As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 17, 2020

Registration No. 333-235549

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Amendment No. 1
to
FORM S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933

PDS Biotechnology Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

303A College Road East
Princeton, NJ 08540
(800) 208-3343
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code of registrant’s principal executive offices)

Frank Bedu-Addo, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
PDS Biotechnology Corporation
303A College Road East
Princeton, NJ 08540
(800) 208-3343
(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)

Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the public: As soon as practicable after the effective date of this registration statement.

If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933 check the following box. ☒

If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, please check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  o

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  o

If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same offering.  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 7(a)(2)(B) of the Securities Act. ☒

Market, Industry and Other Data

We use market and industry data, forecasts and projections throughout this prospectus. We have obtained certain market and industry data from publicly available industry publications. These sources generally state that the information they provide has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but that the accuracy and completeness of the information are not guaranteed. The forecasts and projections are based on historical market data, and there is no assurance that any of the forecasts or projected amounts will be achieved.

Trademarks and Trade Names

We own or have rights to trademarks or trade names that we use in conjunction with the operation of our business. In addition, our name, logo and website name and address are our service marks or trademarks. Each trademark, trade name or service mark by any other company appearing in this offering memorandum belongs to its holder. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks and trade names referred to in this offering memorandum are listed without the ® and ™ symbols.

first-line treatment comes as a result of Merck’s recent approval by the FDA on June 10, 2019 for first line treatment of patients with metastatic or unresectable recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) using KEYTRUDA® in combination with platinum and fluorouracil (FU) for all patients and as a single agent for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 as determined by an FDA-approved test.

We previously announced that we entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for the development of the PDS0101 HPV cancer immunotherapy in combination with other immune-modulating agents as a potential treatment for advanced HPV-related cancers. Under the agreement, we will collaborate with the NCI’s Genitourinary Malignancies Branch (GMB) and Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Biology (LTIB) with plans to conduct a Phase 2 clinical study evaluating PDS0101 with novel immune-modulating agents being studied at NCI as part of a CRADA with another large pharma company. The phase 2 clinical study is anticipated to start in the first half of 2020. The CRADA also involves preclinical evaluation of PDS0101 in combination with other therapeutic modalities upon the mutual agreement of both parties.

Since our inception in 2005, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to developing our Versamune® platform, advancing preclinical programs, conducting clinical trials, manufacturing PDS0101 for clinical trials, and providing general and administrative support. We have funded our operations primarily from the issuance of common stock. We have not generated any product revenue.

We acquired an in-process research and development asset relating to Edge’s (as defined below) NEWTON 2 trials. Following the discontinuation of the NEWTON 2 trial for EG-1962, Edge had ceased all research and development efforts related to EG-1962 and suspended efforts on other legacy Edge product candidates. We are currently seeking partners to continue the development of these product candidates and pursue them to commercialization.

Our current pipeline for PDS0101 is summarized in the table below. All trials are expected to be initiated in the first half of 2020. PDS is also developing a robust pipeline of product candidates. These candidates are also summarized below.

Recent Developments

In June of 2019 the Versamune mechanism of action was published in one of the top peer reviewed journals in the field of immunology, (J. Immunology, 2019(202), 1215).

During the third quarter of 2019, PDS received IRB approval to perform a retrospective analysis of the clinical benefit achieved by the patients who participate in the phase 1 clinical trial. Despite most of the patients being infected with multiple HPV strains other than HPV 16, complete regression of pre-cancerous lesions was documented in 6 out of 10 patients- strongly suggesting that the T-cells induced by PDS0101 were clinically active. As a result of this information strongly suggests the unique ability of PDS0101 to generate potent and biologically active CD8+ T-cells in-vivo, PDS altered its clinical strategy to focus on areas of more severe unmet medical need in which PDS0101 is combined with checkpoint inhibitors and standard of care to provide improved clinical benefit to patients. PDS feels that due to the ability of PDS0101 to generate potent HPV specific killer T-cell response, that the quickest path to demonstrating proof of concept in a larger trial with the least risk would be to perform these studies in combination with synergistic agents in indications where a more effective therapy is needed.

PDS believes that rational design of combination immunotherapies using agents that promote synergy with each other and reduced potential for compounded toxicity would substantially improve potential for combination therapies to deliver improved clinical benefit for cancer patients. Versamune® appears to activate the appropriate combination of immunological pathways that promote strong CD8+ T-cell induction, while also altering the tumor’s microenvironment to make the tumor more susceptible to T-cell attack, which PDS believes makes it an ideal complement to the checkpoint inhibitors by enhancing their potency. In addition, the differences in mechanism of action between Versamune® and checkpoint inhibitors, as well as the initial demonstrated safety profile of Versamune®, suggests that these combinations may be much better tolerated by patients than many or most other combination therapies involving checkpoint inhibitors.

Corporate Information

We currently operate the existing business of Private PDS (as defined below) as a publicly traded company under the name PDS Biotechnology Corporation. We were incorporated as Edge Therapeutics, Inc., or Edge, on January 22, 2009. Upon closing of the Merger (as defined below), we discontinued Edge’s prior business and acquired the business of PDS Biotechnology Corporation, a privately held Delaware corporation, which we refer to as Private PDS, which is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing multi-functional cancer immunotherapies that are designed to overcome the limitations of the current approaches.

On March 15, 2019, we completed our reverse merger with Private PDS, which we refer to as the Merger, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 23, 2018, as amended on January 24, 2019, by and among Edge, Echos Merger Sub, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edge, which we refer to as Merger Sub, and Private PDS, whereby Private PDS merged with and into Merger Sub, with Private PDS surviving as our wholly-owned subsidiary. In connection with and immediately following completion of the Merger, we effected a 1-for-20 reverse stock split, or the Reverse Stock Split, and changed our corporate name from Edge Therapeutics, Inc. to PDS Biotechnology Corporation, and Private PDS changed its name to PDS Operating Corporation. All of the outstanding stock of Private PDS was converted into shares of our common stock or canceled upon closing of the Merger. Unless otherwise stated, all share and per share numbers in this prospectus give retroactive effect to both the Merger and the Reverse Stock Split.

Our principal executive offices are located 303A College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540, and our telephone number is (800) 208-3343.

Information concerning our business and our prospects is included in the documents that we file with the SEC as a reporting company under the Exchange Act, which are accessible at www.sec.gov, and on our website at www.pdsbiotech.com. The information contained on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not a part of this prospectus, other than the documents that we file with the SEC that are expressly incorporated by reference into this prospectus. Investors should not rely on any such information in deciding whether to purchase our common stock. We have included our website address in this registration statement solely as an inactive textual reference.

Implications of Being an Emerging Growth Company

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the “JOBS Act”) was enacted in April 2012 with the intention of encouraging capital formation in the United States and reducing the regulatory burden on newly public companies that qualify as “emerging growth companies.” We are an emerging growth company within the meaning of the JOBS Act. As an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various public reporting requirements, including (i) the requirement that our internal control over financial reporting be audited by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (ii) requirements related to compliance with new or revised accounting standards, (iii) requirements related to the disclosure of executive compensation in this prospectus and in our periodic reports and proxy statements, (iv) the requirement that we hold a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and any golden parachute payments, (v) if adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), mandatory audit firm rotation requirements and (vi) requirements to supplement the auditor’s report with additional information about the audit and our financial statements. We may choose to take advantage of some, but not all, of these reduced burdens. We may take advantage of these exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company.

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest to occur of (i) the last day of the fiscal year in which we have $1.07 billion or more in annual revenue; (ii) the date we qualify as a “large accelerated filer” with at least $700 million of equity securities held by non-affiliates; (iii) the date on which we have issued, in any three-year period, more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities; or (iv) the last day of the fiscal year ending after the fifth anniversary of our initial public offering.

For risks related to our status as an emerging growth company, see the disclosure elsewhere in this prospectus under the caption “Risk Factors” below.

If a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our eighth amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as amended, to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

We qualify as an emerging growth company, and any decision on our part to comply with reduced reporting and disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies could make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and, for as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we currently intend to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies but not to “emerging growth companies,” including, but not limited to, not being required to have our independent registered public accounting firm audit our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our registration statements, periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We will cease to be an emerging growth company upon the earliest of: (i) the end of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of the IPO; (ii) the first fiscal year after our annual gross revenue is $1.07 billion or more; (iii) the date on which we have, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt securities; or (iv) the end of any fiscal year in which the market value of our common stock held by non-affiliates exceeded $700 million as of the end of the second quarter of that fiscal year.

We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive if we choose to rely on these exemptions while we are an emerging growth company. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and the price of our common stock may be more volatile.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We plan to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards and, therefore, we may not be subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

Our operating results and stock price may be volatile, or may decline regardless of our operating performance, and holders of our common stock could lose all or part of their investment.

As a publicly traded company, our quarterly operating results are likely to fluctuate in the future. In addition, securities markets worldwide have experienced, and are likely to continue to experience, significant price and volume fluctuations. This market volatility, as well as general economic, market or political conditions, could subject the market price of our shares to wide price fluctuations regardless of our operating performance. You should consider an investment in our common stock to be risky, and you should invest in our common stock only if you can withstand a significant loss and wide fluctuation in the market value of your investment. The market price of our common stock is likely to continue to be subject to significant fluctuations in response to the factors described in this “Risk Factors” section and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.

The securities markets have from time to time experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of these factors, investors in our common stock may not be able to resell their shares at or above the price at which they purchased their shares. These broad market fluctuations, as well as general market, economic and political conditions, such as recessions, loss of investor confidence or interest rate changes, may negatively affect the market price of our common stock.

In addition, the stock markets, including Nasdaq, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. If any of the foregoing occurs, it could cause our stock price to fall and may expose us to securities class action litigation that, even if unsuccessful, could be costly to defend, divert management’s attention and resources or harm our business.

If securities or industry analysts do not 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 will depend, in part, on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business and our industry. We do not currently have, and may never obtain, research coverage by securities and industry analysts. If no securities or industry analysts commence coverage of our company, the trading price for our common stock would likely be negatively impacted. If we obtain securities or industry analyst coverage and if one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrades our common 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 of us or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our common stock could decrease, which could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Risks Related to Our Business

Investors should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties and all other information contained or incorporated by reference in this prospectus, including the risks and uncertainties discussed under “Risk Factors” in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, as may be amended from time to time, and in subsequent filings that are incorporated herein by reference. All of these risk factors are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety. These risks and uncertainties are not the only ones facing us. Our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially adversely affected by any of these risks. The trading price of our common stock could decline due to any of these risks, and you may lose all or part of your investment. This prospectus and the incorporated documents also contain forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, including the risks mentioned in this prospectus.

One of the most active areas of clinical testing in the field of cancer immunotherapy today is combining checkpoint inhibitors with other anti-cancer agents, with the goal of synergistic clinical efficacy compared with that of individual products. We believe that next generation of combination immunotherapy agents, especially those including both checkpoint inhibitors and a second therapeutic agent, will need to have at least the following characteristics to achieve clinical and commercial success:

Most immunotherapies work by training or priming our T-cells to recognize specific disease-related proteins (cancer, bacterial or viral) displayed or expressed by diseased cells. The ultimate goal of immunotherapy treatment is to harness the power of the immune system to target and kill specific diseased cells, and thereby cure the underlying disease.

Immunotherapies have recently been recognized as having significant potential to treat a broad range of cancers and infectious diseases. Several cancer immunotherapies have now been approved by the FDA, and other promising immunotherapy technologies and products are in various stages of advanced clinical development.

Despite the promise demonstrated by current immunotherapy technologies, these products still face significant hurdles to achieving optimal therapeutic value. Some key obstacles faced by the current technologies are the following:

Antigen Uptake by Dendritic Cells: Antigens are particular proteins recognizable by the immune system that are uniquely or highly expressed/present in tumor cells but not present in normal healthy cells. The first critical step in generating an effective antigen-specific or antigen-targeting T-cell response is efficient uptake of particular antigens by dendritic cells, which are the key antigen presenting cells of the immune system. Proteins and peptides are not naturally highly taken up by dendritic cells, creating obstacles to effective T-cell response in existing immunotherapies. Versamune^® has demonstrated the ability to promote antigen uptake by dendritic cells in-vivo.

Antigen Cross-Presentation and Killer (CD8+) T-Cell Priming: Suboptimal ability of the dendritic cells to internalize, process/break-down and present tumor antigens to the T-cells leads to ineffective activation or “priming” of killer T-cells. Dendritic cells are required to take up and process tumor antigens. These processed antigens then have to enter into an internal compartment of the cell, called the cytoplasm. The peptide’s presence in the cytoplasm is necessary to allow smaller processed proteins (peptides) to be presented to killer T-cells via what is known as the Major Histocompatibility Complex (“MHC”) Class I pathway or to helper T-cells via the MHC Class II pathway. This is the process of T-cell priming. Current technologies have presented limited ability to adequately facilitate antigen presentation via the MHC Class I process in vivo, therefore leading sub-optimal killer T-cell priming and then weaker-than-optimal anti-tumor potency. Versamune^® has demonstrated the ability to promote antigen processing and presentation via MHC Class I and Class II leading to effective CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell priming respectively (Ghandapudhi et al, J. Immunology, June 15, 2019, 202 (12) 3524-3536). T-cell priming trains the killer T-cells to effectively identify the tumor cells.

Immune Activation: Once T-cell priming has successfully occurred, a subsequent critical step is induction-specific immunological signals, including induction of certain chemokines and cytokines necessary for activation and proliferation of various classes of T-cells. Chemokines and cytokines are each a broad category of small proteins that are crucial for fighting off infections and other immune responses. Versamune^® has demonstrated the ability to specifically activate the important type I interferon signaling pathway, leading to induction of the right phenotype of active CD8+ T-cells with potent killing function (Ghandapudhi et al, J. Immunology, June 15, 2019, 202 (12) 3524-3536).

Overcoming Immune Suppression: A number of immune-suppressive mechanisms and cells naturally exist in humans that can increase in number within tumors. This results in the inhibition or blocking of ability of killer and helper T-cells to identify and kill the tumor cells. This state of immune tolerance must generally be

overcome for T-cells to be effective in killing antigen-expressing cancer cells. In preclinical studies, Versamune^® was demonstrated to alter the tumor micro-environment, making the tumors more susceptible to attack by T-cells (Ghandapudhi et al, J. Immunology, June 15, 2019, 202 (12) 3524-3536).

Complexity and Costs: The relatively high formulation and manufacturing complexities, as well as related high costs, associated with most commercially available immunotherapies is well documented. For example, live vector-based cancer vaccines and dendritic cell vaccines require complex and expensive processes to enable manufacturing of live agent (virus or bacteria) products. Versamune^® is based on synthetic positively charged lipids, which results in a much simpler and less expensive manufacturing process than most other immunotherapy technologies.

Versamune^® - A Next Generation Immunotherapy and Cancer Immunotherapy

Based on the shortcomings described above, we believe that a next generation immunotherapy agent that can overcome those limitations is likely to address significant unmet needs. Below is a chart comparing Versamune^®, a T-cell activating platform technology, to other cancer immunotherapy approaches. This table presents a general comparison of characteristics as understood and, in each category, PDS expects that there may be exceptions that display different characteristics. This table is not meant to represent every checkpoint inhibitor, cancer vaccine or CAR T-cell therapy, nor is it meant to imply that these are the only classes of immunotherapy. Further, this table does not reflect head-to-head clinical safety and efficacy data between any PDS product candidate and any competitor product candidates or approved products.

Versamune^® Platform

Versamune^® has been rationally designed and is based on synthetic positively charged (cationic) lipids. The structure of these lipids leads to spontaneous formation of nanoparticles in an aqueous medium. The nanoparticles are sized to promote efficient uptake by the antigen presenting cells of the immune system, the dendritic cells. The nanoparticles are combined with tumor antigens (proteins, peptides, DNA or RNA) and administered by subcutaneous injection.

Figure 1: Versamune nanoparticles

The initial concept for Versamune^® was first discovered and developed in 2005 by PDS’s scientific founder, Professor Leaf Huang, at the University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine. The Versamune^® technology is based on the use of immune activating cationic (positively charged) lipids that spontaneously form liposomal

nanoparticles in an aqueous medium. Huang, a world-renowned expert in liposome drug delivery and non-viral gene therapy, was familiar with the ability of cationic lipids to effectively deliver DNA into the cytoplasm of cells. PDS’s targeted research and development efforts identified critical structural characteristics of bio-active lipids, and then refined and built upon that initial concept.

PDS’s early development strategy was to assemble an expert team of third-party collaborators, with various and complementary areas of relevant expertise in immunology, molecular biology and tumor biology. This cross-functional team enabled PDS to develop and validate a unique platform encompassing and combining key attributes of the most promising immunotherapies, such as the live vectors and CAR T-cells, while also mitigating some of the most notable clinical shortcomings of those technologies. The resulting Versamune^® technology is believed to induce active and potent disease-specific helper and killer T-cells, while simultaneously suppressing the tumor’s defenses, thus becoming a key component in PDS’ product pipeline for further investigation of potential to treat both early and late-stage cancers.

The unique ability of Versamune^® to incorporate the critical characteristics described above is due to the following:

PDS Clinical Development Plan

Initially, PDS intends to demonstrate the application of the Versamune® platform’s attributes:

With additional financing, we plan to initiate clinical trials with PDS0102 (TARP-expressing cancers, e.g. prostate and breast cancers), PDS0103 (MUC-1 expressing cancers, e.g. colon, breast, lung and ovarian cancers) and PDS0104 (TRP2 expressing cancers, e.g. melanoma).

PDS 0101

We believe PDS0101, our lead product candidate, can, if ultimately approved, fundamentally improve patient outcomes and transform the management of HPV-related cancers. PDS0101 utilizes Versamune^®, PDS’ proprietary and versatile multi-functional platform technology, and also includes various peptides from oncogenic strains of the HPV virus.

PDS0101 + Keytruda^® in HPV-positive recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer

We have a collaboration agreement with Merck and Co. to combine PDS0101 with Merck’s checkpoint inhibitor, Keytruda®, in a Phase 2 human clinical trial as first in line treatment of HPV-positive recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer.

HPV-Positive Head and Neck Cancer Including Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma:

Head and neck cancers have been reported to be increasing in recent years, and have been described as a silent epidemic attributed to HPV infection. A recent study showed the overall prevalence of oral HPV infection to be 11.5% in men and 3.2% in women, or 11 million men and 3.2 million women in the United States. High-risk oral HPV-16 was over three times more common in men. Over 70% of oropharyngeal cancers are estimated to be HPV-associated in developed Western countries. It has been reported that about 90% of the OSCC tumors were positive for HPV-16. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) estimated that in 2013 about 36,000 people in the US would be diagnosed with OSCC. For 2017 the projections were increased to 49,670 new cases with an estimated 9,700 deaths. The current treatment options are surgery, radiation, chemotherapy or a targeted therapy, including checkpoint inhibitors.

PDS0101 Phase 1 Clinical Data

PDS completed a Phase 1 trial of PDS0101, which was conducted at three sites in the United States. The study was an Open-label Escalating Dose Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacodynamics of PDS0101 in subjects with Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia (CIN) and high-risk Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infections. The study included 3 cohorts of 3 to 6 subjects each, based on a modified “3 + 3” dose-escalation study design.

The study enrolled Cohort 1 and progressed through Cohort 3, with each subsequent cohort receiving a higher dose of PDS0101. Successive cohorts all received a constant dose of the HPV-16 E6 and E7 antigens. Subjects were given three subcutaneous injections of PDS0101, three weeks apart, and blood was drawn 14 days after each injection, as well as 90 days after the last injection. HPV-specific CD8+ T-cells were quantified using both the Interferon- ELISPOT assay (quantities all HPV-specific T-cells) granzyme-b ELISPOT assay (specifically quantifies active HPV-specific CD8+ T-cells). Dosing and dose escalation were based on safety evaluation for determination of potential dose-limiting toxicity (DLT).

A total of 12 subjects were enrolled. We believe the data show a strong induction of active HPV-specific killer T-cells (CD8+) observed with quantifiable amounts of the CD8+ T-cells retrieved from patient blood 14 days after treatment.

Figure 2: CD8+ T-cell data generated by Granzyme-b ELISPOT in the phase 1 clinical trial

The CD8+ T-cells results seen in the Phase 1 study confirmed preclinical projections of high levels of active granzyme-b inducing, HPV-specific CD8+ T-cells. The results obtained 90 days after the last injection also confirmed preclinical projections of memory T-cell induction. Of note, T-cell responses were independent of patient genetic/HLA sub types.

No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, even at the highest tested dose of 10mg. A dose of approx. 3mg has been selected to move forward into the upcoming PDS0101 Phase 2 clinical trials.

Other Development Programs

PDS0102 (TARP-expressing cancers) for the treatment of prostate and breast cancers

Prostate cancer: Based on promising Phase 2 clinical trials run by the NCI using TARP antigens, PDS and the NCI are collaborating to develop a Versamune^® platform-based immunotherapy for prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in the United States. Over 30,000 men die from the cancer every year according to the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and over two million Americans currently have prostate cancer. A recent report projects that the prostate cancer market will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 9.5%, from $7.6 billion in 2014 to $13.6 billion by 2021.

PDS0103 (MUC-1 expressing cancers) for the treatment of colorectal, breast, ovarian and lung cancers

PDS0103 is based on novel agonist antigens of the mucin-1 (MUC-1) oncogenic C-terminal region developed by the laboratory of Dr. Jeff Schlom, head of Tumor Biology at the NCI. MUC1 is highly expressed in multiple tumor types and has been shown to be associated with drug resistance and poor prognosis for a range of human tumors. The agonist peptides, compared to the native peptides, more efficiently enhance production of IFN-ã by peptide activated human T cells, and also more efficiently lyse human tumor cell targets in an MHC-restricted manner. It is also known that high avidity T-cells can lyse targets with 1,000-fold lower peptide-MHC complexes. The enhancer agonist epitopes developed induce higher avidity T-cells than self-antigens and has been demonstrated to be a successful strategy to enhance number and avidity of T-cells for MUC-1 directed immunotherapy.

These MUC-1 antigens have been licensed from the NCI for use with Versamune^® in ovarian, breast, colorectal and lung cancers.

We believe that an effective and safe immunotherapy targeting solid tumors expressing MUC-1 will gain rapid acceptance as a monotherapy in early-stage disease and initially as a combination therapy in later stage disease.

Colorectal cancer (CRC): Colorectal or colon cancer, includes cancerous growths in the colon, rectum and appendix. It is the third most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world. Global Markets estimates the colorectal cancer market to grow at 3% annually from $8.15 billion in 2015 to $11 billion in 2025 in the eight major markets, US, UK, England, France, Italy, Japan, China and Germany. We believe that there is significant market opportunity for immunotherapy, especially in early stage CRC disease where there is a lack of novel treatments outside chemotherapy.

Breast cancer: Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women worldwide. IMS Health reports that sales of breast cancer treatments will increase by an average of 5.8% a year in nine major markets, increasing from a value of $9.8 billion in 2013 to $18.2 billion by 2023.

Ovarian cancer: Ovarian cancer is the most common cause of death from gynecological tumors. Nearly 60,000 cases of ovarian cancer are diagnosed in the following seven major markets (the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Spain) each year. The five-year survival rate of ovarian cancer patients remains below 20%. The American Cancer Society reports that in the US about 22,240 women will receive a new diagnosis of ovarian cancer, and about 14,000 women will die from ovarian cancer in 2018. We believe that there is a significant market opportunity for immunotherapy especially in early stage disease where there is a lack of novel treatments outside chemotherapy.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): NSCLC is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the major pharmaceutical markets. There is still a clear unmet need in the treatment of NSCLC despite products such as Alimta^®, Avastin^®, Iressa^® and Tarceva^®. The NSCLC treatment market is expected to reach $12.2 billion by 2025. Growth is expected to be driven by novel therapies entering the squamous cell carcinoma market segment, which is currently lacking effective treatment, unlike the non-squamous market segment.

PDS 0104 (TRP2 expressing cancers) for the treatment of melanoma

PDS has performed substantial preclinical work in advanced melanoma tumor models where we have observed the ability of PDS0104 to overcome immune suppression and inhibit growth of B16 melanoma tumors (Vasievich et al, Molecular Pharmaceutics, 2012, 9, 2, 261-268). Preclinical studies have also demonstrated a strong synergy between PDS0104 and checkpoint inhibitors, resulting in dramatically improved antitumor response and prolonged survival.

Melanoma is a malignant tumor of the melanocytes. Melanoma is primarily a skin tumor, although it may also occur less frequently in the melanocytes of the eye. It is currently the seventh most common cancer in the US. Melanoma comprises 5% of all skin cancers. The most common causes are exposure to ultra violet radiation from the sun, leading to damage to the DNA of the melanocytes of the skin, family history, an impaired immune system and atypical moles on the body. The American Cancer Society estimated that there will be about 91,270 new cases of melanoma in 2018, and over 9,000 deaths. No effective therapies existed for advanced cancer until the immunotherapy Yervoy^® was approved by the FDA in March of 2011.

Versamune-Based Product Candidates

The following tables outlines PDS’ pipeline of product candidates:

Commercialization of Product Candidates

PDS retains worldwide rights to all of our product candidates. If our product candidates are approved, we intend to establish targeted commercialization and marketing capabilities for our products in the United States, Canada and Europe by developing a sales force that would focus on academic medical centers and large oncology clinics. For commercialization outside of the United States, Canada and Europe, we generally expect to enter into collaborations with strategic partners.

A Summary of the Current State-of-the-art

Two approaches, dendritic cell vaccines and CAR T-cell immunotherapies, are the two commercial/FDA approved technologies that have presented the best promise to date in addressing other technologies’ inability to effectively present antigens to the dendritic cells inside the body:

Dendritic Cell Vaccines: Dendritic cell vaccines eliminate the need to target and deliver antigens to dendritic cells in-vivo. In these products, immature dendritic cells or monocyte precursors of the patient’s dendritic cells are removed from the patient’s blood and cultured outside the body. The dendritic cells are then treated with tumor antigens, and matured dendritic cells are re-infused into the patient to present the processed antigen material to the patient’s T-cells.

Recent data reported with Provenge^®, a prostate cancer vaccine, suggests that its induced immune responses are long-lived, with strong T-cell responses still observed in most surviving patients at two years after treatment. Nevertheless, this approach does not appear to address the immuno-suppressive environment in tumors, or provide immune activation/stimulation necessary to enhance activity of primed T-cells. Importantly, recent studies have demonstrated that antigen uptake and processing is still suboptimal when dendritic cells are treated ex-vivo.

CAR T-Cell Immunotherapy: CAR T-cell immunotherapy is based on manipulating T-cells collected from patients’ own blood. After collection, T-cells are genetically engineered to produce special receptors on their surface called chimeric antigen receptors (“CARs”). CARs are proteins that allow T-cells to recognize a specific protein (antigen) on tumor cells. These engineered CAR T-cells are then grown in the laboratory until they number in the billions. This expanded population of CAR T-cells is then intravenously infused into the patient. After the infusion, the T-cells are expected to multiply in the patient’s body and, with guidance from their engineered receptor, recognize and kill cancer cells that display the antigen on their surfaces. Two CAR-T therapies have been approved to treat large B-cell lymphoma, Kymriah^® and Yescarta^®, and others are being tested in clinical trials.

CAR T-cell immunotherapy overcomes the need to perform in-vivo antigen processing and uptake by dendritic cells. Recent data in blood cancers have shown promising results with a high rate of complete remissions. These results confirm the ability or importance of killer T-cells in targeting and killing cancerous cells. Nevertheless, this approach does not appear to address the immuno-suppressive environment in solid tumors, and can cause significant side effects. Perhaps the most troublesome side effect is cytokine-release syndrome. The infused T-cells release cytokines, leading to a rapid and large presence in the bloodstream. This can cause dangerously high fevers and precipitous drops in blood pressure. Relatively high cost and complex manufacturing processes for CAR-T therapies may also limit the broader applicability of CAR T-cell immunotherapies in the long run.

Other promising approaches under evaluation in clinical trials are:

Live Vectors: This approach uses live vectors, predominantly live viruses or live bacteria, with added copies of a plasmid that encodes the protein antigen DNA sequence. The protein is then secreted by the virus or bacteria once taken up by the dendritic cells. Studies have shown this approach can result in successful stimulation of T-cells and antibodies.

Antibodies: This approach uses dendritic cell targeting antibodies linked to tumor antigens in order to facilitate dendritic cell uptake of those antigens.

Electroporation: This approach involves generation of electrical pulses through the skin. This technology delivers antigenic DNA into the dendritic cells residing beneath the skin. The protein then has to be secreted by the dendritic cells once the DNA has been successfully delivered. Studies have shown this approach can result in successful stimulation of T-cells and antibodies.

Several of the technologies summarized above have not demonstrated the ability to effectively activate the necessary immunological mechanisms required to induce optimal killer T-cell responses. Additionally, many of these approaches do not activate mechanisms to combat or reduce immuno-suppressive cell populations within tumors. These drawbacks may lead to suboptimal responses, and the need to combine them with other technologies in the long run to improve their clinical responses.

Some efforts to address the immuno-suppressive environment have focused on developing antibodies focused on blocking immune checkpoints. These are known as the checkpoint inhibitors. Checkpoint inhibitors have had the most developmental attention and commercial success to date in the field of cancer immunotherapy. The function of checkpoint inhibitors is to block normal proteins on cancer cells, or the proteins on T-cells that respond to them. The result is to make cancer cells more visible to T-cells. This then helps generate a T-cell assault on the cancer. To date, more than six checkpoint inhibitors have received rapid approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. These include ipilimumab (Yervoy^®), pembrolizumab (Keytruda^®), and nivolumab (Opdivo^®).

The development of each of the immunotherapies described below has encountered certain safety concerns:

Adjuvant-Based Cancer Vaccines: Adjuvant-based cancer vaccines appear to be quite well tolerated, with the most commonly reported adverse events being injection site reactions and systemic toxicities. These systemic inflammatory immune responses are sometimes caused by the use of the immune activators, known as adjuvants. Such adjuvants may have the potential to induce high cytokine levels in the blood, which can sometimes lead to severe side effects as a result of cytokine storms.

Cytokine Therapies: Products that administer cytokines present strong potential for high toxicity due to such cytokine storms.

Live Vector-Based Cancer Vaccines: Systemic toxicities have been reported with some live virus and bacteria technologies administered by intravenous infusion. Certain clinical trials have been suspended due to patient deaths suspected, but not confirmed, to have resulted from treatment-related toxicities.

CAR T-Cells: High numbers of infused T-cells can result in extremely high and debilitating systemic inflammation. In some recent clinical studies, patient deaths were reported as a result of high numbers of infused T-cells. These clinical trials were then suspended by the FDA.

Checkpoint Inhibitors: The use of checkpoint inhibitor antibodies to overcome tumor immune suppression is known to present the potential for triggering autoimmune disease.

Versamune^® Mechanisms of Action (MOA)

We believe that the Versamune^® platform has a multi-functional mechanism of action, or MOA, which is responsible for its strong antigen-specific T-cell activity, that could potentially lead to clinical confirmation of efficacy (Ghandapudhi et al, J. Immunology, June 15, 2019, 202 (12) 3524-3536). PDS continues to further study and validate some of these detailed molecular signaling mechanisms.

The section below summarizes studies that have been performed to confirm the mechanisms by which the Versamune^®-based products elicit strong anti-tumor responses apparently without the toxicities typical of current immunotherapy.

Figure 3: Summary of the versatile and multi-functional mechanism of the Versamune^® platform that leads to demonstrated anti-tumor activity

Antigen Uptake

The critical first step in the process of effectively priming T-cells is uptake of disease-related antigens in the formulation. Versamune^® exploits the well-studied function of dendritic cells to “take up” particulate matter, and no targeting mechanisms are therefore believed to be required to facilitate this uptake. The positive charge of Versamune^® leads to enhanced association with negatively charged cell surfaces, resulting in high internalization by the dendritic cells.

To confirm this effective uptake by dendritic cells, a number of in-vivo confirmatory studies were successfully completed:

Example 1: In-vitro studies performed to examine the ability of Versamune^® to promote antigen uptake and processing by bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (BMDC):

The protein ovalbumin (OVA) was used as a model antigen. Uptake of OVA into BMDC was visualized using Alexa 647-OVA. BMDC were incubated for various times with Versamune^® and Alexa 647-OVA or Alexa 647 OVA alone followed by measurement of Alexa 647-OVA fluorescence by flow cytometry. Although some Alexa 647-OVA uptake was observed in BMDC incubated with Alexa 647-OVA alone, uptake was dramatically enhanced in the presence of Versamune^®. Notably, Versamune^® facilitated significant uptake within the first 10 minutes and continued throughout the hour (Figure 4).

Presumably, OVA uptake mediated by Versamune^® would deliver OVA into acidic endosomes where OVA processing would be expected to occur. To evaluate processing, PDS utilized DQ-OVA, which is a heavily fluorescent OVA that self- quenches in the intact molecule, but fluoresces when degraded. Incubation of BMDC with DQ-OVA and Versamune^® resulted in a significant shift to red fluorescence indicative of extensive processing and endosomal accumulation. Incubation of BMDC with DQ-OVA and the potent adjuvant LPS did not result in enhanced processing (Figure 5). Thus, in this study, Versamune^® promoted rapid protein uptake and processing in BMDC, presumably in the endosomal compartments.

Figure 4: Versamune^® enhances protein uptake by dendritic cells

Bone marrow derived dendritic cells were incubated with Alexa-647 conjugated ovalbumin admixed with sucrose or Versamune^® (R-DOTAP) nanoparticles for indicated times and the association of ovalbumin with BMDCs was represented as mean fluorescence intensity.

Figure 5: Versamune^® enhances processing of antigen by dendritic cells

Bone marrow derived dendritic cells were incubated with DQ conjugated ovalbumin admixed with sucrose or Versamune^® nanoparticles or LPS (1µg/ml) for indicated times and the association of ovalbumin with BMDCs was represented as mean fluorescence intensity.

DQ-Ovalbumin processing at 60 minutes was measured by assessing the fluorescence in the FITC channel (FL1H) and the fluorescence in the PE-channel (FL2H) which represents the ovalbumin processing.

To further examine the ability of Versamune^® to influence cross presentation of antigens to killer T-cells (CD8+) by dendritic cells, studies were performed utilizing the B3Z T cell hybridoma, which expresses a T-cell receptor specific for the CD8-specific SL9 peptide of ovalbumin presented by H-2K^b. B3Z cells express a reporter lacZ gene under the control of the nuclear factor of activated T cells (NFAT) promoter providing a rapid and sensitive assay for the processing and presentation of SL9 antigen by dendritic cells. BMDCs were incubated with a long ovalbumin peptide (OVA_241-270) containing the SL9 epitope formulated with Versamune^® nanoparticles or sucrose buffer for 1hr at 37^oC to load the peptide on to BMDCs. Excess peptide was removed by washing and BMDCs were then co-cultured with B3Z cells overnight. The efficiency of SL9 peptide cross presentation by BMDCs was measured using a colorimetric lacZ detection assay. While incubation of BMDC with peptide alone resulted in some cross presentation to B3Z cells, the addition of Versamune^® nanoparticles resulted in maximal stimulation with approximately 100-fold less peptide (Figure 6). These results suggested that Versamune^® dramatically enhances cross presentation of antigens to CD8+ T-cells.

Figure 6: Versamune^® promotes antigen cross-presentation to killer T-cells (CD8+) in-vitro

BMDCs were pulsed for 10 minutes with indicated concentrations of OVA (241-270) peptide admixed with sucrose (green) or Versamune^® (red) and co-cultured with B3Z cells overnight and lacZ production by OVA peptide-stimulated B3Z was measured using lacZ colorimetric assay.

Overall the studies summarized in Example 1 demonstrate the ability of Versamune^® to potentially overcome a significant limitation of current immunotherapeutic approaches. This critical limitation is the sub-optimal uptake, processing and cross-presentation of antigens resulting in weak induction of tumor-targeting killer T-cells.

Antigen Presentation

One of the most important characteristics of the Versamune^®-based lipids is their ability to facilitate entry of antigens into the cytoplasm of dendritic cells, and subsequent efficient presentation to T-cells leading to effective T-cell priming. This characteristic is expected to help the Versamune^®-based products overcome one of the most significant obstacles facing the field of cancer immunotherapy.

The use of cationic lipids in cancer and infectious disease immunotherapy has gained significant attention due to the work of Prof. Leaf Huang and the unique properties of these lipid particles in delivering their content effectively into antigen presenting cells such as dendritic cells.

To confirm that Versamune^® facilitates antigen presentation to CD8+ (killer) and CD4+ (helper) T-cells via MHC Class I and Class II, respectively, a number of in-vivo and in-vitro confirmatory studies were performed.

Example 2: In-vivo studies to confirm the ability of Versamune^® to perform cross presentation to CD8+ T-cells

To directly examine cross presentation in vivo following Versamune^® administration with antigen, these studies utilized an adoptive transfer model in which OT-I T-cell receptor (TCR) transgenic T cells specific for the CD8 epitope SL9 of ovalbumin (OVA) used as a model antigen and presented by H-2K^b were labeled with carboxy fluorescein succinimidyl ester (CFSE), a fluorescent cell staining dye and transferred into normal C57BL/6 mice.

Activation and proliferation of OT-1 cells in the adoptive transfer mice requires in-vivo processing of whole OVA into the SL9 epitope and presentation on the H-2K^b MHC class I molecule, i.e. cross presentation. Mice were then injected in the footpad with 1μg of whole OVA admixed with either sucrose or Versamune^®. Proliferation of the transgenic T cells in the draining popliteal lymph node was assessed by flow cytometry measuring CFSE dilution in the transgenic T cells.

The draining lymph nodes (DLN) draining the Versamune^® + OVA footpads were noticeably enlarged, and this was reflected in an increased total cell number isolated per lymph node. There was also a significant increase in total OT-1, both divided and undivided in the Versamune^® + OVA-treated mice compared to OVA alone (Figure 7).

Thus, Versamune^® facilitated processing and MHC class I cross presentation of whole protein to CD8+ T cells in the draining lymph node when administered subcutaneously. Similar results were obtained utilizing

class-II OVA-specific transgenic T-cells demonstrating that Versamune^® facilitated MHC class II presentation of whole protein to CD4+ T cells in the draining lymph node when administered subcutaneously.

Figure 7: Versamune^® (R-DOTAP) promotes antigen cross presentation in-vivo leading to superior proliferation of OT-1 CD8+ T-cells

Total number of antigen specific cells in the draining popliteal lymph nodes in each vaccinated mouse were enumerated using hemocytometer and antigen specific CD8 T cell expansion was measured by CFSE dilution assay and total number of OT-1 CD8T cells.

Immune Activation

The ability of certain structurally-specific cationic lipids to act as potent immune activators was first reported by Prof. Leaf Huang. Subsequent studies have identified the fact that the cationic lipids activate (or upregulate) the type I interferon genes. The type I interferon signaling pathway is well documented to be highly important in activation and proliferation of killer T-cells. PDS’s studies have demonstrated that cationic lipids utilize certain pathways to upregulate type I interferons.

To better understand how the cationic lipids induce potent immune activation without the typically observed inflammatory toxic side effects, a number of further studies were performed.

Example 3: Studies to understand the immunological effects of Versamune^® and resulting T-cell responses

To examine the immunostimulatory effect of Versamune^® in the draining lymph node, mice were injected with Versamune^® nanoparticles in the footpad and inflammatory gene expression was monitored in purified CD11c dendritic cells from the draining or non-draining popliteal lymph nodes after 4h or 24h by Nanostring multiplex analysis.

Among the inflammatory genes examined, the strongest genes up-regulated were those involved in the type I interferon pathway. These included IFNα, IFNβ, CXCL10, and Stat 1. No induction of classical NFκB dependent cytokines was observed (Figure 8). This result suggested that Versamune^® is capable of inducing type I IFN in dendritic cells.

To directly examine type I IFN production by dendritic cells, BMDC were incubated with Versamune^® or LPS as a positive control for 18h and type I IFN was measured in the B16-Blue bioassay. There was a significant dose dependent induction of type I IFN in BMDC by Versamune^®.

Figure 8: Versamune^® (R-DOTAP) administration induces in-vivo lymph node production of Type I interferons known to be critical for CD8+ T-cell activation.

Mice were injected with Versamune^® or sucrose in the foot pad and draining popliteal lymph nodes were harvested from each mouse and CD11c cells from pooled lymph nodes were sort purified. Relative gene expression from sort purified CD11c cells from Versamune^® or LPS injected mice were analyzed using Nano string technology.

Cytokine/Chemokine Induction:

In preclinical studies, cytokine and chemokine induction were observed within lymph nodes within 24 hours of a single subcutaneous injection, and persisted for at least 5 days. This is important as cytokines and chemokines are known to be important in the activation and proliferation of T-cells (Figure 9). A separate study performed to evaluate the effect of Versamune^® on induction of 20 key cytokines and chemokines demonstrated that, unlike a traditional T-cell activating immunotherapy used as a positive control, that Versamune^® injection led to negligible increase in blood cytokine levels above normal baseline levels. This finding was important for 2 reasons:

Figure 9: Single subcutaneous injection of PDS0101 leads to sustained and elevated levels of the important CD8+ T-cell activating chemokine CCL2 (MCP-1).

On day 0, mice (n=3) were injected with PDS0101formulation.

On the indicated days, the mice were sacrificed and the draining lymph nodes collected.

The draining lymph nodes were homogenized in 100 μl ELISA buffer (10% FBS in PBS) and then analyzed by ELISA assay.

Activation and Proliferation of T-Cells:

As noted above, Versamune^® was demonstrated to induce production of various chemokines in lymph nodes. Chemokines play a major role in selectively recruiting monocytes, neutrophils, and T-cells. It was demonstrated that, within a few hours of administering Versamune^®, significant T-cell infiltration into the lymph nodes results.

Administration of Versamune^® resulted in a visible increase in draining lymph node (DLN) size of wild type mice and this was due to a steady increase in total cell number over a seven-day period (Figure 10). This increase in total cell number was found to be dependent on the ability of Versamune^® to induce type I IFN signaling, as this effect was greatly reduced in IFNαR knock-out mice which are devoid of type I interferons.

Type I IFN is known to inhibit lymphocyte egress from lymphoid organs through the up-regulation of CD69, which in turn, inhibits the sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor required for lymphocyte egress. It has now been demonstrated that administration of Versamune^® induces type I IFN in the lymph nodes, which in turn, up-regulates CD69 in T cells and natural killer cells resulting in their accumulation in the lymph nodes. This effect facilitates effective interaction of T-cells with dendritic cells leading to effective priming of T-cells.

When Versamune^® is administered together with an antigen, strong T-cell priming to recognize the particular antigen, activation and proliferation is facilitated. Figure 11 shows a comparison of T-cell activation between Versamune^® and the potent immune activator GM-CSF, demonstrating higher levels of CD8+ T-cell induction by Versamune^®.

Quality of induced T-Cells:

A qualitative factor now known to be highly important in the ability of T-cells to lyse, or kill, infected cells is the quality or potency of T-cells. T-cell quality is directly related to its polyfunctionality, or its ability to induce more than one cytokine. In order to better understand the strength of Versamune^®-induced immune responses and their clinical relevance, head-to-head comparisons were made with promising adjuvant-based therapeutic vaccine formulations which had shown promise in preclinical and clinical studies.

We first compared a prototype Versamune^®-MUC1 formulation (PDS0103) to two emulsion-based adjuvants in clinical development. Montanide is a proprietary emulsion adjuvant currently being used in peptide-based cancer vaccines. Another potent emulsion-based combination adjuvant formulation specifically designed to induce strong in-vivo CD8 T cell responses consists of the 4-adjuvant combination of incomplete Freund’s adjuvant, IL-12, GM-CSF, and HBV_128-140 helper epitope (IFA-Cyt). Mice receiving PDS0103 showed strong responses to both V1A and V2A CD8+ stimulatory. In contrast IFA-Cyt generated an equivalent strong response only to V2A, and Montanide induced responses were significantly lower for both V1A and V2A peptides.

Next, the polyfunctionality (ability to produce multiple cytokines) of induced antigen specific CD8 T cells was assessed by measuring their ability to produce cytokines interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) or interleukin-2 (IL-2) by intracellular cytokine staining. In this assay, it was observed that Versamune^®-based formulations stimulated the highest percentages of polyfunctional antigen specific CD8 T cells compared to the other two tested emulsion-based lipid formulations (Figure 13), suggesting that Versamune^® may induce not only a higher number of CD8 T-cells in-vivo, but also potentially qualitatively superior T cells (higher potency) compared to other typical immunotherapy approaches.

Figure 12: Versamune^® (R-DOTAP) formulations containing multiple MUC-1 tumor associated antigens (PDS0103) induce quantitatively superior CD8 T cells responses.

Groups of AAD mice (n=6) were injected with the indicated formulations containing MUC-1 CD8 T cell epitope antigens on day 0 and boosted on day 7. MUC-1 specific CD8 T cell responses in the spleen were assessed 7 days after the second injection by ELISPOT assay. (A) Number of V1A, V2A, C1A, and C2A specific IFN_-γ producing cells in spleens from mice injected with Human MUC-1 peptides. (C) Number of V1A, and V2A specific IFN_-γ producing cells in spleen from mice vaccinated with Versamune^®, IFN-Cyt or Montanide formulations containing Human MUC-1 peptides. Versamune induces approximately a 10 fold higher number of polyfunctional (the most potent) T-Cells then other leading therapies.

Figure 13:

Versamune^® (R-DOTAP) formulations containing multiple MUC-1 tumor associated antigens (PDS0103) induce qualitatively superior CD8 T cells responses.

Groups of AAD mice (n=6) were injected with the indicated formulations containing MUC-1 CD8 T cell epitope antigens on day 0 and boosted on day 7. Fraction of V1A or PMA/Ionomycin (positive control) stimulated cells in spleen producing multi-cytokine (IFN_-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2) among the IFN_-γ producing cells. PMA/Ionomycin is a commonly used in-vitro stimulant used to induce cytokine production by T-cells for research purposes.

Enantiomeric Specificity of the Cationic Lipids: Cationic lipids exist as 50:50 racemic mixtures of two asymmetric molecules, each called an enantiomer. Enantiomers are referred to as chiral, meaning they have identical physical and chemical structure and are mirror images of each other. Each of the enantiomers can be regarded as separate chemical entities if they can be demonstrated to possess different biological activity. PDS discovered that the R-enantiomer of the cationic lipid DOTAP is the immuno-active component of the mixture, with the S-enantiomer having weaker immune activating capability. R-DOTAP is the active ingredient now used in Versamune^®. PDS’s products are the first pharmaceutical products to contain a pure cationic lipid enantiomer, and its use in cancer immunotherapy is protected by several issued patents.

Altering the Tumor Microenvironment to Overcome Immune Suppression

The demonstrated ability of Versamune^® to induce effective regression of established tumors strongly suggested that cationic lipids, such as R-DOTAP, could facilitate an altering of the tumor micro-environment sufficient to break tumor immune tolerance and induce killing of tumor cells.

Example 4: Studies to understand the effect of the Versamune^®-based immunotherapy on the tumor’s microenvironment:

To better understand Versamune^®-induced changes within the tumor microenvironment, TC-1 tumor bearing B6 mice were subcutaneously injected on day 0 and day 7 with a Versamune^®-based formulation containing a multi-epitope HPV peptide antigen (KF18) and assessed the effector (T-cell) and suppressor T cell (immune suppressive regulatory T-cells) recruitment to the tumor microenvironment on day 26. For comparison, a GMCSF adjuvant-based formulation that has been shown to induce strong CD8+ T cell immune responses in vivo in a clinical setting was also evaluated for comparative purposes. ELISPOT analysis (Figure 11) of CD8+ specific T cells (RF9) showed that tumor-bearing mice treated with the Versamune^®-based formulation induced a superior sIFN-γ ELISPOT response to the RF9 CD8 T cell epitope detected in the spleens 7 days after the second injection.

Mice treated with GMCSF + KF18 stimulated a modest antigen specific T cell ELISPOT response, while, as expected, no response was observed with KF18 antigen alone, GMCSF, or Versamune^® alone. To evaluate the tumor microenvironment during Versamune^® induced tumor regression, groups of mice were treated with Versamune^® + an HPV multi-peptide mixture containing KF18, with or without GMCSF.

To assess the cell types present within the tumor after various treatments, tumors were removed, enzymatically digested and cell populations analyzed by flow cytometry. CD4 helper T-cells, RF9-specific CD8 killer T-cells, FOXP3+ immune suppressive regulatory T-cells (Treg) were analyzed.

Versamune^® + HPV peptide treated mice showed the highest percentage of CD8+ T cells within the tumor, and about 50% of these cells were RF9 specific. GMCSF and antigen, or antigen alone did not induce significant CD8 or CD8-RF9 specific T cell infiltration into the tumors. The CD8/CD4 ratio was highest in the Versamune^® + HPV mix group and the Treg/RF9 specific T cell ratio within the tumors was dramatically lower in the Versamune^® and HPV mix groups (Figure 14).

These data collectively suggest that Versamune^®-based formulations induced a quantitatively superior antigen specific T cell response and the cells were actively recruited to the tumors in large numbers promoting anti-tumor responses and eventually alter the tumor’s microenvironment to promote regression and elimination of established tumors.

Figure 14:

Versamune^® efficiently alters effector T-cell to immune suppressor T cell ratio within the tumor, therefore promoting tumor regression.

Groups of C57BL/6J mice (n=5) were injected with the indicated formulation containing a HPV peptide antigen mixed with Versamune^®, Versamune^® plus GM-CSF, GMCSF, or sucrose on day 0 and injected again on day 7. Mice (n=10) were implanted subcutaneously with 1 X 10⁵ TC-1 tumor cells and were given a single dose of each formulation when the tumors reached an average diameter of 4-5 mm on day 11 and tumor growth was monitored. The mice (n=5) were euthanized 8 days post treatment when the mice showed initial signs of regression and the tumors were processed to assess tumor infiltrating cells. Ratio of CD4/CD8 cells and ratio of immune suppressive Treg cells/RF9 CD8+ positive cells in the enzymatically digested tumor cell suspension were evaluated. Data represent mean ± SEM from each group (n= 5) and experiments are repeated at least 3 times with similar results.

Discussion of the effects of the studied attributes of Versamune^® on tumor regression

T-cell-inducing immuno-therapeutic approaches to date have primarily focused on optimizing antigen-specific CD8 T cell induction. These approaches include designs to enhance antigen delivery, uptake and presentation of antigen including approaches such as the use of DNA, viral or intracellular bacterial vectors, nanoparticles, targeting of the antigen to DC through conjugation or pulsing DC in vitro with antigen.

Most of these approaches also include immunostimulatory compounds, typically toll-like-receptor, or TLR, agonists designed to induce the desired cytokine production. Still others include recombinant cytokines like IL-2, IL-12 or GMCSF. PDS’s demonstration that the Versamune^® platform functions as an activator of the type I interferon pathway explains the apparent unique ability of Versamune^® formulations to induce potent T-cell responses without inclusion in the formulation of extraneous cytokines or TLR agonists.

One of the most effective cancer vaccines reported to date consists of:

This complex multi-component immunotherapy induced strong CD8+ T-cell responses and tumor regression in the HPV-positive TC-1 mouse model. However, in the absence of anti-PD1 checkpoint blockade, this product did not induce complete regression of a TC-1 tumor using the same RF9 peptide antigen as in PDS’s studies.

In contrast, Versamune^® nanoparticles, formulated with HPV peptide antigen KF18, effected complete regression of large TC-1 tumors in mice with a single subcutaneous injection (Figure 15). PDS’s studies support the projection that Versamune^® nanoparticles, combined with protein or peptide antigens, may possess the critical properties for a powerful CD8+ T-cell immunotherapy. These include:

Figure 15:

Versamune^® (R-DOTAP) efficiently alters effector to suppressor T cell ratio promoting effective regression of HPV-positive TC-1 tumors.

Groups of C57BL/6J mice (n=10) were implanted subcutaneously with 1 X 10⁵ TC-1 tumor cells and were given a single dose of a formulation containing HPV CD8 T cell epitopes mixed with Versamune^®, Versamune^® plus GM-CSF, GMCSF, or sucrose when the tumors reached an average diameter of 4-5 mm on day 11 and tumor growth was monitored. Tumor regression only occurred in the formulations containing Versamune^®. Addition of GMCSF to Versamune^® appeared to provide no additional benefit.

Anti-Tumor Efficacy in Advanced and Immuno-Suppressive B16F10 Model:

PDS utilized the aggressive subcutaneous B16F10 animal model in order to study Versamune^® anti-tumor efficacy in a well-documented and extremely highly immuno-suppressive tumor microenvironment. This study was a follow-up to above described studies showing potent anti-tumor activity in HPV-positive TC-1 tumors with single doses.

The advanced B16F10 solid tumor model is rarely used in cancer immunotherapy development. More often, the prophylactic model is evaluated, where treatment occurs prior to inoculation with B16F10 tumor cells with the goal of preventing establishment of tumors. This is because once the tumors become well-established, various immune-suppressive mechanisms develop in tumors that are able to suppress T-cell activity. This suppression results in a lack of T-cell anti-tumor effect.

This study utilized an advanced tumor model, with 3 x 10⁵ B16F10-luc cells subcutaneously inoculated into mice, to ensure that all mice had established and measurable tumors within 6 days of tumor cell inoculation.

Examples of reported B16F10 studies using selected other immunotherapeutic technologies:

In PDS’s published study (Vasievich et al, Molecular Pharmaceutics, 2012, 9, 2, 261-268), a single dose of 300nmole Versamune^® with 75nmole Trp2 peptide led to a significant increase in the presence of active CD8+ T-cells (IFN-γ secreting) and inhibition of tumor growth.

The ability of Versamune^® to facilitate intracellular delivery of the Trp2 peptide, and to break the immune tolerance developed by the B16F10 tumor model after only one dose, strongly suggests that Versamune^® may potentially provide a superior approach to currently available technologies.

Combination Immunotherapy

One common clinical goal of administration of immunotherapies to cancer patients is to spark a self-sustaining attack against cancer cells by the T cells, thereby producing long-term clinical benefit. Currently, there are approximately 2,000 immunotherapeutic agents in development. Some cancer patients respond better to the immunotherapies than others, due in part to the factors described above.

The limitations of current immunotherapy technologies as cancer monotherapies are now resulting in increasing testing of multiple cancer drugs in combination. As a result, combination immunotherapy is now generally believed to be the latest frontier in cancer research, and over a thousand such combination therapy clinical trials are currently ongoing. Due to the ability of the checkpoint inhibitors to alter the tumor’s immune suppressive environment by blocking the immune checkpoints, the vast majority of the combination trials involve checkpoint inhibitors. However, due to the known need for CD8+ T-cell induction, checkpoint inhibitors have only generally been proven to be optimally clinically successful in a minority of treated patients to date.

Thus far, nivolumab with ipilimumab, which targets PD-1 and CTLA-4 respectively, is the only checkpoint-inhibitor combination approved for clinical use. It was approved to treat metastatic melanoma by the FDA in 2015. In a published study report, this combination was shown to delay tumor progression in melanoma by a median of 11.5 months, almost twice as long as in those on nivolumab alone, and almost four times as long as in people treated with only ipilimumab (Larkin, J.). Then, in October 2017, in a published study report, researchers demonstrated that this combination extended survival times: people with melanoma lived longer on the combined treatments, with 58% still alive after three years compared with 52% of those treated with nivolumab alone.

However, these improved survival rates were paired with reports of increased toxicity. Almost 60% of people taking the combination experienced severe side effects such as colitis or diarrhea - three times as many as those treated with nivolumab, and twice as many as those treated with ipilimumab.

PDS believes that rational design of combination immunotherapies using agents that promote synergy with each other and reduced potential for compounded toxicity would substantially improve potential for combination therapies to deliver improved clinical benefit for cancer patients. PDS believes that the fact that Versamune^® appears to activate the appropriate combination of immunological pathways that promote strong CD8+ T-cell induction, while also altering the tumor’s microenvironment to make the tumor more susceptible to T-cell attack, makes it an ideal complement to the checkpoint inhibitors to enhance their potency. In addition, the differences in mechanism of action between Versamune^® and checkpoint inhibitors, as well as the initial demonstrated safety profile of Versamune^®, suggests that these combinations may be much better tolerated by patients than many or most other combination therapies involving checkpoint inhibitors.

Example 5: Studies to understand the effect of Versamune^®-based immunotherapy combined with a checkpoint inhibitor in a difficult-to treat preclinical tumor model:

To determine if checkpoint inhibitors enhanced the anti-tumor response of Versamune^®, preclinical studies were performed employing the B16F10 melanoma model. B16F10 is a notoriously difficult tumor to successfully treat with antigen-specific immunotherapy, and monotherapy. One reason is that many of the antigens targeted are self-antigens to which there is some degree of immune tolerance. A previous study performed by PDS demonstrated that TRP2 antigen dose was important in the ability of R-DOTAP to break the tumor’s immune tolerance, and a 75µmol dose was demonstrated to inhibit tumor growth but did not induce regression.

The Versamune^® plus Trp2 formulation was shown to induce a strong CD8 T cell response. Trp2 is a 9aa tyrosinase related peptide presented by the H-2K^b molecule (Trp2_180-188: SVYDFFVWL). Subcutaneous injection with Versamune^® and Trp2 resulted in strong CD8+ T-cell ELISPOT responses whereas Trp2 alone did not elicit any T-cell response (Figure 16A). To determine whether anti-PD1 treatment synergized with Versamune^® and Trp2 treatment in slowing the growth of B16 melanoma, mice were implanted with B16F10 melanoma and injected with Versamune^® and Trp2 when tumors reached a size of 3mm. In addition, some groups received 5 injections of anti-PD1 antibody.

Treatment with Versamune^® and Trp2 resulted in some slowing of tumor growth compared to naïve or anti-PD1 only groups, which demonstrated no impact on tumor growth.

When Versamune^® and Trp2 vaccination was combined with anti-PD1 treatment a synergistic effect was apparent resulting in a dramatic inhibition of tumor growth and an extension of survival (Figure 16 B-C). Tumor growth rate was observed to increase upon halting the anti-PD1 treatment.

These results strongly suggest an effective immunotherapeutic synergy between the Versamune^® T-cell activating platform and the checkpoint inhibitors. Versamune^® may therefore potentially be successfully combined with a checkpoint inhibitor in human combination immunotherapy strategies. One such trial with PDS0101 is anticipated to begin in late 2019.

Figure 16: Versamune^® (R-DOTAP) synergizes with anti-mouse PD1 checkpoint inhibitor treatment to significantly alter B16 melanoma tumor growth in vivo. Groups of C57BL/6J mice (n=5) were treated with the Versamune^® plus TRP2 nanoparticles or TRP2 mixed in sucrose buffer on day 0 and boosted on day 7. A) Antigen specific CD8+ T cell responses in spleen were assessed 7 days after the second vaccination by ELISPOT assay. B-C) Mice were implanted subcutaneously with 1 X 10⁵ B16.F10 tumor cells and were subcutaneously injected with two doses of Versamune^® plus TRP2 nanoparticles on day 5 and 12 after tumor implant. For anti-mouse PD1 therapy, each mouse received five doses of 200 µg of anti-mouse PD1 antibody delivered i.p. at 3-day intervals starting on day 5 after tumor implant. B) Mean tumor volume ± SEM (n=5) in vaccinated or naïve mice. C) Survival over the course of the study.

Research and Development Strategy

PDS focuses on developing a relatively low-risk path to successful clinical development and proof of concept (“POC”). To accomplish this, PDS formed collaborations with a number of experts in tumor biology, immunology and immuno-oncology. These partnerships have historically reduced PDS’ development and clinical trial expenses. Partnerships also have provided and continue to provide PDS with expert clinical collaborators, who have been intricately involved the design of PDS’ upcoming Phase 2 clinical trials.

Extensive preclinical studies were performed to understand how cationic lipids interact with the immune system to prime CD8+ T-cell responses. Upon obtaining a good understanding of the immunology of the lipids and their interaction with tumor antigens, PDS optimized and evaluated PDS0101 for safety in extensive toxicology studies. Once safety was confirmed in preclinical models, PDS0101 was subsequently studied in a Phase 1 human clinical trial in order to confirm safety and to confirm induction of strong HPV-specific CD8+ T-cell responses in humans. As described herein, PDS is continuing development of the PDS0102, 0103, and 0104 programs in colorectal, melanoma, breast, lung, and prostate cancers.

Based on the successful Phase 1 human clinical trial, which corroborated the preceding preclinical data, PDS established clinical supply agreements and collaborations with leaders in the field of immuno-oncology, including the NIH/NCI and Merck & Company, Inc. (“Merck”).

Facilities & Manufacturing

PDS research and development activities are located at the Princeton Innovation Center BioLabs, 303A College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540, which provides first-rate development facilities for biotech companies. All animal toxicology and efficacy testing are done via third party contracts and collaborations in order to provide maximum flexibility and to minimize operational costs and overhead. This approach allows for independent validation of PDS’s data, and PDS believes it has historically been a cost-efficient way to progress its development programs.

PDS does not intend to incur the costs of building, staffing and maintaining manufacturing facilities in the near term. The PDS management team has extensive formulation, manufacturing and operations expertise, including past senior executive management roles in contract drug development and manufacturing. The team plans to utilize its expertise and knowledge to identify suitable contract manufacturers who will be capable of efficiently manufacturing PDS’s products.

approval for their products more rapidly than it may obtain approval for its products, which could result in PDS’s competitors establishing a strong market position before it is able to enter the market. In addition, the ability of PDS to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products.

There is currently no approved HPV therapeutic product available for sale globally. PDS has performed an evaluation of HPV therapeutic products in development and considers the products utilizing effective antigen delivery systems to the dendritic cells to be its closest competitors. Some have shown significant promise in on-going clinical studies. PDS believes its top clinical-stage competitors include Advaxis, Transgene, ISA Pharmaceuticals, and Inovio. PDS also has considered companies developing closely related products as competitors, including Etubics, Vaccibody, Admedus, Cel-Sci, Neo-ImmuneTech, Kite Pharma, Immune Design, Dynavax, Bavarian Nordic, Seattle Genetics, and Selecta Biosciences.

Intellectual Property

PDS strives to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to its business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights. PDS also relies on trade secrets relating to its platform and on know-how, continuing technological innovation to develop, strengthen and maintain its proprietary position in the vaccine field. In addition, PDS relies on regulatory protection afforded through data exclusivity, market exclusivity and patent term extensions where available. PDS also utilizes trademark protection for its company name, and expects to do so for products and/or services as they are marketed.

PDS has developed numerous patents and patent applications and owns substantial know-how and trade secrets related to its Versamune^® platform. As of December 1, 2019, PDS holds four (4) U.S. patents with granted claims directed to its platform technology and six (6) pending patent applications. These issued patents will expire in 2025, 2031,2031 and 2033. Should the more recently submitted patents currently in prosecution be issued, these will expire in 2033 through 2037 assuming no patent term extensions are granted. As of December 17, 2019, PDS holds twenty-two (22) issued foreign patents and thirty-three (33) pending foreign patent application, most of which are issued in multiple countries including Europe, Japan and Australia, and all of which cover compositions of matter and methods of use related to its platform technology. These issued patents will expire in 2031-2034, or later if patent term extension applies.

Licensed Patents

Licensed Patent Families 1 and 2 cover the Versamune^®-based product candidates, as they are directed to the currently utilized Versamune^® ingredient, (R)-DOTAP and its crystal forms, manufacturing methods, and pharmaceutical compositions using the compounds. PDS Biotechnology has an exclusive worldwide license from Merck & Cie to Licensed Patent Families 1 and 2, which are owned by Merck Patent GmbH, for use in the Company’s immunotherapy compositions and immunotherapies. Merck & Cie has informed the Company that it has rights to license these patent families through an intra-company agreement with Merck Patent GmbH.

Licensed Patent Families 1-2 (which cover (R)-DOTAP compositions and crystal forms and methods of use) are also of significance to the Company’s future commercial endeavors in using (R)-DOTAP to develop additional immunotherapies and immune modulators.

Licensed Patent Families 3 and 4 are licensed from the US government, and are directed to mucin-1 (“MUC-1”) antigens to be used by the Company in future cationic lipid immunotherapy or vaccine products. Such immunotherapies can be used for treating a range of cancers, including colon, breast, ovarian and lung cancers.

Material License Agreements and Research and Development Agreements

Patent License Agreement with National Institutes of Health.

Effective January 5, 2015, PDS entered into a Patent License Agreement (the “Patent License Agreement”) as Amended by First Amendment to Patent License Agreement (“First Amendment”) of August 5, 2015, with the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”) an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), pursuant to which NIH granted PDS a nonexclusive license to certain patent rights for the development of a therapeutic cancer vaccine specifically in combination with PDS’s proprietary Versamune^®

technology for ovarian, breast, colon and lung cancers. The Patent License Agreement expires when the last licensed patent expires, if the Patent License Agreement is not terminated prior to that date. NIH may terminate the Patent License Agreement if PDS is in default in the performance of any material obligation under the Patent License Agreement. PDS may unilaterally terminate the Patent License Agreement in any country or territory upon sixty (60) days written notice.

Under the Patent License Agreement and First Amendment PDS agreed to pay NIH: (a) a noncreditable, nonrefundable royalty in the amount of $30,000 upon execution of the Patent License Agreement; (b) a noncreditable, nonrefundable royalty in the amount of $60,000 upon execution of the First Amendment to Patent License Agreement (c) a nonrefundable minimum annual royalty of $5,000; (d) earned royalties of two percent (2%) on net sales, reducible by a half percent (0.5%) for any earned royalties PDS must pay to third parties; (e) benchmark royalties as follows: (i) $25,000 upon successful completion of each Phase 2 Clinical Trials of a licensed product for breast, colon, lung or ovarian cancer within each licensed territory; (ii) $50,000 upon initiation of the first Phase 3 Clinical Trial of a licensed product for breast, colon, lung or ovarian cancer within each licensed territory; (iii) $750,000 upon the first commercial sale in the licensed territory utilizing and/or directed to licensed product(s) and/or licensed process(es) within the licensed patent rights for breast, colon, lung or ovarian cancer; and (f) additional sublicensing royalties for each sublicense required to be approved by NIH of four percent (4%) on the fair market value of any consideration received for granting such sublicense.

DOTAP Chloride Enantiomer License Agreement with Merck Eprova AG.

Effective November 1, 2008, PDS entered into a DOTAP Chloride Enantiomer License (the “DOTAP License Agreement”) with Merck Eprova AG (“EPRO”), pursuant to which PDS obtained a license from EPRO technology to undertake development of products relating to the R-enantiomer and S-enantiomer of Dotap Chloride for worldwide commercialization in a composition and method of inducing an immune response in a subject by administering at least one cationic lipid with or without an antigen. The DOTAP License Agreement expires on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the obligation to pay royalties applicable to such licensed product in such country. PDS has the right to unilaterally terminate the DOTAP License Agreement (in its entirety or on a licensed product-by-licensed product or country-by-country basis) at any time for any reason upon prior written notice. Upon the reverse merger and according the agreement under the “Compensation due to Assignability” provisions PDS paid a one-time royalty of CHF 100,00 as a result of the reverse merger between PDS and Edge Therapeutics.

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for Intramural-PHS Clinical Research with The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Effective February 2, 2016, PDS entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (the “CRADA”) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to perform certain research and development activities as defined by the exhibited Research Plan. The principal goal of the CRADA is to determine whether PDS’s Versamune^® immunotherapeutic technology will be effective for enhancing delivery of cancer vaccines or viral vaccines or other immunotherapies developed by the Vaccine Branch, Center for Cancer Research, NCI, in mouse models and in human clinical trials. Under the agreement, PDS will collaborate with the NCI’s Genitourinary Malignancies Branch (GMB) and Laboratory of Tumor Immunology and Biology (LTIB) with plans to conduct a Phase 2 clinical study evaluating PDS0101 with novel immune-modulating agents being studied at NCI as part of a CRADA with another large pharma company. The phase 2 clinical study is anticipated to start in the first quarter of 2020. The CRADA also involves preclinical evaluation of PDS0101 in combination with other therapeutic modalities upon the mutual agreement of both parties.

The term of the CRADA is five (5) years, starting February 2, 2016. Pursuant to Appendix A, PDS agreed to provide up to $1,000,000 but no less than $500,000 during the first year of the CRADA and up to $1,000,000 but no less than $750,000 per year for the remaining years of the CRADA for NCI to use in connection with acquiring technical, statistical, and administrative support for the clinical research activities, as well as to pay for supplies and travel expenses and, upon consent of the parties, to acquire support for a postdoctoral research fellow to conduct additional preclinical studies. The CRADA may be terminated by either party at any time by mutual written consent. Either party may unilaterally terminate the CRADA at any time by providing sixty (60) days written notice. If PDS terminates prior to the completion of all approved or active study protocol(s) pursuant to the CRADA, PDS must supply enough study test product to complete these study

protocol(s) unless termination is for safety reasons. If the CRADA is mutually or unilaterally terminated by PDS before its expiration, PDS must pay non-cancellable obligations for personnel for a period of six (6) months after the termination date or until the expiration date of the CRADA, whichever is sooner. If PDS suspends development on the test article without the transfer of its active development efforts, assets, and obligations to a third party within ninety (90) days of discontinuation, NCI may continue development. In such event, PDS must transfer all information necessary to enable NCI to contract for the manufacture of the test article and grant NCI a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up license regarding same.

Cost Reimbursement Agreement with University of Kentucky Research Foundation - I.

Effective November 1, 2015, PDS entered into an annual Research Agreement (the “Cost Reimbursement Agreement”) with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation (“UKRF”), pursuant to which UKRF agreed to test PDS’s preclinical and clinical-stage formulations based on HPV, TARP, MUC-1, Melanoma antigens as specified more fully in the statement of work. The Cost Reimbursement Agreement has been renewed annually, and was renewed on July 1, 2019 for an anticipated cost of $333,496. The agreement terminates on June 30, 2020 unless extended by written mutual agreement of parties or is terminated by one of the parties. Either party may terminate the Cost Reimbursement Agreement for any reason with thirty (30) days written notice.

Cost Reimbursement and Sponsored Agreement with University of Kentucky Research Foundation - II.

Effective November 1, 2015, PDS entered into an annual Research Agreement (the “Cost Reimbursement Agreement”) with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation (“UKRF”), pursuant to which UKRF agreed to test PDS’s preclinical and clinical-stage formulations based on HPV, TARP, MUC-1, Melanoma antigens as specified more fully in the statement of work. The Cost Reimbursement Agreement has been renewed annually, and was renewed on July 1, 2019 for an anticipated cost of $12,963. The agreement terminates on June 30, 2020 unless extended by written mutual agreement of parties or is terminated by one of the parties. Either party may terminate the Cost Reimbursement Agreement for any reason with thirty (30) days written notice.

Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement with MSD International GmbH.

Effective May 19, 2017, PDS entered into a Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement (the “CTCSA”) with MSD International GmbH (“Merck”) pursuant to which PDS and Merck agreed to collaborate in a Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the safety, and preliminary efficacy of the concomitant and/or sequenced administration of the combination of a Merck compound (i.e., pembrolizumab, a humanized anti-human PD-1 monoclonal antibody) and a PDS compound (i.e., PDS0101, a cationic lipid-based therapeutic vaccine combining HPV peptides) in first line treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer and high-risk human papillomavirus-16 (HPV 16) infection. The term of the CTCSA commenced on May 19, 2017 and shall continue until the earlier of (i) delivery of the final study report and (ii) Study Completion (i.e., upon database lock of the Study results), or until terminated by either party. In the event the CTCSA is terminated by Merck upon a material breach by PDS, PDS must reimburse Merck for its direct manufacturing costs, such as manufacturing fees, raw materials, direct labor, freight and duty, factory overhead costs and its indirect manufacturing costs, such as allocations of indirect factory overhead and site support costs. This agreement was amended on October 28, 2019 to reflect the study will be for first in line treatment of disease.

On October 28, 2019, PDS entered into an amendment to the clinical trial collaboration agreement with Merck to evaluate the combination of PDS's lead Versamune®-based immunotherapy, PDS0101, with Merck's anti-PD-1 therapy, KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab), in a Phase II clinical trial. The planned clinical trial will now evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination as a first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer and high-risk human papillomavirus-16 (HPV16) infection and is expected to be initiated in the first half of 2020. The modification to the clinical trial design to evaluate PDS0101 in combination with KEYTRUDA® as first-line treatment comes as a result of Merck’s recent approval by the FDA on June 10, 2019 for first line treatment of patients with metastatic or unresectable recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) using KEYTRUDA® in combination with platinum and fluorouracil (FU) for all patients and as a single agent for patients whose tumors express PD-L1 as determined by an FDA-approved test.

Other Research and Development Agreements

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for Intramural-PHS Clinical Research with The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Effective April 22, 2019, PDS entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (the “CRADA”) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to perform certain research and development activities as defined by the exhibited Research Plan. The principal goals of the CRADA are to develop PDS’s Versamune^® based HPV vaccine (also known as PDS0101) that can be used for the therapy of specific human papilloma virus (HPV)- associated human cancers in combination with NCI selected immunotherapeutic agents and to evaluate PDS’s Versamune^® platform with NCI’s HPV-containing peptides reflecting HPV agonist epitopes.

The term of the CRADA is five (5) years, starting April 22, 2019. Pursuant to Appendix A, PDS agreed to provide $110,000 annually, the first payment of which is to be made on the first anniversary the of the CRADA Effective date or upon the initiation of a Phase II clinical study as the NIH Clinical Center, whichever comes first for NCI to use in connection with acquiring technical, statistical, and administrative support for the clinical research activities, as well as to pay for supplies and travel expenses and infrastructure costs. The CRADA may be terminated by either party at any time by mutual written consent. Either party may unilaterally terminate the CRADA at any time by providing sixty (60) days written notice. If PDS terminates prior to the completion of all approved or active study protocol(s) pursuant to the CRADA, PDS must supply enough study test product to complete these study protocol(s) unless termination is for safety reasons. If the CRADA is mutually or unilaterally terminated by PDS before its expiration, PDS must pay non-cancellable obligations for personnel for a period of six (6) months after the termination date or until the expiration date of the CRADA, whichever is sooner. If PDS suspends development on the test article without the transfer of its active development efforts, assets, and obligations to a third party within ninety (90) days of discontinuation, NCI may continue development. In such event, PDS must transfer all information necessary to enable NCI to contract for the manufacture of the test article and grant NCI a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up license regarding same.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Federal, state and local government authorities in the United States and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of biological and pharmaceutical products such as those PDS is developing. PDS’s product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, its activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States. The process for obtaining regulatory marketing approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

U.S. Product Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates pharmaceutical and biological products under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and implementing regulations. Products are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on PDS. The process required by the FDA before a drug or biological product may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Before testing any product candidate in humans, the product enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLP. The clinical trial sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical trials of product candidates with small patient populations may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials or the results once the applicable clinical trials are completed. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the trial on a clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA. Accordingly, PDS cannot be sure that submission of an IND will result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such trials.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical trial will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND and also require IRB approval. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations composing the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

conducted in seriously ill subjects. These studies are designed to test the safety, dosage tolerance, absorption, metabolism and pharmacologic actions of the investigational product in humans, the side effects associated with increasing doses, and, if possible, to gain early evidence of effectiveness.

Although these are the typical phases of progression, and characteristics of the phases of a clinical development program, certain expedited programs allow for variations that could support a marketing application based on surrogate endpoints, intermediate clinical endpoints, or single-arm as opposed to comparative or placebo-controlled studies (for example, FDA could rely on well-controlled Phase 2 studies for evidence of effectiveness under certain circumstances).

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up, or to gain other information about the product.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical trial investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators of potential safety risks, from clinical trials or any other source, including for serious and unexpected adverse events and serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions, any findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction as soon as possible but no later than within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects.

Concurrently with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional studies and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other criteria, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal studies, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product,

proposed labeling and other relevant information. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data, or full or partial waivers. The testing and approval processes require substantial time and effort and there can be no assurance that the FDA will accept the BLA for filing and, even if filed, that any approval will be granted on a timely basis, if at all.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a significant user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. For approved drugs, including BLA-licensed biological products, PDUFA also imposes an annual PDUFA program fee. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. No user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the application for the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission, and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe, potent, and/or effective for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer an application to an advisory committee for review, evaluation and recommendation as to whether the application should be approved, and applications for new molecular entities and original BLAs are generally discussed at advisory committee meetings unless the FDA determines that this type of consultation is not needed under the circumstances. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve a BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, the FDA will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent, commercial production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically conduct a pre-approval inspection of regulated participants in clinical trials (for example, the sponsor, investigators responsible for specific sites, and CROs) to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND trial requirements and GCP requirements. To assure cGMP and GCP compliance, an applicant must incur significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the areas of training, record keeping, production, and quality control.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than PDS interprets the same data. If the agency decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product.

Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a risk management plan, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the

FDA may require post marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any products for which PDS receives FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved uses, known as ‘off-label’ use, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available products for off-label uses, if the physicians deem to be appropriate in their professional medical judgment, manufacturers may not market or promote such off-label uses. Recent court decisions have impacted the FDA’s enforcement activity regarding off-label promotion in light of First Amendment considerations; however, there are still significant risks in this area in part due to the potential False Claims Act exposure.

In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long-term stability of the product. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. Manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved products are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. Discovery of problems with a product after approval may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

The Drug Supply Chain Security Act, or DSCSA imposes obligations on manufacturers of prescription biopharmaceutical products for commercial distribution, regulating the distribution of the products at the federal level, and sets certain standards for federal or state registration and compliance of entities in the supply chain (manufacturers and repackagers, wholesale distributors, third-party logistics providers, and dispensers). The DSCSA preempts previously enacted state pedigree laws and the pedigree requirements of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA. Trading partners within the drug supply chain must now ensure certain product tracing requirements are met that they are doing business with other authorized trading partners; and they are required to exchange transaction information, transaction history, and transaction statements. Further, the DSCSA limits the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products and imposes requirements to ensure overall accountability and security in the drug supply chain. As of November 27, 2018 product identifier information (an aspect of the product tracing scheme) is required. The distribution of product samples continues to be regulated under the PDMA.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements,

including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of its product candidates under development.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, PDS’s activities are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including but not limited to, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for instance the Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, and individual U.S. Attorney offices within the DOJ, and state and local governments. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with the anti-fraud and abuse provisions of the Social Security Act, the false claims laws, the physician payment transparency laws, the privacy and security provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and similar state laws, each as amended.

The federal anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity, from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term remuneration has been interpreted broadly to include anything of value. The anti-kickback statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. There are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution. The exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. PDS’s practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for protection under a statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor, however, does not make the conduct per se illegal under the anti-kickback statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. However, the lack of uniform court interpretation of the anti-kickback statute makes compliance with the law difficult. Violations of the federal anti-kickback statute can result in significant criminal fines, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid and follow-on civil litigation, among other things, for both entities and individuals.

Additionally, the intent standard under the anti-kickback statute was amended by the Affordable Care Act to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the Affordable Care Act codified case law 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 False Claims Act, as discussed below.

The Criminal Healthcare Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1347 prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers. Federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1001, among other sections, prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity that, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

The federal False Claims Act prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government or knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and similar state laws allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal or state government and to share in any monetary recovery. As a result of a modification made by the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, a claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Recently, several pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product.

Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of the product for unapproved, and thus non-reimbursable, uses.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by trick, scheme or device, a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the federal anti-kickback statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor.

PDS may be subject to data privacy and security regulations by both the federal government and the states in which it conducts its business. HIPAA, as amended by the HITECH Act, and its respective implementing regulations, including the final omnibus rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to business associates independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, amended HIPAA to make civil and criminal penalties directly applicable to business associates, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorneys’ fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Even for entities that are not deemed “covered entities” or “business associates” under HIPAA, according to the United States Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or the FTCA, 15 USC § 45(a). The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Medical data is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards. The FTC’s guidance for appropriately securing consumers’ personal information is similar to what is required by the HIPAA Security Rule.

Additionally, the Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act under the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, require that certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with certain exceptions, report information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit timely, accurately, and completely the required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $150,000 per year and up to an aggregate of $1 million per year for “knowing failures”. In 2022 the Sunshine Act will be extended to payments and transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and other mid-level practitioners (with reporting requirements going into effect in 2022 for payments made in 2021). Certain states also mandate implementation of compliance programs, impose restrictions on pharmaceutical manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to healthcare providers and entities.

In order to distribute products commercially, PDS must also comply with state laws that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products in a state, including, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from

providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of PDS’s activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

If PDS operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state healthcare laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to it, PDS may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, civil, criminal and/or administrative penalties; damages; fines; disgorgement; exclusion from participation in government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid; injunctions; private “qui tam” actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government, or refusal to allow it to enter into government contracts; contractual damages; reputational harm; administrative burdens; diminished profits and future earnings; and the curtailment or restructuring of its operations; any of which could adversely affect PDS’s ability to operate its business and its results of operations.

Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which PDS obtains regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which PDS receives regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the extent to that third-party payors provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels for such products. In the United States, third-party payors include federal and state healthcare programs, private managed care providers, health insurers and other organizations. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the price of a product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that such a payor will pay for the product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of medical products, therapies and services, in addition to questioning their safety and efficacy. PDS may need to conduct expensive pharmaco-economic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of its tablet product candidates, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. PDS’s product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable PDS to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on its investment in product development.

Different pricing and reimbursement schemes exist in other countries. Some jurisdictions operate positive and negative list systems under which products may only be marketed once a reimbursement price has been agreed. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval, some of these countries may require the completion of clinical trials that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular product candidate to currently available therapies. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medicines, but monitor and control company profits. The downward pressure on health care costs has become very intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert a commercial pressure on pricing within a country.

The marketability of any product candidates for which it receives regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. In addition, emphasis on managed care in the United States has increased and PDS expects the pressure on healthcare pricing will continue to increase. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which PDS receives regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

U.S. Healthcare Reform

PDS anticipates that current and future U.S. legislative healthcare reforms may result in additional downward pressure on the price that PDS receives for any approved product, if covered, and could seriously harm its business. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare and other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent PDS from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize

its product candidates. In addition, it is possible that there will be further legislation or regulation that could harm its business, financial condition and results of operations.

If PDS is able to obtain marketing approval for one or more of our products, we may also experience downward pricing pressure on the price of our products due to social or political pressure to lower the cost of drugs, which would reduce our revenue and future profitability. Price increases have resulted in increased public and governmental scrutiny of the cost of drugs. For example, U.S. federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas to pharmaceutical companies seeking information about pricing practices in connection with an investigation into pricing practices being conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. Several state attorneys general also have commenced drug pricing investigations and filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, and the U.S. Senate has publicly investigated a number of pharmaceutical companies relating to price increases and pricing practices. Our revenue and future profitability could be negatively affected if these or other inquiries were to result in legislative or regulatory proposals that limit our ability to increase the prices of any products for which we obtain marketing approval.

In addition, the Trump Administration and number of federal legislators continue to scrutinize drug prices and are seeking ways to lower prices. For example, the Trump Administration’s “Blueprint” on drug prices describes a number of mechanisms for lowering manufacturer list prices and reducing patient out-of-pocket costs. Although the Blueprint contains a number of policy objectives, PDS cannot know the form that any new requirements will take or the effect that they may have on our business. HHS is soliciting feedback on some of these measures and has begun attempting to implement others under its existing authority, although some proposals related to the administration’s Blueprint may require additional authorization to become effective, may ultimately be withdrawn, or may face challenges in the courts. The U.S. Congress and the Trump administration have indicated that they will continue to seek new legislative and administrative measures to control drug costs. A large number of individual states also have introduced legislation aimed at drug pricing regulation, transparency or both. For example, California, Oregon, Vermont, and Nevada have enacted such laws.

Our revenue and future profitability could be negatively affected by the passage of these laws or similar federal or state legislation. Pressure from social activist groups and future government regulations may also put downward pressure on the price of drugs, which could result in downward pressure on the prices of our products in the future.

Foreign Regulation

In order to market any product outside of the United States, PDS would need to 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 its products. Whether or not PDS obtains FDA approval for a product, it 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 foreign countries and jurisdictions. Although many of the issues discussed above with respect to the United States apply similarly in the context of the European Union, the approval process 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.

pharmaceutical career at Merck, Sharpe, and Dohme, where he continued his work on novel angiogenic factors, discovering and characterizing the VEGF family of growth factors, work which led to the development and commercialization of the anti-cancer drug Avastin. He was later a leading scientist at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, where he established and headed various groups in the Cell and Molecular Biology and Drug Discovery departments. Dr. Conn subsequently became a Director in the Process Development department at Covance Biotechnology Services Inc., a contract research and development and drug manufacturing organization, where he supervised the analytical development teams responsible for drug characterization, method development and drug stability studies, and program teams responsible for developing drug manufacturing processes. Dr. Conn has expertise across all phases of the drug development process, including FDA and regulatory requirements, is the co-inventor of eight drug patents, and was a founding member of PDS.

Lauren Wood, Ph.D. Dr. Wood has served as Chief Medical Officer of PDS since March 2019. Dr. Wood previously served as the Head of the Vaccine Branch Clinical Trials Team for the National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research from 2005 until 2017, where she was charged with developing a clinical translational research program to develop vaccines and immune-based therapies that harness the immune response to control, eradicate or prevent cancer and HPV. Prior to that, Dr. Wood served as a member of the senior staff of the National Cancer Institute Pediatric HIV Working Group from 1996 to 2005. Dr. Wood completed a combined residence in internal medicine and pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine Affiliated Hospitals in Houston, Texas and a fellowship with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in allergy and immunology. Dr. Wood obtained a B.A. in Biology from Oberlin College and an M.D. from Duke University School of Medicine.

Gregory Freitag J.D., CPA. Mr. Freitag has served on our Board since the closing of the Merger in March 2019 and on PDS’s board of directors since December 2014. Mr. Freitag currently serves as the General Counsel and a member of the board of directors of AxoGen, Inc. (Nasdaq: AXGN) and previously served as its Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of Business Development. AxoGen, Inc. is a leading regenerative medicine company dedicated to peripheral nerve repair. Mr. Freitag was Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and a board member from June 2010 through September 2011 of LecTec Corporation, an intellectual property licensing and holding company that merged with AxoGen in September 2011. Mr. Freitag is a principal of FreiMc, LLC, a health care and life science consulting and advisory firm he founded that provides strategic guidance and business development services. Prior to founding FreiMc, Mr. Freitag was a Director of Business Development at Pfizer Health Solutions, a former subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc. and worked for Guidant Corporation in their business development group. Prior to Guidant Corporation, Mr. Freitag was the Chief Executive Officer of HTS Biosystems, a biotechnology tools start-up company and was the Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and General Counsel of Quantech, Ltd. Prior to Quantech, Mr. Freitag practiced corporate law in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. Freitag is also a director of the Foundation Board of HealthEast Care System, a health care system in Minnesota. The board of directors believes that Mr. Freitag’s leadership, legal, and accounting experiences and knowledge, as well as his familiarity with the pharmaceutical industry and PDS, provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve as a director.

Stephen Glover. Mr. Stephen Glover joined our Board of Directors in April 2019 and is the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Mr. Glover is the Co-Founder and Managing Principal for Asclepius Life Sciences Fund, LP, and the Co-Founder, President and CEO of ZyVersa Therapeutics (formerly Variant Pharmaceuticals), a clinical-stage specialty biopharmaceutical company focused on developing drugs to treat inflammatory and renal diseases. Mr. Glover has extensive experience executing biopharmaceutical company turnarounds and growing top line revenues, with a focus on pharmaceutical business strategy corporate development, product development, commercialization and business optimization. His vast experience spans Fortune 100, start up and entrepreneurial environments and his transaction experience covers over 25 transactions totaling over $10 billion. His strategic and operational experience, which covers most therapeutic classes of biopharmaceuticals, includes strategic planning, corporate development, operations management, product development, clinical and regulatory, product marketing and sales management. Prior to co-founding ZyVersa, Mr. Glover was Co-Founder and Chief Business Officer of Coherus BioSciences, a late-stage commercial biologics platform Company focused on delivering biosimilar therapeutics which went public in 2014. Previously, he was President of Insmed Therapeutic Proteins and EVP and Chief Business Officer of Insmed Incorporated, where he was responsible for the creation of the Company’s biosimilar business unit and divestiture of that business to Merck and led the strategic review process that resulted in the merger of Insmed and Transave. Prior to joining Insmed, Mr. Glover held senior-level positions in sales, marketing and operations at Andrx Corporation, Roche Laboratories, Amgen and IMS Health. He currently serves as a Director of ZyVersa Therapeutics, Incon and Asclepius, as well as a BOD member of the Coulter Foundation at the University of Miami U Innovation Life Sciences Office. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Marketing from Illinois State University. Our Board of Directors believes Mr. Glover’s broad industry experience as well as his experience as a founder and strategic leader provides him with the qualifications and skills to serve as a director.

Sir Richard Sykes. Sir Richard Sykes has served on our Board since the closing of the Merger in March 2019 and on PDS’s board of directors since December 2014. He is currently Chairman of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Chairman of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, Chairman of the UK Stem Cell Foundation, Chairman of Omnicyte, NetScientific and the investment board of Deepridge Capital. He was appointed Chancellor of Brunel University in 2013. Prior to that, he was Senior Independent Director and non-executive Chairman of ENRC from 2007 to June 2011, Chairman of NHS London from December 2008 to July 2010, Rector of Imperial College London from 2000 to 2008. He was a non-executive director of Rio Tinto plc from 1997 to 2007, and senior independent director from 2004 to 2007. He has over 30 years’ experience within the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries field, serving as Chief Executive and Chairman of GlaxoWellcome from 1995 to 2000 and then as Chairman of GlaxoSmithkline until 2002. Internationally he is Chairman of the International Advisory Board, A*Star Biomedical Research Council, Singapore and a Board member of EDBI. He was awarded Honorary Citizenship of Singapore in 2004 for his contribution to the development of the country’s biomedical sciences industry. Sir Richard holds a number of degrees and awards from Institutions both in the UK and overseas. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and Academy of Medical Sciences, and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Society of

Chemistry, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians. He is also President of the R and D Society, a position he has held since 2002. He is a Fellow of Imperial College London and the Imperial College School of Medicine, King’s College London and Honorary Fellow of the Universities of Wales and Central Lancashire. Sir Richard received a Knighthood in the 1994 New Year’s Honours list for services to the pharmaceutical industry. The board of directors believes that Sir Richard’s extensive leadership experience, experience in biopharmaceutical product development, deep understanding of pharmaceutical development, and broad experience within the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries provide him with the qualifications and skills to serve as a director.

Andrew Saik

Pursuant to his employment agreement, dated October 31, 2017, Mr. Saik will receive an annual base salary of $370,000, which may be increased, decreased or stay the same, depending on Mr. Saik’s performance and the performance of PDS. Under his employment agreement, Mr. Saik is eligible to earn an annual discretionary performance-based bonus, with a target bonus opportunity equal to 45% of the base salary, as determined by the Board or the Compensation Committee; provided that Mr. Saik remains employed with us on the last day of the relevant performance period. During his employment, Mr. Saik will be eligible to be granted equity awards by us, as may be determined by the Board or the Compensation Committee. The employment agreement may be terminated by us with or without Cause, on the one hand, or by Mr. Saik with or without Good Reason or upon his death or termination by reason of a Disability, on the other hand (as these terms are defined in the employment agreement). In the event that Mr. Saik’s employment is terminated (a) by us other than for Cause, death or Disability or (b) upon his resignation with Good Reason, Mr. Saik will be entitled to certain severance payments and benefits, including an amount equal to his base salary plus (i) certain Accrued Obligations through the Date of Termination (as these terms are defined in the employment agreement) and (ii) 12 months of COBRA premium reimbursement in exchange for his execution of a release of claims against us. Under the employment agreement, Mr. Saik is also entitled to participate in the employee benefit plans, policies, practices and arrangements and is eligible for the same number of holidays and vacation days, in each case as are generally allowed to other similarly situated executives of PDS.

Gregory L. Conn, Ph.D.

Pursuant to his employment agreement, dated June 1, 2019, Dr. Conn will receive an initial base salary of $290,000 per year. Dr. Conn is eligible to receive an annual performance-based cash bonus in an amount up to 30% of his base salary and was granted an option to purchase 40,000 shares of our common stock, with 10,000 of such option vesting on June 6, 2020, and the remaining 30,000 options vesting in 36 equal monthly installment thereafter, subject to Dr. Conn’s continued service to PDS through each vesting date.

If Dr. Conn’s employment is terminated by PDS without cause, by Dr. Conn without good reason, or by death, Dr. Conn (or his estate) is entitled to receive (i) all earned but unpaid amounts of his base salary and (ii) his bonus earned for a calendar year ended on or before the date of such termination. In addition, the Company shall, (iii) a lump sum payment of all other amounts owed to Dr. Conn, and (iv) all reasonable and documented expenses.

Retention Arrangement with Mr. Leuthner

On April 27, 2018, in connection with the subsequent announcement by Edge of the determination by the Edge Board to review strategic alternatives and to streamline its operations, the compensation committee of the Edge Board approved certain retention compensation, which consists of grants to the executive officers named below of Edge of certain stock options and Edge RSUs under the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan and cash compensation. In connection with the retention arrangement, Mr. Leuthner received cash compensation of $318,000 and equity awards of 16,903 shares granted June 15, 2018 and 8,451 shares granted August 14, 2018, with one-third of such awards allocated as RSUs and two-thirds as options with an exercise price equal to the closing price on the applicable grant date.

Equity Incentive Compensation - Option Awards

On November 3, 2014, our stockholders approved the Amended and Restated Edge Therapeutics, Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, or the Edge Plan. The Edge Plan was the primary program through which Edge granted equity-based incentive compensation to its employees and Edge’s directors. Under the Edge Plan, Edge may grant awards of restricted stock, options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and other types of equity-based awards, in each case, with respect to Edge common stock. Other than the stock options granted in connection with the Retention Arrangements (as described below in the section titled “Certain Relationships and Related Party-Transactions” under the header “Retention Arrangements”), all of the outstanding options granted to Edge’s named executive officers were subject to time-based vesting, such that options vested with respect to one-fourth of the underlying shares on the first anniversary of the grant date and in equal installments of 1⁄48 of the underlying shares thereafter for the subsequent 36 months. Under the employment agreements of Edge’s named executive officers, all equity awards will become 100% vested upon a

change in control. However, during 2016, the Edge Compensation Committee reviewed the practice of “single trigger” vesting under Edge’s named executive officers’ employment agreements. In light of such review, the Edge Compensation Committee decided to use a new form of option award for Edge’s executives that eliminates automatic vesting on a change in control, and instead uses “double trigger” vesting (i.e., vesting does not automatically occur upon a change in control). This new vesting provision was adopted after Edge made stock option grants to Edge’s named executive officers in 2016, so none of their 2016 stock options contain double trigger vesting. However, the stock options granted to Edge’s named executive officers in March 2017 contained double trigger vesting in connection with a change in control, and the double trigger vesting feature supersedes the provisions in Edge’s named executive officers’ employment agreements that specify single trigger vesting upon a change in control. While the Edge Compensation Committee intended to use a “double trigger” vesting approach for new option awards granted to Edge’s named executive officers, it continued to analyze each separate option award to determine whether double trigger vesting was appropriate. Further, where double trigger vesting was utilized, Edge intended for the double trigger vesting feature to supersede any provision in Edge’s named executive officers’ employment agreements that specified single trigger vesting with respect to future stock option awards. The stock option awards granted to Edge’s named executed officers under the Edge Plan during 2018, including their vesting terms, are set forth in the Outstanding Equity Awards at Year-End table below.

the same, depending on Mr. Saik’s performance and the performance of Edge. Under his employment agreement, Mr. Saik is eligible to earn an annual discretionary performance-based bonus, with a target bonus opportunity equal to 45% of the base salary, as determined by the Edge Board or the compensation committee of the Edge Board; provided that Mr. Saik remains employed with Edge on the last day of the relevant performance period.

During his employment, Mr. Saik will be eligible to be granted equity awards by Edge, as may be determined by the Edge Board or the compensation committee of the Edge Board. The employment agreement may be terminated by Edge with or without cause, on the one hand, or by Mr. Saik with or without good reason or upon his death or termination by reason of a disability, on the other hand. In the event that Mr. Saik’s employment is terminated (a) by Edge other than for cause, death or disability or (b) upon his resignation with good reason, Mr. Saik will be entitled to certain severance payments and benefits, including an amount equal to his base salary plus (i) certain accrued obligations through the date of termination and (ii) 12 months of COBRA premium reimbursement in exchange for his execution of a release of claims against Edge. Under the employment agreement, Mr. Saik is also entitled to participate in the employee benefit plans, policies, practices and arrangements and is eligible for the same number of holidays and vacation days, in each case as are generally allowed to other similarly situated executives of Edge. Following the Merger Mr. Saik continued as the Chief Financial Officer of PDS and the terms of his employment agreement remain the same as described above.

Retention Arrangements

On April 27, 2018, in connection with the subsequent announcement by Edge of the determination by the Edge Board to review strategic alternatives and to streamline its operations, the compensation committee of the Edge Board approved certain retention compensation, which consists of grants to the executive officers named below of Edge of certain stock options and Edge RSUs under the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan and cash compensation. Grants of the options, Edge RSUs and cash compensation to the executive officers were granted in the following amounts:

One-third of the total shares granted to each executive officer as indicated above were allocated as Edge RSUs. The options have an exercise price equal to the closing price of Edge common stock on the applicable grant date.

All options and Edge RSUs shall vest upon the earliest to occur, for any executive officers, of (i) the termination, other than for cause (as such term is defined in the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan), of such executive officer by Edge, (ii) the consummation of a strategic transaction arising out of the strategic review referred to above and (iii) the one-year anniversary of the grant date. The exercise period for the options shall be at any time until the three-year anniversary of the vesting date.

All of the cash compensation set forth above shall be paid, upon the earliest to occur, for any executive officer, of (i) the termination, other than for Cause (as such term is defined in the 2014 Equity Incentive Plan), of such executive by Edge, (ii) the consummation of a strategic transaction arising out of the strategic review referred to above and (iii) February 1, 2019. All of the cash compensation set forth above was paid on February 1, 2019.

Separation Agreements

Pursuant to a letter agreement dated February 3, 2019 , Edge, PDS and Mr. Brian A. Leuthner agreed: (1) to amend the agreed upon list of post-closing directors and officers included in the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of November 23, 2018, as amended, by and among Edge, Echos Merger Sub, Inc. and PDS to no longer include Mr. Leuthner; (2) that Mr. Leuthner will resign for Good Reason in connection with a Change of Control (each as defined in the Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment

Agreement, dated June 10, 2015, between Edge and Mr. Leuthner) as President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of Edge’s board of directors, effective upon the closing of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and (3) to accept Mr. Leuthner’s resignation. Mr. Leuthner’s resignation as President and Chief Executive Officer and a member of Edge’s board of directors is not the result of any disagreement with Edge on any matter relating to Edge’s operations, policies or practices.

In May 2016, PDS received $ 500,000 from NetScientific plc in exchange for a convertible promissory note. The promissory note plus related accrued interest totaling $ 516,096 was converted into equity in December 2016, resulting in the issuance of 22,079 shares of PDS common stock to NetScientific at a price of $ 23.92 per share. Sir Richard Sykes is the Chairman of NetScientific, and Mr. Postlethwaite is the Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of NetScientific.

In November 2015, PDS received $ 500,000 from The Sherrie Labrum Trust, or the Labrum Trust, in exchange for a convertible promissory note. The promissory notes plus related accrued interest totaling $528,151 were converted into equity in December 2016, resulting in the issuance of 22,595 shares of PDS common stock at a price of $ 23.38 per share. In August 2016, PDS received $ 218,767 from The Sherrie Labrum Trust in exchange for a convertible promissory note. The promissory notes plus related accrued interest totaling $ 223,442 were converted into equity in December 2016, resulting in the issuance of 8,496 shares of PDS common stock at a price of $ 8.58 per share. As of December 31, 2018, the Labrum Trust owned approximately 5.5% of the outstanding shares of PDS common stock.

In January 2018, the PDS Board approved the reduction in the conversion or purchase price per share, as applicable, for each of the transactions described above (other than the exercise of warrants by NetScientific) to $ 15.33 per share. As a result, PDS issued an additional (i) 7,700, 40,671 and 7,647 shares of PDS common stock to Mr. Bloomquist, for the December 2016 private placement, the November 2015 convertible promissory note, and the August 2016 convertible promissory note, respectively, (ii) 19,871 shares of PDS common stock to NetScientific for the May 2016 convertible promissory note, and (iii) 20,300 and 7,647 shares of PDS common stock to the Labrum Trust for the November 2015 convertible promissory note and the August 2016 convertible promissory note, respectively.

In general, Section 203 defines a “business combination” to include:

In general, Section 203 defines an “interested stockholder” as an entity or person who, together with the person’s affiliates and associates, beneficially owns, or within three years before the time of determination of interested stockholder status did own, 15% or more of the outstanding voting stock of the corporation.

Under specific circumstances, Section 203 makes it more difficult for an “interested stockholder” to effect various business combinations with a corporation for a three-year period, although the stockholders may, by adopting an amendment to the corporation’s certificate of incorporation or bylaws, elect not to be governed by this section, effective 12 months after adoption.

Our eighth amended and restated certificate of incorporation and second amended and restated bylaws do not exclude us from the restrictions of Section 203. We anticipate that the provisions of Section 203 might encourage companies interested in acquiring us to negotiate in advance with our board of directors since the stockholder approval requirement would be avoided if a majority of the directors then in office approve either the business combination or the transaction that resulted in the stockholder becoming an interested stockholder.

Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws. Provisions of our eighth amended and restated certificate of incorporation and second amended and restated bylaws may delay or discourage transactions involving an actual or potential change of control or change in our management, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares, or transactions that our stockholders might otherwise deem to be in their best interests. Therefore, these provisions could adversely affect the price of our common stock. Among other things, our eighth amended and restated certificate of incorporation and second amended and restated bylaws will:

Potential Effects of Authorized but Unissued Stock

We have shares of common stock and preferred stock available for future issuance without stockholder approval. We may utilize these additional shares for a variety of corporate purposes, including future public offerings to raise additional capital, to facilitate corporate acquisitions or payment as a dividend on the capital stock.

The existence of unissued and unreserved common stock and preferred stock may enable our board of directors to issue shares to persons friendly to current management or to issue preferred stock with terms that could render more difficult or discourage a third-party attempt to obtain control of us by means of a merger, tender offer, proxy contest or otherwise, thereby protecting the continuity of our management. In addition, the board of directors has the discretion to determine designations, rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions, including voting rights, dividend rights, conversion rights, redemption privileges and liquidation preferences of each series of preferred stock, all to the fullest extent permissible under the Delaware General Corporation Law and subject to any limitations set forth in our eighth amended and restated certificate of incorporation, as amended. The purpose of authorizing the board of directors to issue preferred stock and to determine the rights and preferences applicable to such preferred stock is to eliminate delays associated with a stockholder vote on specific issuances. The issuance of preferred stock, while providing desirable flexibility in connection with possible financings, acquisitions and other corporate purposes, could have the effect of making it more difficult for a third-party to acquire, or could discourage a third-party from acquiring, a majority of our outstanding voting stock.

Nasdaq Listing

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq under the symbol “PDSB.”

Transfer Agent and Registrar

The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

THIS DISCUSSION IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TAX ADVICE. INVESTORS SHOULD CONSULT THEIR TAX ADVISORS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION OF THE U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS TO THEIR PARTICULAR SITUATIONS AS WELL AS ANY TAX CONSEQUENCES OF THE PURCHASE, OWNERSHIP AND DISPOSITION OF OUR COMMON STOCK ARISING UNDER THE U.S. FEDERAL ESTATE OR GIFT TAX LAWS OR UNDER THE LAWS OF ANY STATE, LOCAL OR NON-U.S. TAXING JURISDICTION OR UNDER ANY APPLICABLE INCOME TAX TREATY.

Definition of a Non-U.S. Holder

For purposes of this discussion, a “Non-U.S. Holder” is any beneficial owner of our common stock that is neither a “U.S. person” nor an entity treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes. A U.S. person is any person that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is or is treated as any of the following:

Distributions

As described in the section entitled “Dividend Policy,” we do not intend to declare or pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. However, if we do make distributions of cash or property on our common stock, such distributions will constitute dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes to the extent paid from our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles. Amounts not treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes will constitute a return of capital and first be applied against and reduce a Non-U.S. Holder’s adjusted tax basis in its common stock, but not below zero. Any excess will be treated as capital gain and will be treated as described below under “—Sale or Other Taxable Disposition.”

Dividends paid to a Non-U.S. Holder of our common stock will be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax at a rate of 30% of the gross amount of the dividends (or such lower rate specified by an applicable income tax treaty, provided the Non-U.S. Holder furnishes a valid IRS Form W-8BEN or W-8BEN-E (or other applicable documentation) certifying qualification for the lower treaty rate). A Non-U.S. Holder that does not timely furnish the required documentation, but that qualifies for a reduced treaty rate, may obtain a refund of any excess amounts withheld by timely filing an appropriate claim for refund with the IRS. Non-U.S. Holders should consult their tax advisors regarding their entitlement to benefits under any applicable income tax treaty.

Sale or Other Taxable Disposition

A Non-U.S. Holder will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on any gain realized upon the sale or other taxable disposition of our common stock unless:

Gain described in the first bullet point above will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at a rate of 30% (or such lower rate specified by an applicable income tax treaty), which may be offset by U.S. source capital losses of the Non-U.S. Holder (even though the individual is not considered a resident of the United States), provided the Non-U.S. Holder has timely filed U.S. federal income tax returns with respect to such losses.

With respect to the second bullet point above, we believe we currently are not, and do not anticipate becoming, a USRPHC. Because the determination of whether we are a USRPHC depends, however, on the fair market value of our USRPIs relative to the fair market value of our non-U.S. real property interests and our other business assets, there can

be no assurance we currently are not a USRPHC or will not become one in the future. Even if we are or were to become a USRPHC, gain arising from the sale or other taxable disposition by a Non-U.S. Holder of our common stock will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax if our common stock is “regularly traded,” as defined by applicable Treasury Regulations, on an established securities market, and such Non-U.S. Holder owned, actually and constructively, 5% or less of our common stock throughout the shorter of the five-year period ending on the date of the sale or other taxable disposition or the Non-U.S. Holder’s holding period.

Non-U.S. Holders should consult their tax advisors regarding potentially applicable income tax treaties that may provide for different rules.

Information Reporting and Backup Withholding

Payments of dividends on our common stock will not be subject to backup withholding, provided the applicable withholding agent does not have actual knowledge or reason to know the holder is a United States person and the holder either certifies its non-U.S. status, such as by furnishing a valid IRS Form W-8BEN, W-8BEN-E or W-8ECI, or otherwise establishes an exemption. However, information returns are required to be filed with the IRS in connection with any dividends on our common stock paid to the Non-U.S. Holder, regardless of whether any tax was actually withheld. In addition, proceeds of the sale or other taxable disposition of our common stock within the United States or conducted through certain U.S.-related brokers generally will not be subject to backup withholding or information reporting, if the applicable withholding agent receives the certification described above and does not have actual knowledge or reason to know that such holder is a United States person, or the holder otherwise establishes an exemption. Proceeds of a disposition of our common stock conducted through a non-U.S. office of a non-U.S. broker generally will not be subject to backup withholding or information reporting.

Copies of information returns that are filed with the IRS may also be made available under the provisions of an applicable treaty or agreement to the tax authorities of the country in which the Non-U.S. Holder resides or is established.

Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Any amounts withheld under the backup withholding rules may be allowed as a refund or a credit against a Non-U.S. Holder’s U.S. federal income tax liability, provided the required information is timely furnished to the IRS.

Additional Withholding Tax on Payments Made to Foreign Accounts

Withholding taxes may be imposed under Sections 1471 to 1474 of the Code (such Sections commonly referred to as the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or “FATCA”) on certain types of payments made to non-U.S. financial institutions and certain other non-U.S. entities. Specifically, a 30% withholding tax may be imposed on dividends on, subject to the proposed Treasury Regulations discussed below, or gross proceeds from the sale or other disposition of, our common stock paid to a “foreign financial institution” or a “non-financial foreign entity” (each as defined in the Code), unless (1) the foreign financial institution undertakes certain diligence and reporting obligations, (2) the non-financial foreign entity either certifies it does not have any “substantial United States owners” (as defined in the Code) or furnishes identifying information regarding each substantial United States owner, or (3) the foreign financial institution or non-financial foreign entity otherwise qualifies for an exemption from these rules. If the payee is a foreign financial institution and is subject to the diligence and reporting requirements in (1) above, it must enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department of the Treasury requiring, among other things, that it undertake to identify accounts held by certain “specified United States persons” or “United States owned foreign entities” (each as defined in the Code), annually report certain information about such accounts, and withhold 30% on certain payments to non-compliant foreign financial institutions and certain other account holders. Foreign financial institutions located in jurisdictions that have an intergovernmental agreement with the United States governing FATCA may be subject to different rules.

Under the applicable Treasury Regulations and administrative guidance, withholding under FATCA currently applies to payments of dividends on our common stock. On December 13, 2018, the Treasury Department issued proposed regulations that, among other things, eliminate the obligation to withhold gross proceeds from the sale or other disposition of such stock. Taxpayers generally may rely on these proposed Treasury Regulations until final Treasury Regulations are issued.

Prospective investors should consult their tax advisors regarding the potential application of withholding under FATCA to their investment in our common stock.

Lock-up Agreements

In connection with this offering, we, along with our directors and executive officers have agreed with the underwriter that for a 90-day “lock-up” period, commencing from the date of this prospectus, subject to specified exceptions, without the prior written consent of the underwriter, we and they will not offer, sell, pledge or otherwise dispose of these securities without the prior written consent of the underwriter.

Price Stabilization, Short Positions and Penalty Bids

The underwriter has advised us that it does not intend to conduct any stabilization or over-allotment activities in connection with this offering.

Passive Market Making

In connection with this offering, the underwriter and any selling group members may engage in passive market making transactions in our common stock on Nasdaq in accordance with Rule 103 of Regulation M under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, during a period before the commencement of offers or sales of common stock and extending through the completion of the distribution. A passive market maker must display its bid at a price not in excess of the highest independent bid of that security. However, if all independent bids are lowered below the passive market maker’s bid that bid must then be lowered when specified purchase limits are exceeded.

Electronic Distribution

This prospectus in electronic format may be made available on websites or through other online services maintained by the underwriter, or by its affiliates. Other than this prospectus in electronic format, the information on the underwriter’s website and any information contained in any other website maintained by the underwriter is not part of this prospectus or the registration statement of which this prospectus forms a part, has not been approved and/or endorsed by us or the underwriter in its capacity as underwriter, and should not be relied upon by investors.

Other

From time to time, the underwriter and/or its affiliates have provided, and may in the future provide, various investment banking and other financial services for us for which services they have received and, may in the future receive, customary fees. In the course of their businesses, the underwriter and its affiliates may actively trade our securities or loans for its own account or for the accounts of customers, and, accordingly, the underwriter and its affiliates may at any time hold long or short positions in such securities or loans. Except for services provided in connection with this offering, the underwriter has not provided any investment banking or other financial services to us during the 180-day period preceding the date of this prospectus, and we do not expect to retain the underwriter to perform any investment banking or other financial services for at least 90 days after the date of this prospectus.

Selling Restrictions

This prospectus does not constitute an offer to sell to, or a solicitation of an offer to buy from, anyone in any country or jurisdiction (i) in which such an offer or solicitation is not authorized, (ii) in which any person making such offer or solicitation is not qualified to do so or (iii) in which any such offer or solicitation would otherwise be unlawful. No action has been taken that would, or is intended to, permit a public offer of the shares of common stock or possession or distribution of this prospectus or any other offering or publicity material relating to the shares of common stock in any country or jurisdiction (other than the United States) where any such action for that purpose is required. Accordingly, the underwriter has undertaken that it will not, directly or indirectly, offer or sell any shares of common stock or have in its possession, distribute or publish any prospectus, form of application, advertisement or other document or information in any country or jurisdiction except under circumstances that will, to the best of its knowledge and belief, result in compliance with any applicable laws and regulations and all offers and sales of shares of common stock by it will be made on the same terms.

European Economic Area

In relation to each Member State of the European Economic Area which has implemented the Prospectus Directive (each, a “Relevant Member State”) an offer to the public of any shares of our common stock may not be made in that Relevant Member State, except that an offer to the public in that Relevant Member State of any shares of our common stock may be made at any time under the following exemptions under the Prospectus Directive, if they have been implemented in that Relevant Member State:

provided that no such offer of our common stock shall result in a requirement for us or any underwriter to publish a prospectus pursuant to Article 3 of the Prospectus Directive.

For the purposes of this provision, (1) the expression an “offer of common stock to the public” in relation to any common stock in any Relevant Member State means the communication in any form and by any means of sufficient information on the terms of the offer and any shares of our common stock to be offered so as to enable an investor to decide to purchase or subscribe for the common stock, as the same may be varied in that Relevant Member State by any measure implementing the Prospectus Directive in that Relevant Member State, (2) the expression “Prospectus Directive” means Directive 2003/71/EC (and amendments thereto, including the 2010 PD Amending Directive), and includes any relevant implementing measure in each Relevant Member State and (3) the expression “2010 PD Amending Directive” means Directive 2010/73/EU.

United Kingdom

This prospectus has only been communicated or caused to have been communicated and will only be communicated or caused to be communicated as an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity (within the meaning of Section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 (the “FSMA”)) as received in connection with the issue or sale of the common stock in circumstances in which Section 21(1) of the FSMA does not apply to us. All applicable provisions of the FSMA will be complied with in respect to anything done in relation to the common stock in, from or otherwise involving the United Kingdom.

Canada

The shares may be sold only to purchasers purchasing, or deemed to be purchasing, as principal that are accredited investors, as defined in National Instrument 45-106 Prospectus Exemptions or subsection 73.3(1) of the Securities Act (Ontario), and are permitted clients, as defined in National Instrument 31-103 Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations. Any resale of the securities must be made in accordance with an exemption from, or in a transaction not subject to, the prospectus requirements of applicable securities laws.

Securities legislation in certain provinces or territories of Canada may provide a purchaser with remedies for rescission or damages if this prospectus (including any amendment thereto) contains a misrepresentation, provided that the remedies for rescission or damages are exercised by the purchaser within the time limit prescribed by the securities legislation of the purchaser’s province or territory. The purchaser should refer to any applicable provisions of the securities legislation of the purchaser’s province or territory for particulars of these rights or consult with a legal advisor.

Pursuant to section 3A.3 of National Instrument 33-105 Underwriting Conflicts (NI 33-105), the underwriters are not required to comply with the disclosure requirements of NI 33-105 regarding underwriter conflicts of interest in connection with this offering.

Australia

No placement document, prospectus, product disclosure statement or other disclosure document has been lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in relation to the offering. This prospectus

does not constitute a prospectus, product disclosure statement or other disclosure document under the Corporations Act 2001, or the Corporations Act, and does not purport to include the information required for a prospectus, product disclosure statement or other disclosure document under the Corporations Act.

Any offer in Australia of the shares may only be made to persons, or the Exempt Investors, who are “sophisticated investors” (within the meaning of section 708(8) of the Corporations Act), “professional investors” (within the meaning of section 708(11) of the Corporations Act) or otherwise pursuant to one or more exemptions contained in section 708 of the Corporations Act so that it is lawful to offer the shares without disclosure to investors under Chapter 6D of the Corporations Act.

The shares applied for by Exempt Investors in Australia must not be offered for sale in Australia in the period of 12 months after the date of allotment under the offering, except in circumstances where disclosure to investors under Chapter 6D of the Corporations Act would not be required pursuant to an exemption under section 708 of the Corporations Act or otherwise or where the offer is pursuant to a disclosure document which complies with Chapter 6D of the Corporations Act. Any person acquiring shares must observe such Australian on-sale restrictions.

This prospectus contains general information only and does not take account of the investment objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular person. It does not contain any securities recommendations or financial product advice. Before making an investment decision, investors need to consider whether the information in this prospectus is appropriate to their needs, objectives and circumstances and, if necessary, seek expert advice on those matters.

Switzerland

The shares may not be publicly offered in Switzerland and will not be listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange, or SIX, or on any other stock exchange or regulated trading facility in Switzerland. This document has been prepared without regard to the disclosure standards for issuance prospectuses under art. 652a or art. 1156 of the Swiss Code of Obligations or the disclosure standards for listing prospectuses under art. 27 ff. of the SIX Listing Rules or the listing rules of any other stock exchange or regulated trading facility in Switzerland. Neither this document nor any other offering or marketing material relating to the shares or the offering may be publicly distributed or otherwise made publicly available in Switzerland.

Neither this document nor any other offering or marketing material relating to the offering, PDS or the shares have been or will be filed with or approved by any Swiss regulatory authority. This document will not be filed with, and the offer of shares will not be supervised by, the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA, and the offer of shares has not been and will not be authorized under the Swiss Federal Act on Collective Investment Schemes, or CISA. The investor protection afforded to acquirers of interests in collective investment schemes under the CISA does not extend to acquirers of shares.

Dubai International Financial Centre

This prospectus relates to an Exempt Offer in accordance with the Offered Securities Rules of the Dubai Financial Services Authority, or DFSA. This prospectus is intended for distribution only to persons of a type specified in the Offered Securities Rules of the DFSA. It must not be delivered to, or relied on by, any other person. The DFSA has no responsibility for reviewing or verifying any documents relating to Exempt Offers. The DFSA has not approved this prospectus nor taken steps to verify the information set forth herein and has no responsibility for the prospectus. The shares to which this prospectus relates may be illiquid and/or subject to restrictions on their resale. Prospective purchasers of the shares offered should conduct their own due diligence on the shares. If you do not understand the contents of this prospectus, you should consult an authorized financial advisor.

Hong Kong

The shares have not been offered or sold and will not be offered or sold in Hong Kong, by means of any document, other than (a) to “professional investors” as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) of Hong Kong and any rules made under that Ordinance or (b) in other circumstances which do not result in the document being a “prospectus” as defined in the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) of Hong Kong or which do not constitute an offer to the public within the meaning of that Ordinance. No advertisement, invitation

or document relating to the shares has been or may be issued or has been or may be in the possession of any person for the purposes of issue, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere, which is directed at, or the contents of which are likely to be accessed or read by, the public of Hong Kong (except if permitted to do so under the securities laws of Hong Kong) other than with respect to shares which are or are intended to be disposed of only to persons outside Hong Kong or only to “professional investors” as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance and any rules made under that Ordinance.

Japan

The shares have not been and will not be registered under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Law of Japan (Law No. 25 of 1948, as amended) and, accordingly, will not be offered or sold, directly or indirectly, in Japan, or for the benefit of any Japanese Person or to others for re-offering or resale, directly or indirectly, in Japan or to any Japanese Person, except in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and ministerial guidelines promulgated by relevant Japanese governmental or regulatory authorities in effect at the relevant time. For the purposes of this paragraph, “Japanese Person” shall mean any person resident in Japan, including any corporation or other entity organized under the laws of Japan.

The following documents are incorporated by reference into this document (other than the portions of these documents deemed to be “furnished” or not deemed to be “filed,” including the portions of these documents that are furnished under Item 2.02 or Item 7.01 of a Current Report on Form 8-K, including any exhibits included with such Items):

We also incorporate by reference into this prospectus all documents (other than Current Reports furnished under Item 2.02 or Item 7.01 of Form 8-K and exhibits filed on such form that are related to such items) that are filed by us with the SEC pursuant to Sections 13(a), 13(c), 14 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act after the date of this registration statement to which this prospectus forms a part and until the completion or termination of the offering contemplated hereby. These documents include periodic reports, such as Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K.

Any statement contained herein or in a document incorporated or deemed to be incorporated by reference into this document will be deemed to be modified or superseded for purposes of the document to the extent that a statement contained in this document or any other subsequently filed document that is deemed to be incorporated by reference into this document modifies or supersedes the statement.

We make available, free of charge, through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a), 13(c), 14 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. You may also obtain, free of charge, a copy of any of these documents (other than exhibits to these documents, unless the exhibits are specifically incorporated by reference into these documents or referred to in this prospectus) by writing or calling us at the following address and telephone number:

PDS Biotechnology Corporation
303A College Road East
Princeton, New Jersey 08540
(800) 208-3343

4,918,033 Shares of Common Stock

PROSPECTUS

A.G.P.

         , 2020

Through and including          , 2020 (25 days after commencement of this offering), all dealers that effect transactions in these securities, whether or not participating in this offering, may be required to deliver a prospectus. This is in addition to the dealer’s obligation to deliver a prospectus when acting as an underwriter and with respect to their unsold allotments or subscriptions.