countries in Europe and certain developing countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we may be unable to seek adequate remedies to address infringement and/or material diminishment of the value of our patents, which could limit our potential revenue opportunities in such jurisdictions. Accordingly, our efforts to establish or enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to

obtain a significant commercial advantage from our intellectual property. Finally, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws.

If we are sued for infringing intellectual property rights of third parties, it will be costly and time-consuming and an unfavorable outcome in that litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our commercial success depends upon our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our product candidates and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We cannot guarantee that marketing and selling such candidates and using such technologies will not infringe existing or future patents. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields relating to our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents issue, the risk increases that others may assert that our product candidates, technologies or methods of delivery or use infringe their patent rights. Moreover, it is not always clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various drugs, devices, drug delivery systems or their methods of use, and which of these patents may be valid and enforceable. Thus, due to the large number of patents issued and patent applications filed in our fields, third parties may allege they have patent rights encompassing our product candidates, technologies or methods.

In addition, our product candidates or proprietary technologies may infringe patents owned by third parties or third parties may allege such infringement. Because (i) some patent applications in the U.S. may be maintained in secrecy until the patents are issued, (ii) patent applications in the U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing and (iii) publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications for technology covered by our own and in-licensed issued patents or our pending applications. Our competitors may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our product candidates or technology similar to it. Any such patent application may have priority over our own and in-licensed patent applications or patents, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to those owned or in-licensed to us, we or, in the case of in-licensed technology, the licensor may have to participate, in the U.S., in an interference proceeding to determine priority of invention.

We may be exposed to, or threatened with, future litigation by third parties having patent or other intellectual property rights alleging that our product candidates or proprietary technologies infringe such third parties’ intellectual property rights, including litigation resulting from filing under Paragraph IV of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Such lawsuits can be costly and could adversely affect our operating results and divert the attention of managerial and technical personnel, even if we do not infringe such patents or the patents asserted against us are later invalidated. A court may, however, decide that we are infringing the third-party’s patents and order us to cease the activities covered by the patents. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us to pay to such third-party damages for having violated the other party’s patents.

As a result of patent infringement claims, or to avoid potential claims, we may choose or be required to seek licenses from third parties. These licenses may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license would likely obligate us to pay license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property, or such rights might be restrictive and limit our present and future activities. Ultimately, we or a licensee could be prevented from commercializing a product or forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms.

In addition to possible infringement claims against us, we may become a party to other patent litigation and other proceedings, including interference, derivation, re-examination or other post-grant proceedings declared or granted by the USPTO, and similar proceedings in foreign countries, regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current or future products.

There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, generally. To date, no litigation asserting infringement claims has ever been brought against us. If a third-party claims that we infringe our intellectual property rights, we may face a number of issues, including:

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could harm our ability to raise additional funds or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

Because we may rely on certain third-party licensors and partners in the future, and if any such licensors or partners are sued for infringing a third-party’s intellectual property rights, our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects could suffer in the same manner as if we are sued directly.

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

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including our patent applications or the patents of our licensors. As a result, we may be required to file infringement claims to stop third-party infringement or unauthorized use. Such proceedings and/or litigation can be expensive—particularly for a company of our size—and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to enjoin the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover our technology or that the factors necessary to grant an injunction are not satisfied. An adverse determination in such case could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, interpreted narrowly or amended such that they fail to cover or otherwise protect our product candidates. Moreover, such adverse determinations could subject our patent applications to the risk that they will not issue, or issue with limited and potentially inadequate scope to cover our product candidates.

Interference, derivation or other proceedings brought at the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority or patentability of inventions with respect to our patent applications or those of our licensors or potential partners. Litigation or USPTO proceedings brought by us may fail or may be invoked against us by third parties. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation, or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or potential partners, to prevent misappropriation of our proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the U.S.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that we may, intentionally or incidentally, disclose some of our confidential results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

We expect the NYSE American to begin the delisting process for our common stock on March 24, 2020, which could affect our market price and liquidity.

Our common stock currently trades on the NYSE American. The NYSE American imposes various quantitative and qualitative requirements to maintain listing, including minimum stockholders’ equity requirements and market price of our common stock. The continued listing standards for a NYSE American issuer are as follows:

On September 24, 2018, we received a deficiency notice by the NYSE American that we were not in compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirements set forth in the NYSE American Company Guide. The deficiency notice was based on our reported stockholders’ equity of $4.3 million as of July 31, 2018 and net losses in our five most recent fiscal years ended January 31, 2018. On September 19, 2019, we received notification from the NYSE American that provided an extension until March 24, 2020 to regain compliance with certain NYSE American continued listing requirements. If we are unable to regain compliance by March 24, 2020 or the NYSE American determines that we are not making progress consistent with the plan during the plan period, the NYSE American may initiate suspension and delisting procedures. If delisting proceedings are commenced, the NYSE American rules permit it to appeal a staff delisting determination. Our common stock will continue to be listed and traded on the NYSE American during the plan period, subject to our compliance with the NYSE American’s other applicable continued listing standards. As of January 31, 2020, our stockholders’ deficit was $0.3 million.

Additionally, the declining market price of our common stock previously resulted in a 30-day average price of our common stock falling below $0.20, in violation of the share price requirements set forth in the NYSE American Company Guide. Following our 1-for-25 reverse stock split effected on April 25, 2019, we received notification from the NYSE American on April 30, 2019, that we had regained compliance with the applicable standard. However, there can be no assurance that our share price will not fall below $0.20 in the future, and if we are unable to maintain a minimum market price of our common stock, we may fall out of compliance with the listing standards again.

Additionally, if at any time our common stock trades below $0.06 per share, we will be automatically delisted from the NYSE American. If we are unable to satisfy the continued listing requirements of the NYSE American,  our common stock will be subject to delisting. If our common stock loses our status on the NYSE American, we believe that our shares of common stock would likely be eligible to be quoted on the inter-dealer electronic quotation and trading system operated by Pink OTC Markets, Inc., commonly referred to as the Pink Sheets and now known as the OTCQB market. Our common stock may also be quoted on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board, an electronic quotation service maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. These markets are generally not considered to be as efficient as, and not as broad as, the NYSE American. In the event of any delisting, it could be more difficult to buy or sell our common stock and obtain accurate quotations, and the price of our stock could suffer a material decline. Delisting may also impair our ability to raise capital.

The stock price of our common stock may continue to be volatile or may decline.

Our stock price is likely to remain volatile. The market price of our common stock may continue to fluctuate significantly in response to numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control, including:

In addition, the stock markets, and in particular the NYSE American, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many pharmaceutical companies. Stock prices of many pharmaceutical companies have fluctuated in a manner unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. In the past, stockholders of pharmaceutical companies have instituted securities class action litigation following periods of market volatility. If we become involved in securities litigation, we could incur substantial costs and our resources and the attention of management could be diverted from our business.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting since inception and, while we continue to work on remedying the situation, we have not yet been able to do so. If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. Ineffective internal control could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common stock.

We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting since our inception as a company. As defined in Regulation 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, a “material weakness” is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Specifically, we determined that we had the following material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting: (i) inadequate segregation of duties; and (ii) insufficient written policies and procedures for accounting and financial reporting with respect to the requirements and application of both U.S. GAAP and SEC guidelines.

As of the date of this report, we have not remediated these material weaknesses. We are continuing to adopt and implement written policies and procedures for accounting and financial reporting. We plan to hire additional qualified personnel to address inadequate segregation of duties, although the timing of such hires is largely dependent on our securing additional financing to cover such costs. The implementation of these initiatives may not fully address any material weakness or other deficiencies that we may have in our internal control over financial reporting.

Even if we develop effective internal control over financial reporting, such controls may become inadequate due to changes in conditions or the degree of compliance with such policies or procedures may deteriorate, which could result in the discovery of additional material weaknesses and deficiencies. In any event, the process of determining whether our existing internal control over financial reporting is compliant with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,

or Section 404, and sufficiently effective requires the investment of substantial time and resources, including by our Chief Executive Officer and other members of our senior management. As a result, this process may divert internal resources and take a significant amount of time and effort to complete. In addition, we cannot predict the outcome of this process and whether we will need to implement remedial actions in order to establish effective controls over financial reporting. The determination of whether or not our internal controls are sufficient and any remedial actions required could result in us incurring additional costs that we did not anticipate, including the hiring of outside consultants. We may also fail to timely complete our evaluation, testing and any remediation required to comply with Section 404.

We are required, pursuant to Section 404, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. However, for as long as we are a “smaller reporting company,” our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404. While we could be a smaller reporting company for an indefinite amount of time, and thus relieved of the above-mentioned attestation requirement, an independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Such undetected material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We will continue to incur significant costs as a result of and devote substantial management time to operating as a public company listed on the NYSE American.

As a public company listed on the NYSE American, we incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. For example, we are subject to the rules and regulations required by the NYSE American, including changes in corporate governance practices and minimum listing requirements. These requirements have increased our legal and financial compliance costs and have and will continue to render some activities more time-consuming and costly. In addition, our  management and other personnel have diverted and will continue to divert attention from operational and other business matters to devote substantial time to these listing requirements and failure to meet these requirements could lead to an adverse effect on the listing of our common stock on the NYSE American.

If securities or industry analysts do not continue to publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part upon the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock could result in substantial dilution to the percentage ownership of our stockholders.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To raise capital, we may sell common stock or other securities convertible into or exchanged for our common stock in one or more transactions, and in a manner we determine from time to time and at prices that may not be the same as the price per share paid by other investors, and dilution to our stockholders could result. The price per share at which we sell additional shares of our common stock, or securities convertible or exchangeable into common stock, in future transactions may be higher or lower than the price per share paid by other investors. New investors could also receive rights, preferences and privileges senior to those of existing holders of our common stock. In addition, in the event of stock dividends, stock splits, reorganizations or similar events affecting our common stock, we may be required to proportionally adjust the conversion price, exercise price or number of shares issuable upon exercise of our outstanding warrants.

In addition, common stock with an aggregate offering price of up to $8.5 million (of which $4.6 million is available) may be issued and sold pursuant to an “at-the-market” offering of our common stock pursuant to a sales agreement between us and JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC (“JonesTrading”). Subject to certain limitations in the sales agreement and compliance with applicable law, we have the discretion to deliver a placement notice to JonesTrading at any time throughout the term of the sales agreement, which has a term equal to the term of the

registration statement on Form S-3 unless otherwise terminated earlier by us or JonesTrading pursuant to the terms of the sales agreement. The number of shares that are sold by JonesTrading after delivering a placement notice will fluctuate based on the market price of our common stock during the sales period and limits we set with JonesTrading. Because the price per share of each share sold will fluctuate based on the market price of our common stock during the sales period, it is not possible at this stage to predict the number of shares that will be ultimately issued. Issuances of such shares pursuant to the sales agreement will have a dilutive effect on our existing stockholders. Further, if we sell common stock, preferred stock, convertible securities and other equity securities in other transactions pursuant to our shelf registration statement on Form S-3, existing investors may be materially diluted by such subsequent sales and new investors could gain rights superior to our  existing stockholders.

We may issue debt or debt securities convertible into equity securities, any of which may be senior to our common stock as to distributions and in liquidation, which could negatively affect the value of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by entering into debt or debt-like financing that is unsecured or secured by up to all of our assets, or by issuing additional debt or equity securities, which could include issuances of secured or unsecured commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior notes, subordinated notes, guarantees, preferred stock, hybrid securities, or securities convertible into or exchangeable for equity securities. In the event of our liquidation, our lenders and holders of our debt and securities would receive distributions of our available assets before distributions to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to incur debt and issue securities in future financings may be influenced by market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings or debt financings. Further, market conditions could require us to accept less favorable terms for the issuance of our securities in the future.

Our directors, executive officers and principal stockholders exert significant influence over us and could impede a change of corporate control.

Our directors, executive officers and holders of more than 5% of our common stock, together with their affiliates, beneficially owned, in the aggregate, approximately 14% of our outstanding common stock as of February 29, 2020. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, have the ability to exert significant influence on matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of directors and any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, these stockholders, acting together, have the ability to significantly influence the management and affairs of our company. Accordingly, this concentration of ownership could harm the market price of our common stock by:

Delaware law and provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws could make a merger, tender offer or proxy contest difficult, thereby depressing the trading price of our common stock.

The anti-takeover provisions of the DGCL may discourage, delay or prevent a change of control by prohibiting us from engaging in a business combination with stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock for a period of three years after the person becomes an interested stockholder, even if a change of control would be beneficial to our existing stockholders. In addition, our certificate of incorporation and bylaws contain provisions that may make the acquisition of us more difficult, including the provisions that:

These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of its choosing and cause us to take certain actions you desire.

We are a “smaller reporting company” and, as a result of the reduced disclosure and governance requirements applicable to smaller reporting companies, our common stock may be less attractive to investors.

We are a “smaller reporting company,” meaning that we are not an investment company, an asset-backed issuer, or a majority-owned subsidiary of a parent company that is not a “smaller reporting company,” and have either: (i) a public float of less than $250 million or (ii) annual revenues of less than $100 million during the most recently completed fiscal year and (A) no public float or (B) a public float of less than $700 million. As a “smaller reporting company,” we are subject to lesser disclosure obligations in our SEC filings compared to other issuers, including being able to provide simplified executive compensation disclosures in our filings and only being required to provide two years of audited consolidated financial statements in our annual reports. In addition, because our public float is less than $75 million, we are a “non-accelerated filer” under Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act and are exempt from the provisions of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requiring that independent registered public accounting firms provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Until such time as we cease to be a “smaller reporting company” or a “non-accelerated filer,” as applicable, such decreased disclosure in our SEC filings may make it harder for investors to analyze our operating results and financial prospects.

We have never paid cash dividends on our capital stock, and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

We have never paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intends to retain any future earnings to finance the operation and expansion of our business, and we do not expect to declare or pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Consequently, stockholders must rely on sales of their common stock after price appreciation, which may never occur, as the only way to realize any future gains on their investment.

have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition should such litigation be resolved unfavorably. These claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial resources and diversion of management efforts.

(1)Includes shares of common stock that remain available for purchase under our 2016 Equity Incentive Plan.

(2)Includes shares outstanding under inducement option grants to one employee. All of these grants were made outside of a stockholder approved plan, pursuant to the exemption for inducement grants under the listing rules of the NYSE American, and have the same material terms as the options granted under our 2016 Equity Incentive Plan.