UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

Commission File Number 001-36818

TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(858) 550-0780

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes ☐    No ☒.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes ☐    No ☒.

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.   ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Act).      Yes ☐    No ☒

As of June 30, 2021, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $99.0 million, based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Capital Market on June 30, 2021 of $6.49 per share.

The number of outstanding shares of the registrant’s common stock as of March 11, 2022 was 19,616,571.

TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.    

FORM 10-K — ANNUAL REPORT

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Forward-Looking Statements  

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (Annual Report), including the sections entitled “Summary,” “Risk Factors,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Business,” contains forward-looking statements. We may, in some cases, use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would” or the negative of those terms, and similar expressions that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes, to identify these forward-looking statements. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements about:

These forward-looking statements reflect our management’s beliefs and views with respect to future events and are based on estimates and assumptions as of the date of this Annual Report and are subject to risks and uncertainties. We discuss many of these risks in greater detail under “Risk Factors.” Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.

We qualify all of the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report by these cautionary statements. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

2

Summary of Risk Factors

Our business is subject to numerous risks, as more fully described immediately below. You should read these risks before you invest in our common stock. We may be unable, for many reasons, including those that are beyond our control, to implement our business strategy. In particular, risks associated with our business include:

3

PART I

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel targeted therapeutics for cancer and utilizing our cost efficient, contract research organization (CRO) independent product development platform to partner with ex-U.S. companies to develop and commercialize innovative products in the United States.

In December 2019, we entered into a collaboration and clinical trial agreement (the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement) with 3D Medicines Co., Ltd. (3D Medicines) and Jiangsu Alphamab Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Alphamab) for the development of envafolimab, also known as KN035, an investigational PD-L1 single-domain antibody (sdAb) administered by rapid subcutaneous injection for the treatment of sarcoma in North America. The ENVASARC Phase 2 pivotal trial (the ENVASARC trial) began dosing in December 2020 at 300mg of envafolimab every three weeks in cohort A, and 300mg of envafolimab every three weeks in combination with Yervoy® at 1mg/kg every three weeks for four doses in cohort B, in the sarcoma subtypes of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and myxofibrosarcoma (MFS). In December 2021, the IDMC reviewed interim safety and efficacy data from 18 patients enrolled into each cohort who completed a minimum of 12 weeks of efficacy evaluations (two on-treatment scans).  The objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in each cohort satisfied the prespecified futility rule of having at least one response in each cohort. Envafolimab was well tolerated, with only a single Grade 3 related adverse event reported in 36 patients. Based on the tolerability profile and the significantly higher ORR observed in lower weight patients, the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) recommended the trial continue, using a higher dose of envafolimab of 600mg every three weeks. Given the activity demonstrated by higher doses of envafolimab in completed trials, including in the pivotal trial in MSI-H/dMMR cancer that was the basis for approval of envafolimab in China, we agreed with the IDMC guidance and proposed a doubling of the envafolimab dose to 600mg every three weeks to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in an amendment which was cleared without comment. The ENVASARC trial will now assess up to 80 new patients in a cohort of single agent envafolimab at 600mg every three weeks and up to 80 new patients in a cohort of envafolimab at 600mg every three weeks with Yervoy at 1mg/kg every three weeks for four doses. Nine of 80 responses by BICR in either cohort are needed to satisfy the primary objective of the trial which is to statistically exceed the known 4% ORR of Votrient® (pazopanib), the only FDA-approved treatment for patients with refractory UPS or MFS. Achieving the primary endpoint of ORR could be the basis for accelerated approval of envafolimab by the FDA as a single agent and/or in combination with Yervoy. The trial will provide at least 86% power to demonstrate the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 5% in each cohort, which would be greater than the 4% ORR of Votrient reported in soft tissue sarcoma in its package insert. Votrient is the only approved treatment for refractory soft tissue sarcoma, which includes UPS and MFS.

An initial interim efficacy analysis at the higher 600mg dose is planned following the 12-week efficacy scan in the 36th enrolled patient, to allow for determination of the preliminary ORR, which we expect in the second half of 2022. There must be at least one response among the initial 18 patients enrolled at 600mg into each cohort to continue enrollment in that cohort per the futility rules of the trial. A second interim efficacy analysis at the 600mg dose is planned following the 12-week efficacy scan in the 92nd enrolled patient, to allow for determination of the preliminary ORR, which we expect in 2023. There must be at least three responses among the initial 46 patients enrolled at 600mg into each cohort to continue enrollment in that cohort per the futility rules of the trial.

Assuming sufficient patient responses in line with meeting the ENVASARC trial endpoint, we intend to apply for fast track designation with the FDA for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma subtypes in the United States in 2022, and for breakthrough designation following the initial efficacy interim analysis. We expect final response assessment data including duration of response in all patients from the ENVASARC trial in 2024, and, assuming positive data, to submit a biologics license application to the FDA seeking accelerated approval in 2024. At any time that we reach nine responses in each cohort and meet the endpoint, we expect to discuss the submission process with the FDA.

In June 2021, we received orphan drug designation (ODD) for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. The ODD application included data demonstrating that two of five patients with alveolar soft parts sarcoma (ASPS) treated with envafolimab in Phase 1 trials conducted by 3D Medicines and Alphamab demonstrated partial responses (PR), each with a duration of response greater than six months. In June and August 2021, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) recommended that the ENVASARC trial proceed as planned following the review of safety data from the more than 20 patients enrolled in the trial at that time.

In November 2021, we announced that our partners 3D Medicines and Alphamab had received marketing authorization for envafolimab from the Chinese National Medical Products Association (NMPA) in the indication of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) cancer.

Our other clinical stage oncology product candidates include YH001, which is a monospecific investigational CTLA-4 antibody, that we licensed from Eucure (Beijing) Biopharma Co., Ltd. (Eucure) and Biocytogen Pharmaceuticals (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (Biocytogen) in October 2021, TRC102, which is a small molecule that has been studied in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials for the treatment of mesothelioma, lung cancer, glioblastoma and solid tumors, and TJ004309, which is a CD73 antibody in Phase 1 clinical development for the treatment of solid tumors, that we licensed from I-Mab Biopharma (I-Mab) in November 2018.

YH001 is an investigational humanized CTLA-4 IgG1 monoclonal antibody that is being developed in two Phase 1 trials by Eucure for the treatment of various cancer indications. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) is a protein expressed on T-cells and expressed at high levels specifically on regulatory T-cells (Tregs) and contributes to the suppressor function of Tregs by acting as a checkpoint to inhibit effector T-cell immune responses to cancer cells. The CTLA-4 inhibitor Yervoy (ipilimumab) marketed by BMS has been approved as a single agent in melanoma and approved in combination with other therapies in multiple indications including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and MSI-H/dMMR cancer. As of August 9, 2021, YH001 had been dosed in more than 34 patients in China and Australia. No CTLA-4 therapy is approved by the FDA for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. We intend to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of YH001 in combination with envafolimab and with doxorubicin chemotherapy, an approved treatment for soft tissue sarcoma, in the second half of 2022. Additionally, we plan to initiate trials of YH001 as a single agent or in combination with immunotherapies in other tumor types.

TRC102 is a small molecule in clinical development to reverse resistance to specific chemotherapeutics by inhibiting DNA base excision repair (BER). In initial clinical trials of more than 100 patients, TRC102 has shown good tolerability and we believe, promising anti-tumor activity in combination with alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer patients. TRC102 has been studied in Phase 1 or Phase 2 trials in mesothelioma patients in combination with the approved chemotherapeutic Alimta® (pemetrexed), in glioblastoma, ovarian cancer, lung and colorectal cancer patients in combination with the approved chemotherapeutic Temodar® (temozolomide) and in lung cancer patients in combination with the approved chemotherapeutics Alimta and cisplatin as well as external beam radiation (i.e., chemoradiation). All current TRC102 trials are sponsored and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). We retain global rights to develop and commercialize TRC102 in all indications. In October 2020, we received ODD from the FDA for TRC102 for the treatment of patients with malignant glioma, including glioblastoma. O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) deficiency is observed in about one-third of glioblastoma patients, and a prior study of Temodar and TRC102 reported at the Society for Neuro-Oncology in 2018 demonstrated that two MGMT deficient glioblastoma patients had prolonged survival when treated with Temodar and TRC102 after progressing previously on Temodar and radiation therapy. A December 2020 publication in Cancer Cell also demonstrated Temodar and TRC102 were active in MGMT deficient patients with colorectal cancer. Based on these data, we believe a trial in first line glioblastoma patients of Temodar, radiation therapy and TRC102 is warranted and are discussing further development with investigators at this time. In addition, based on data presented at the ASCO 2020 virtual meeting that the combination of chemoradiation and TRC102 produced objective responses in all 15 evaluable patients with advanced localized lung cancer treated in a Phase 1 trial, in January 2022, the NCI initiated a randomized trial of chemoradiation with or without TRC102, followed by consolidative durvalumab treatment. The primary objective is to improve the 56% progression free survival (PFS) rate with current standard of care to 75% with current standard of care plus TRC102. The trial is expected to begin enrollment in June 2022 and complete in 2024.

TJ004309, also known as TJD5 or uliledlimab, is a novel humanized antibody against CD73 expressed on stromal cells and tumors that converts extracellular adenosine monophosphate (AMP) to the immunosuppressive metabolite adenosine. We are developing TJ004309 in collaboration with I-Mab under a strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement that we entered into in November 2018 (the TJ004309 Agreement). In July 2019, we began enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical trial to assess safety and preliminary efficacy of TJ004309 as a single agent and when combined with the PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor Tecentriq® in patients with advanced solid tumors, and in June 2021 we presented data from the ongoing Phase 1 trial at the ASCO 2021 virtual meeting. In a poster presentation titled “The safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and clinical efficacy of uliledlimab (TJ004309), a differentiated CD73 antibody, in combination with atezolizumab in patients with advanced cancer,” uliledlimab was found to be well-tolerated up to 20mg/kg every three weeks and 15mg/kg once weekly as a monotherapy and in combination therapy with atezolizumab 1200mg every three weeks and no dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. There was one complete response in a PD-(L)1 naïve patient, two PRs with one PR in a PD-(L)1 naïve patient and one PR in a PD-(L)1 refractory patient, and three cases of stable disease (SD) following treatment with uliledlimab and atezolizumab. We expect to complete the TJ004309 Phase 1 in the first half of 2022.

We entered into a separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement (the Bispecific Agreement) which allows for the development of up to five of I-Mab’s proprietary bispecific antibody (the BsAb) product candidates to be nominated by I-Mab within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America, with the option to opt-in and acquire product rights outside of Greater China and Korea prior to completing the first pivotal clinical trial for any bispecific product candidate.

In March 2020, I-Mab issued a press release announcing a strategic partnership with Kalbe Genexine Biologics (KG Bio), whereby KG Bio received what the press release described as a right of first negotiation outside North America for TJ004309 for up to $340 million in potential payments to I-Mab. In March 2020, we also learned that I-Mab had entered into two license and collaboration agreements with ABL Bio in July 2018 (ABL Bio License 1 and ABL Bio License 2). Under ABL Bio License 1, I-Mab granted to ABL Bio exclusive, worldwide (excluding Greater China), royalty-bearing rights to develop and commercialize a BsAb using certain monoclonal antibody sequences. Under ABL License 2, I-Mab and ABL agreed to collaborate to develop three PD-L1-based bispecific antibodies by using ABL Bio’s proprietary BsAb technology and commercialize them in their respective territories, which, collectively, include China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and South Korea, and other territories throughout the rest of the world if both parties agree to do so in such other territories during the performance of the agreement. On April 8, 2020, we issued a notice of dispute regarding possible breaches of the TJ004309 Agreement and the Bispecific Agreement, which resulted in a binding arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce before an arbitration tribunal seated in New York City (the Tribunal). The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits in February 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the

TJ004309 Agreement and Bispecific Agreement disputes remain under consideration by the Tribunal, and we expect their decision in 2022. We believe we may be entitled to receive payments due to I-Mab’s strategic partnership with KG Bio under the TJ004309 Agreement, although I-Mab has disputed any payment is due. In 2021, I-Mab sent us notices purporting to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement, which would result in I-Mab owing us a prespecified termination fee of $9.0 million. However, I-Mab does not have an option to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement without cause until the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of TJ004309 is “Complete,” as that term is defined in the TJ004309 Agreement, and we responded by disputing the basis for I-Mab’s termination. In March 2021, I-Mab filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking an order of specific performance requiring us to comply with I-Mab’s effort to terminate the agreement. We disagreed with I-Mab’s position and in May 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the lawsuit filed by I-Mab and subsequently this matter was remanded and included in the proceeding before the Tribunal. The claims under the arbitration under the TJ00439 and Bispecific Agreements are substantial and complex and the result is inherently uncertain. The dispute with I-Mab has caused and could continue to cause us to incur significant costs.

The following table summarizes key information regarding ongoing and planned development of our clinical stage product candidates:

We utilize a CRO-independent product development platform that emphasizes capital efficiency. Our experienced clinical operations, data management, quality assurance, product development and regulatory affairs groups manage significant aspects of our clinical trials with internal resources. We use these internal resources to reduce the costs associated with utilizing CROs to conduct clinical trials. In our experience, this model has resulted in capital efficiencies and improved communication with clinical trial sites, which can expedite patient enrollment and improve the quality of patient data as compared to a CRO-managed model. We have leveraged this platform in all of our sponsored clinical trials. We have also leveraged our product development platform to diversify our product pipeline without payment of upfront license fees through license agreements with Eucure and Biocytogen, 3D Medicines and Alphamab, I-Mab, and Janssen. We continue to evaluate ex-U.S. companies that would benefit from a rapid and capital-efficient U.S. drug development solution that includes U.S. and European Union (EU) clinical development expertise. We believe we will continue to be recognized as a preferred U.S. clinical development partner through a cost- and risk-sharing partnership structure, which may include U.S. commercialization.

Our goal is to be a leader in the development of targeted therapies for patients with cancer and other diseases of high unmet medical need.

Our Lead Clinical Stage Product Candidate – Envafolimab

Overview of PD-L1

PD-L1 is an immune-inhibitory checkpoint molecule expressed on epithelial and vascular endothelial cells, as well as by a number of immune cells, that is utilized by tumor cells as an immune escape mechanism. Numerous preclinical and clinical studies of PD-1/PD-L1 products have demonstrated that antibodies that block the interaction of PD-1 with its ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2, or those that block only the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1, can augment anti-tumor T-cell responses and lead to complete and durable tumor eradication in a certain proportion of patients.  Potent therapeutic anti-tumor responses due to blocking of the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction has been demonstrated by these approved products in patients with various solid tumors including, but not limited to, NSCLC, small cell lung cancer, gastric cancer, melanoma, RCC, head and neck cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and urothelial carcinoma.

6

About Envafolimab and Preclinical Studies

Envafolimab is a sdAb that binds selectively to PD-L1 and is administered by rapid subcutaneous injection without an adjuvant.  In November 2021 we announced that our partners 3D Medicines and Alphamab had received marketing authorization for envafolimab from the Chinese NMPA in the indication of MSI-H/dMMR cancer, and is being further developed by 3D Medicines for the treatment of various cancer indications, including an ongoing first line biliary tract cancer (BTC) pivotal trial in China, and by us in the United States for the treatment of sarcoma in the pivotal ENVASARC trial.

Single-domain antibodies are a novel class of therapeutic protein that contain the unique structural and functional properties of naturally-occurring antibodies from camels and llamas that contain heavy chains and lack light chains.  On February 6, 2019, the FDA approved the first sdAb, Cablivi® (caplacizumab), for adults with acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

Envafolimab is a camelid IgG1 sdAb with single digit nanomolar affinity to PD-L1. Benefitting from the sdAb format, envafolimab has approximately half the molecular weight compared to a typical monoclonal antibody with better stability and high solubility, which enables the development of a high concentration formulation suitable for rapid subcutaneous injection. In addition, the effector functions are muted in envafolimab to help limit side effects and limit its exposure to the immune system to avoid unwanted adverse immune responses. As a result, compared with approved PD-(L)1 inhibitors, envafolimab potentially has the following advantages:

In pre-clinical studies in human cell models and a humanized mouse model, envafolimab was compared with 2.41H90P, an antibody with a sequence that is identical to durvalumab, an approved PD-L1 inhibitor marketed by AstraZeneca, and envafolimab showed the following potential advantages:

7

Clinical Trials of Envafolimab

As of December 31, 2021, envafolimab had been dosed in more than 700 patients in a total of 7 ongoing or completed clinical trials in the United States, China or Japan, including our ENVASARC trial, a pivotal Phase 2 trial in MSI-H/dMMR cancer patients in China, a Phase 2 trial of envafolimab plus chemotherapy in gastric cancer, a Phase 3 randomized trial of envafolimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in BTC in China, a Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration trial in the United States, a Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration trial in China, and a Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration trial in Japan.

Phase 1 Dose Escalation Clinical Trial in China

An open-label, single-arm Phase 1 dose escalation and exploration clinical trial of envafolimab has completed enrollment in China. The safety and efficacy data from this trial were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in June 2019. Based on the data presented at the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting (the ASCO Presentation), 17 subjects were enrolled in the dose escalation phase in this trial as of May 1, 2019. A total of 287 subjects were enrolled in this Phase 1 trial at dose levels shown to be tolerable during dose escalation.

Trial purpose. The primary objectives of the Phase 1 dose escalation were to assess the safety and tolerability profile and MTD of single agent envafolimab administered subcutaneously in subjects with advanced solid tumors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the PK profile, immunogenicity and anti-tumor activity.

Trial design of the dose escalation phase. This trial adopted a modified “3+3” design with a DLT evaluation period of 28 days. Subjects received envafolimab in six cohorts at 0.1mg/kg, 0.3mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, 2.5mg/kg, 5.0mg/kg and 10.0mg/kg once every week (QW) subcutaneously. Starting from the 1.0mg/kg cohort, a traditional “3+3” design was followed. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Tumor assessments were performed based on RECIST version 1.1.

Safety of dose escalation phase. The majority of the subjects received two or more prior systemic oncology treatments. According to the ASCO Presentation, 16 of the subjects discontinued treatment due to disease progression (n=15) or consent withdrawal (n=1). All of the enrolled subjects experienced TEAEs. 13 (76.5%) subjects experienced treatment-related TEAEs. Three (17.6%) subjects experienced serious TEAEs, although none were determined to be treatment-related. A TEAE led to treatment discontinuation in one subject and was also determined to be not treatment-related. No DLT was reported and the MTD was not reached. Details of the TEAEs observed from the 17 subjects enrolled in the Phase 1 dose escalation trial are summarized in the following table.

8

Efficacy. According to the ASCO Presentation, 15 out of 17 subjects were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Three subjects had confirmed PR, including one RCC subject in the 2.5mg/kg cohort, one intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma subject from the 5.0mg/kg cohort and one BTC subject from the 10.0mg/kg cohort. In addition, five subjects achieved stable disease. All 15 subjects completed at least one post-baseline tumor assessment, according to the ASCO Presentation. Two enrolled subjects who had not reached the first post-baseline tumor assessment were excluded. The table below summarizes the best overall response in the efficacy analysis of this trial, according to the ASCO Presentation.

9

The following waterfall plot shows the best overall response of the 15 evaluable subjects receiving envafolimab as measured by percentage of change of target lesions from baseline, according to the ASCO Presentation.

Conclusion. According to the ASCO Presentation, envafolimab exhibited a tolerable safety profile and preliminary efficacy in patients with advanced malignancies in the Phase 1 dose escalation trial in China.

10

Phase 1 Dose Escalation Clinical Trial in the United States

An open-label Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration clinical trial of envafolimab was conducted in the United States. Safety and efficacy data from the dose escalation phase of the trial were presented at the 2018 Annual Congress of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in October 2018. Based on the data presented at ESMO (the ESMO Presentation), 18 subjects were enrolled in the dose escalation phase of this trial as of July 5, 2018.

Trial purpose of the dose escalation phase. The primary objectives of the Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial were to evaluate and characterize the tolerability and safety profile of single agent envafolimab in subjects with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. The secondary objectives were to characterize the PK profile, determine MTD and to evaluate anti-tumor activity.

Trial design of the dose escalation phase. This trial adopted a modified “3+3” design with a DLT evaluation period of 28 days. Subjects received envafolimab across eight cohorts at 0.01mg/kg, 0.03mg/kg, 0.1mg/kg, 0.3mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, 2.5mg/kg, 5.0mg/kg and 10.0mg/kg QW subcutaneously. Starting from the 0.3mg/kg cohort, a traditional “3+3” design was followed. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring TEAEs. Tumor assessments were performed based on RECIST version 1.1.

Safety of dose escalation phase. The median duration of exposure to envafolimab was 9 weeks with a range of 6 to 32 weeks. As of July 5, 2018, two of the subjects (11.1%) remained in the trial, 11 subjects had discontinued treatment due to disease progression, three subjects had discontinued treatment due to TEAEs, and two subjects had discontinued treatment due to the opinion of the investigator that no more clinical benefit could be obtained or for other reasons. All of the 18 enrolled subjects experienced TEAEs. Treatment-related TEAEs at grade 3 or above included increased aspartate aminotransferase (10.5%), increased alanine aminotransferase (10.5%) and lymphopenia (10.5%). No DLT was observed and the planned maximum dose of 10.0mg/kg was reached.

Efficacy of dose escalation phase. According to the ESMO Presentation, 17 out of 18 subjects were evaluable for the efficacy analysis. Two subjects had confirmed PR, including one NSCLC subject from the 0.3mg/kg QW cohort (response duration of 9 months) and one MSI-H prostate cancer subject from the 2.5mg/kg QW cohort. In addition, five subjects achieved SD. All 17 evaluable subjects completed at least one post-baseline tumor assessment according to the ESMO Presentation. One enrolled subject who had not reached the first post-baseline tumor assessment was excluded. The table below summarizes the best overall response in the efficacy analysis of this trial according to the ESMO Presentation.

PK profile of dose escalation phase. This trial showed that the exposure to envafolimab was dose-dependent and increased proportionally across all eight dose levels. Mean half-life of envafolimab was approximately 200 hours.

Conclusion. According to the ESMO Presentation, envafolimab exhibited a favorable safety profile in subjects with advanced solid tumors and preliminary efficacy results demonstrated encouraging anti-tumor activity. Based on the PK profile, patients in the trial were treated with envafolimab at 300mg every 4 weeks by subcutaneous injection.

11

Phase 1 Clinical Trial in Japan

An open-label Phase 1 dose escalation and dose exploration clinical trial of envafolimab was conducted in Japan. The safety, efficacy and PK data of this trial as of May 5, 2019 were presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June 2019. Based on the data presented in the ASCO Annual Meeting (the Japan Trial ASCO Presentation), 26 subjects were enrolled in this trial as of May 5, 2019.

Trial purpose. The primary objectives of the Phase 1 clinical trial were to assess the safety and tolerability profile of single agent envafolimab in Japanese subjects with previously treated advanced solid tumors. The secondary objectives were to characterize the PK profile, determine MTD and evaluate the anti-tumor activity.

Trial design. This Phase 1 trial consisted of a multi-dose escalation phase followed by a dose exploration phase. Subjects received envafolimab across five cohorts at 1.0mg/kg, 2.5mg/kg and 5.0mg/kg QW subcutaneously, and 2.5mg/kg and 5.0mg/kg Q2W subcutaneously. The QW schedule adopted a traditional “3+3” design. For the Q2W schedule, six patients were planned for each cohort. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring TEAEs under common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. Tumor assessments were performed based on RECIST version 1.1. Full PK sampling was performed after the first dose of cycle 1 (28 days) and sparse PK samples were collected at pre-dose and around Cmax during the subsequent cycles.

Safety. According to the Japan Trial ASCO Presentation, as of May 5, 2019, no MTD had been reached. As of the same date, three subjects had remained in the trial. 21 subjects had discontinued treatment due to disease progression and two subjects had discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. All of the enrolled subjects experienced TEAEs, 17 subjects (65.4%) experienced treatment-related TEAEs, and only one grade 3 treatment-related TEAE (cerebral infraction) was reported. There were no grade 4/5 treatment-related TEAEs. There were a total of four SAEs, two of which were treatment-related. No DLT was reported.

Efficacy. According to the Japan Trial ASCO Presentation, nine out of 26 patients were evaluable for the efficacy analysis as of May 5, 2019. Two subjects had confirmed PR and two subjects had unconfirmed PR. The other five evaluable subjects had achieved SD. 17 enrolled subjects who did not reach the first post-baseline tumor assessment were excluded.

PK profile. In the dose escalation phase, the exposure to envafolimab was dose-dependent and increased proportionally. Tmax varied from 96 to 168 hours after a single dose as shown in Figure 1 below. In the dose exploration phase, the exposure to envafolimab was dose-dependent and increased proportionally. Preliminary PK suggested a prolonged half-life that may support a less frequent dosing schedule than once every 2 weeks.

Conclusion. Envafolimab exhibited a favorable safety profile in patients with advanced malignancies and preliminary efficacy results demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in the Phase 1 clinical trial in Japan. Based on the PK profile, patients in the trial were treated with envafolimab at 300mg every 4 weeks by subcutaneous injection.

Pivotal Clinical Trial in China in MSI-H/dMMR tumors

A pivotal clinical trial of envafolimab dosed as a single agent for the treatment of MSI-H/dMMR tumors was initiated in August 2018.  The trial was a non-randomized trial enrolling approximately 110 patients in China, including CRC patients who are required to have been previously treated with standard therapies, which must include fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin or irinotecan, and other solid tumor patients, who are required to have been previously treated with at least one line of systemic standard of care therapy. Patients received 150mg of envafolimab subcutaneously dosed weekly and ORR was the primary endpoint defined by RECIST version 1.1.  In

12

a presentation at the CSCO 2020 Virtual Scientific Program entitled, “Subcutaneous Injection of PD-L1 Antibody Envafolimab (KN035) in Advanced Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency,” single agent envafolimab was shown to have a 32% confirmed ORR by central radiographic review in 41 patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC who failed a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, and had at least two on-study tumor assessments. The 32% ORR is nearly identical to the 28% ORR reported for Opdivo and 33% ORR reported for Keytruda in separate trials of MSI-H/dMMR CRC patients who failed a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan. DOR was greater than or equal to 12 months in 75% of patients and OS was greater than or equal to 12 months in 65% of patients. The ORR in the overall population (n=103) of MSI-H/dMMR cancer patients, including tumor types other than CRC, was 43%, DOR was greater than or equal to 12 months in 92% of patients and OS was greater than or equal to 12 months in 75% of patients. In November 2021, envafolimab received marketing authorization from the Chinese NMPA and was approved for adult patients with MSI-H/dMMR advanced solid tumors, including those patients with advanced colorectal cancer who have experienced disease progression following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, as well as patients with other advanced solid tumors who have experienced disease progression following prior systemic treatment and have no satisfactory alternative treatment options.

Clinical Development in Sarcoma in the United States  

The ENVASARC trial began dosing in December 2020 at 300mg of envafolimab every three weeks in cohort A, and 300mg of envafolimab every three weeks in combination with Yervoy® at 1mg/kg every three weeks for four doses in cohort B, in the sarcoma subtypes of UPS and MFS. In December 2021, the IDMC reviewed interim safety and efficacy data from 18 patients enrolled into each cohort who completed a minimum of 12 weeks of efficacy evaluations (two on-treatment scans). The ORR by BICR in each cohort satisfied the prespecified futility rule of having at least one response in each cohort. Envafolimab was well tolerated, with only a single Grade 3 related adverse event reported in 36 patients. Based on the tolerability profile and the significantly higher ORR observed in lower weight patients, the IDMC recommended the trial continue, using a higher dose of envafolimab of 600mg every three weeks. Given the activity demonstrated by higher doses of envafolimab in completed trials, including in the pivotal trial in MSI-H/dMMR cancer that was the basis for approval of envafolimab in China, we agreed with the IDMC guidance and proposed a doubling of the envafolimab dose to 600mg every three weeks to the FDA in an amendment which was cleared without comment. The ENVASARC trial will now assess up to 80 new patients in a cohort of single agent envafolimab at 600mg every three weeks and up to 80 new patients in a cohort of envafolimab at 600mg every three weeks with Yervoy at 1mg/kg every three weeks for four doses. Nine of 80 responses by BICR in either cohort are needed to satisfy the primary objective of the trial which is to statistically exceed the known 4% ORR of Votrient® (pazopanib), the only FDA-approved treatment for patients with refractory UPS or MFS. Achieving the primary endpoint of ORR could be the basis for accelerated approval of envafolimab by the FDA as a single agent and/or in combination with Yervoy. The trial will provide at least 86% power to demonstrate the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 5% in each cohort, which would be greater than the 4% ORR of Votrient reported in soft tissue sarcoma in its package insert. Votrient is the only approved treatment for refractory soft tissue sarcoma, which includes UPS and MFS.

An initial interim efficacy analysis at the higher 600mg dose is planned following the 12-week efficacy scan in the 36th enrolled patient, to allow for determination of the preliminary ORR, which we expect in the second half of 2022. There must be at least one response among the initial 18 patients enrolled at 600mg into each cohort to continue enrollment in that cohort per the futility rules of the trial. A second interim efficacy analysis at the 600mg dose is planned following the 12-week efficacy scan in the 92nd enrolled patient, to allow for determination of the preliminary ORR, which we expect in 2023. There must be at least three responses among the initial 46 patients enrolled at 600mg into each cohort to continue enrollment in that cohort per the futility rules of the trial.

Assuming sufficient patient responses in line with meeting the ENVASARC trial endpoint, we intend to apply for fast track designation with the FDA for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma subtypes in the United States in 2022, and for breakthrough designation following the initial efficacy interim analysis. We expect final response assessment data including duration of response in all patients from the ENVASARC trial in 2024, and, assuming positive data, to submit a biologics license application to the FDA seeking accelerated approval in 2024. At any time that we reach nine responses in each cohort and meet the endpoint, we expect to discuss the submission process with the FDA.

UPS has an incidence of 0.8 to 1.0 cases per 100,000 patients in the western world per orpha.net and accounts for 10-15% of new cases of soft tissue sarcoma in the United States, with prevalence rates estimated at approximately 1.5 to 2.0 times incidence, and MFS accounts for half as many cases as UPS in the United States. We estimate that marketing envafolimab in refractory UPS and MFS could generate peak annual sales of up to $200 million in the United States without considering a price premium to the reference PD-1 inhibitors Opdivo (nivolumab) or Keytruda (pembrolizumab) that are administered intravenously.  

13

Other Ongoing Clinical Trials

A Phase 3 randomized clinical trial in BTC was initiated by 3D Medicines in April 2018.  This trial is an open-label trial to assess the safety and efficacy of envafolimab plus standard of care gemcitabine-based chemotherapy compared to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy alone with OS as the primary endpoint. In the envafolimab arm, envafolimab will be dosed at 2.5mg/kg subcutaneously QW, along with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin at recommended doses. The trial is expected to enroll over 390 patients in China and data are expected in 2022.

A Phase 2 clinical trial of envafolimab in combination with folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin chemotherapy (FOLFOX) in the first line treatment of advanced gastric cancer was fully enrolled (n=15) as of January 15, 2019. In an abstract at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Scientific Program entitled “Envafolimab plus chemotherapy in advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer” data were reported in 15 patients who were evaluable for response. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 1 in 80% of subjects and the majority had gastric cancer (86.7%). At the time of data cutoff, the minimum follow-up was 6 months. The occurrence of TEAEs was 100% (all grades) and 73.3% (grades 3-4). The most frequent grade 3-4 TEAEs included neutrophil count decreased 46.7%, anemia 20.0%, and platelet disorder 20% (3/15). Confirmed ORR was 60% (unconfirmed ORR: 73.3%). Median DOR was not reached. Median PFS was 6.8 months.

Our Second Clinical Stage Product Candidate – YH001

YH001 is an investigational humanized CTLA-4 IgG1 monoclonal antibody.  YH001 is being developed by Eucure for the treatment of various cancer indications. In October 2021, we entered into a collaborative development and commercialization agreement with Eucure and Biocytogen pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive license to develop and commercialize YH001 in North America for the treatment of multiple specified indications.

CTLA-4 is a protein expressed on all T-cells but which is expressed at the highest level on Tregs and contributes to the suppressor function of Tregs and acts as a checkpoint that prevents T-cell immune responses to cancer cells. A CTLA-4 inhibitor has been approved as a single agent in melanoma and approved in combination with other therapies in multiple indications including NSCLC, RCC and MSI-H colorectal cancer.

Clinical Development of YH001

As of August 9, 2021, YH001 had been dosed to more than 34 patients in China and Australia.

Phase I Dose Escalation Clinical Trial in Australia

An open-label, single-arm Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial of YH001 in combination with the PD-1 antibody, toripalimab, is ongoing in Australia. The safety and efficacy data from this trial were presented at the 2021 Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) Annual Meeting in September 2021. Based on the data presented in the CSCO Annual Meeting (CSCO Presentation), 21 subjects were enrolled in this trial as of August 9, 2021.

Study purpose. The primary objectives of the Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial were to assess the safety and tolerability profile and MTD of YH001 in combination with the PD-1 inhibitor toripalimab in subjects with advanced solid tumors. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the PK profile and anti-tumor activity.

Study design. This trial adopted a modified “3+3” design. Subjects receive YH001 in six cohorts at 0.05mg/kg, 0.1mg/kg, 0.3mg/kg, 1.0mg/kg, 2.0mg/kg, 4.0mg/kg, and 6.0mg/kg by IV administration during a three week run-in period, after which subjects receive YH001 in combination with 240mg of the PD-1 antibody toripalimab every three weeks for four doses.

Safety. At the August 9, 2021 data cutoff, no dose limiting toxicities had occurred and a single serious adverse event of grade 3 colitis was reported, which led to treatment discontinuation. Thirty-two YH001 drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported, including 11 cases of grade 2 AEs and 20 cases of grade 1 AEs.

Efficacy. Among 16 patients that had image tumor assessments available at the August 9, 2021 data cut-off, two achieved PR by RECIST, including in one patient with urothelial cancer who had failed prior treatment with a PD-1 antibody, and seven had stable disease. The figure below illustrates the patients with tumor assessments available as of the August 9, 2021 data cutoff.

14

Conclusion. The authors concluded that YH001 was well tolerated up to 2mg/kg when combined with toripalimab and demonstrated activity in patients with advanced solid tumors. Dose level cohorts above 2mg/kg did not have tumor assessments available as of data cutoff at August 9, 2021.

Phase I Dose Escalation Clinical Trial in China

An open-label, single-arm Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial of YH001 is ongoing in China.

Preclinical Studies

In pre-clinical studies in mice, YH001 was compared with ipilimumab, an approved CTLA-4 inhibitor marketed by BMS, and YH001 showed the following potential advantages:

15

Clinical Development in North America

We intend to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of YH001 in combination with envafolimab and with doxorubicin in sarcoma with expanded cohorts in select sarcoma subtypes in the second half of 2022. Additionally, we plan to initiate trials of YH001 as a single agent or in combination with immunotherapies in other tumor types.

Our Third Clinical Stage Product Candidate – TRC102

Overview of Base Excision Repair and the Mechanism of Action of TRC102

Base-excision repair (BER) is a complex and fundamental cellular process used by cancer cells to repair the DNA damage caused by chemotherapeutics, especially the classes of chemotherapeutics known as alkylating agents, including Temodar, dacarbazine and bis-dichloroethyl-nitrosourea (BCNU), and anti-metabolite agents, including Fludara and Alimta. The process of BER removes DNA bases damaged by chemotherapy, resulting in the formation of gaps in the DNA strand called apurinic and apyrimidinic (AP) sites. The appropriate base is then inserted in this gap to restore the proper tumor DNA sequence. By this process, cancer cells can circumvent the anti-tumor effects of chemotherapy.

Inhibition of BER has been proposed as a way to improve the efficacy of chemotherapeutics; however, to our knowledge, no inhibitors of BER have been tested in clinical trials. We are developing TRC102 (methoxyamine hydrochloride) to reverse resistance to specific chemotherapeutics by inhibiting BER. TRC102 interrupts BER by rapidly and covalently binding within AP sites, converting the AP site to a substrate for the enzyme topoisomerase II, which cleaves TRC102-bound DNA, resulting in an accumulation of DNA strand breaks that trigger cellular apoptosis, or programmed cell death, as illustrated in the figure below:

TRC102 binding results in apoptosis

16

The induction of apoptosis by TRC102 is relatively selective for cancer cells, which typically overexpress topoisomerase II. In nonmalignant cells with low topoisomerase II expression, TRC102-bound DNA is excised and replaced by a separate DNA repair system.

In November 2020, we announced the publication of clinical data in the journal Cancer Cell that provides molecular insight into TRC102’s mechanism of action and patient populations most likely to respond to treatment. The article, entitled, “Molecular Features of Cancers Exhibiting Exceptional Responses to Treatment,” highlighted the clinical features and tumor biology of an exceptional responder patient treated with TRC102 at the NCI. The patient was diagnosed with metastatic and highly refractory CRC and received Temodar and TRC102. Following treatment, the patient was considered an exceptional responder through the achievement of a near complete response lasting 45 months at the most recent follow-up. Detailed molecular analyses of the patient’s tumor showed silencing of DNA repair pathways that may have resulted in sensitivity to the inhibition of DNA BER pathway by TRC102. Specifically, MGMT expression was silenced by promoter methylation, and RAD50, a mediator of DNA double strand break repair, was silenced by genetic mutation and loss of heterozygosity. The publication authors hypothesized that the combination of Temodar and TRC102 was effective because all necessary DNA repair pathways were compromised genetically or through the activity of TRC102. MGMT expression was also assessed in biopsies from 11 colorectal patients who subsequently enrolled in an expansion cohort, one of whom demonstrated a PR. The tumor associated with the PR did not express MGMT, whereas each of the 10 tumors that did not respond to therapy expressed this enzyme robustly. MGMT deficiency is observed in about one third of glioblastoma patients, and a prior study of Temodar and TRC102 reported at the Society for Neuro-Oncology in 2018 demonstrated that two MGMT deficient glioblastoma patients had prolonged survival when treated with Temodar and TRC102 after progressing previously on Temodar and radiation therapy. Based on these data, we believe a trial in first line glioblastoma patients of Temodar, radiation therapy and TRC102 is warranted and are discussing further development with investigators at this time.

TRC102 Development in Oncology

TRC102 is being developed to reverse resistance to Temodar, an alkylating chemotherapeutic, as well as to Alimta and Fludara, two antimetabolite chemotherapeutics. We consider it advantageous to combine TRC102 with Alimta because Alimta is approved in one large market indication (lung cancer) and one orphan drug indication (mesothelioma). Temodar is an approved chemotherapeutic used as a standard of care agent to treat glioblastoma, and Fludara is an approved chemotherapeutic used as a standard of care agent to treat lymphoma and leukemia. In initial clinical trials of more than 100 patients, TRC102 has shown good tolerability and promising anti-tumor activity in combination with alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapy.

We filed an IND application for TRC102 in March 2008, Case Western filed an IND application for TRC102 in March 2006, and NCI filed an IND for TRC102 in March 2013, all for the treatment of patients with advanced solid tumors. The IND application filed by NCI cross references our IND application.

The following table summarizes certain key information regarding ongoing clinical trials of TRC102 in cancer patients:

In May 2020, positive data from multiple TRC102 clinical trials were presented at the 2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program.  Dr. Koczywas of City of Hope Medical Center presented Phase 1 data for TRC102 in combination with cisplatin and Alimta in patients with advanced solid tumors, and Phase 2 data for TRC102 in combination with Alimta in patients with mesothelioma refractory to Alimta and platinum therapy. Notably two of 14 mesothelioma patients who progressed previously on Alimta had objective responses following treatment with Alimta and TRC102.  Multiple responses were also noted in the Phase 1 trial of Alimta, cisplatin and TRC102, with particular activity noted in parotid salivary gland tumors.  Dr. Biswas of Case Comprehensive Cancer Center presented Phase 1 data of TRC102 in combination with chemoradiation for locally advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.  All 15 patients demonstrated an objective response, including three patients with a complete response to treatment.  The 100% ORR compares favorably to historical data of the same combination of chemoradiation without TRC102 in locally advanced lung cancer.  For example, the PROCLAIM clinical trial reported an ORR of 36% and the PACIFIC clinical trial reported an ORR of 51% in locally advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with Alimta, cisplatin and thoracic radiation. In addition, based on data presented at the ASCO 2020 virtual meeting that the combination of chemoradiation and TRC102 produced objective responses in all 15 evaluable patients with advanced localized lung cancer treated in a Phase 1 trial, in January 2022, the NCI initiated a randomized trial of chemoradiation with or without TRC102, followed by consolidative durvalumab treatment. The primary objective is to improve the 56% PFS rate with current standard of care to 75% with current standard of care plus TRC102. The trial is expected to begin enrollment in June 2022 and complete in 2024.

Phase 1 ascending dose clinical trials evaluating the safety, tolerability, PK, PD and anti-tumor activity of TRC102 were completed with Alimta in patients with advanced solid tumors, with Fludara in patients with hematologic malignancy and with Temodar in patients with solid tumors. In each trial, TRC102 was tolerable with the companion chemotherapeutic, and demonstrated signs of activity.  One patient treated with TRC102 and Alimta had a PR as assessed by RECIST 1.1 and remained in our clinical trial

17

without cancer progression for 14 months. In addition, 14 patients had SD including patients with squamous cell lung cancer (three patients), epithelial ovarian cancer (three patients), CRC (two patients), non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (one patient), pancreatic cancer (one patient), prostate cancer (one patient), endometrial cancer (one patient), head and neck cancer (one patient) and breast cancer (one patient). These data were published in Investigational New Drugs in 2012. Case Western reported data from a trial of intravenous TRC102 given in combination with Fludara in a Phase 1 clinical trial that were published in Oncotarget in 2017. Anti-tumor activity, including PR, was noted in patients with lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, including patients treated previously with Fludara. TRC102 combined with Fludara was safe and well tolerated. Hematologic toxicity was comparable to single agent Fludara and activity appeared to correlate with increased levels of DNA damage.  Case Western reported data from a trial of TRC102 given intravenously in combination with Temodar in a Phase 1 clinical trial at the ASCO annual meeting in June 2015. Anti-tumor activity was noted in patients with ovarian cancer and neuroendocrine tumors.

The NCI reported data from the Phase 1 trial of TRC102 in combination with Temodar in relapsed solid tumors and lymphoma patients at ASCO in 2017. There were no pharmacologic interactions between the two drugs and TRC102 target concentrations were achieved. Based on PRs in patients with ovarian cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and KRAS-positive CRC, the NCI decided to enroll expansion cohorts in each of these tumor types at the recommended Phase 2 oral dose of TRC102.  The authors concluded that the combination of Temodar and TRC102 is active, and DNA damage response markers (Rad51, ϒ-H2AX and/or pNbs1) were induced in four of five paired colonic biopsies, indicating DNA damage following treatment.  Updated data in the cohort of patients with CRC reported by the NCI at AACR in 2019 indicated a low response rate in patients with CRC treated with Temodar and TRC102.

The combination of TRC102 and Temodar was assessed in a Phase 2 trial of patients with recurrent glioblastoma that was reported at the Society for Neuro-Oncology annual meeting in November 2018.  The combination of Temodar and TRC102 was tolerable, but did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of demonstrating objective responses by Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria in the 19 enrolled patients, most of whom were treated at Cleveland Clinic.  Two patients (10.5%) demonstrated evidence of clinical benefit and met the secondary endpoint of PFS beyond six months.  Both patients who demonstrated PFS for more than 11 months were alive over 30 months following treatment initiation with TRC102 and Temodar for recurrent glioblastoma.  PFS of greater than 11 months was associated with N-methylpurine DNA glycosylase expression, a biomarker that initiates the BER pathway of resistance that is inhibited by TRC102. Efforts to identify whether DNA glycosylase expression or other biomarkers can be used as a predictive biomarker of TRC102 activity are expected to continue in ongoing TRC102.  

Our Fourth Clinical Stage Product Candidate – TJ004309

TJ004309, is a novel, humanized antibody against CD73, an ecto-enzyme expressed on stromal cells and tumors that converts extracellular AMP to the immunosuppressive metabolite adenosine. In December 2018, we submitted an IND application to the FDA for the initiation of a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with advanced solid tumors, which was cleared by the FDA in January 2019.  In July 2019, we began enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical trial to assess safety and preliminary efficacy of TJ004309 as a single agent and when combined with the PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor Tecentriq (atezolizumab) in patients with advanced solid tumors. We expect to complete the TJ004309 Phase 1 trial in the first half of 2022.

Collaboration and License Agreements

Collaboration Agreement with 3D Medicines and Alphamab

In December 2019, we, 3D Medicines, and Alphamab entered into the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement for the development of envafolimab, an investigational PD-L1 sdAb, or nanobody, administered by rapid subcutaneous injection, for the treatment of sarcoma in North America.

Pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we were granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America.  We are responsible for conducting and will bear the costs of any Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 or post-approval clinical trial in North America for envafolimab in the indications of refractory and first line treatment of sarcoma. 3D Medicines and Alphamab are responsible for conducting and will bear the costs of IND-enabling studies (other than those specific to the sarcoma indication) and the preparation of the chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) activities sections of an IND application for envafolimab. 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third-party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, envafolimab to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use. 3D Medicines and Alphamab retained the right to develop envafolimab in all territories outside of North America as well as within North America for all indications other than sarcoma.

We will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue, unless (a) envafolimab is first approved in North America for an indication other than sarcoma and launched in North America, or (b) envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and subsequently approved in North America for an additional non-orphan indication and sold commercially by 3D Medicines and/or Alphamab, or licensee, in which case 3D Medicines and Alphamab will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue. If 3D Medicines and Alphamab become responsible for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we have the option to co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America. In the event that envafolimab is first approved in North America for

18

sarcoma and within three years of the commercial launch of envafolimab in North America for sarcoma 3D Medicines and Alphamab replace us as the party responsible for commercialization, and we elect and 3D Medicines and Alphamab agree for us to not co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, then 3D Medicines and Alphamab will be required to compensate us for our costs associated with preparing for and conducting commercial activities.

If we have the responsibility for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we will owe 3D Medicines and Alphamab tiered double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits.  If 3D Medicines and Alphamab have responsibility for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we will be entitled to (a) tiered double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits if we have elected to not co-market envafolimab in sarcoma or (b) a 50% royalty on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America if we have chosen to co-market envafolimab in sarcoma.  Payment obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continue on a country-by-country basis until the last to expire licensed patent covering envafolimab expires.

3D Medicines and Alphamab retain the right to reacquire the rights to envafolimab for sarcoma in North America in connection with an arm’s length sale to a third party of the rights to develop and commercialize envafolimab in North America for all indications, provided that the sale may not occur prior to completion of a pivotal trial of envafolimab in sarcoma without our written consent and the parties must negotiate in good faith and agree to fair compensation be paid to us for the value of and opportunity represented by the reacquired rights.

Each party agreed that during the term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, it would not develop or license from any third party a monospecific inhibitor to PD-L1 or PD-1 in sarcoma.

The term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continues until the later of the date the parties cease further development and commercialization of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America or the expiration of all payment obligations.  The Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement may be terminated earlier by a party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to envafolimab.  In the event we elect, or a joint steering committee (JSC) determines, to cease further development or commercialization of envafolimab, or if we fail to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop (including progress in clinical trials) and commercialize envafolimab and do not cure such failure within a specified time period, then our rights and obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement will revert to 3D Medicines and Alphamab.

19

Collaboration Agreement with Eucure and Biocytogen

In October 2021, we, Eucure and Biocytogen entered into a collaborative development and commercialization agreement (the YH001 Collaboration Agreement) for the development of YH001, a monospecific investigational CTLA-4 antibody. Pursuant to the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, we were granted an exclusive (including with respect to Eucure and its affiliates), nontransferable, license to develop and commercialize YH001 in North America for the treatment, through administration of YH001 by intravenous or subcutaneous means, of multiple human indications, including sarcoma, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, RCC, and K-ras positive non-small cell lung cancer (collectively, the Initial Indications) or one or more of bladder cancer, endometrial cancer, and melanoma as substitute indications, which may be substituted for Initial Indications at our discretion (each upon such substitution, a Substitute Indication). We are responsible for, and will bear the costs of, preparing and filing all regulatory submissions and conducting any Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, or post-approval clinical trials in North America for YH001 in the Initial Indications and potentially the Substitute Indications, while Eucure is responsible for conducting, and will bear the costs of, the preparation of CMC activities for YH001. Eucure has agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third-party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, YH001 to us for clinical trials pursuant to the terms of a clinical supply and quality agreement that will be separately negotiated and agreed in good faith between the parties.

Eucure may pursue clinical trials for YH001 in North America outside of the Initial Indications or Substitute Indications, and also within the Initial Indications or Substitute Indications as part of a combination therapy of YH001 and an additional Eucure product. During a specified period, we have the option, subject to Eucure’s prior written approval, to expand the license to include the development and commercialization of YH001 for the treatment, through administration by intravenous or subcutaneous means, of all human and veterinary therapeutic indications in North America for a payment to Eucure in the low single digit millions (the Company Option).

Pursuant to the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, we granted Eucure an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses to develop, register, sell, offer to sell, have sold, market and distribute YH001 in all territories outside of North America as well as within North America for all indications other than the Initial Indications and the Substitute Indications.  

We will be responsible for commercializing YH001 in North America, including booking of sales revenue in the Initial and Substitute Indications. We will owe Eucure escalating double digit royalties on net sales of YH001 in North America ranging from the mid-twenties to mid-double digits; provided that until the end of the first full calendar year following the first commercial sale of YH001, royalties will range from the lower double digits to the mid-double digits. If sales of YH001 exceed a pre-determined sales threshold in the first full year of sales following first commercial sale, we will owe a milestone to Eucure in the high single digit millions. Payment obligations under the YH001 Collaboration Agreement continue on a country-by-country basis until the latest of (i) expiration of the last to expire licensed patent covering YH001, (ii) expiration of marketing or regulatory exclusivity covering YH001 and (iii) 10 years from the first commercial sale of YH001 in such country in North America. Eucure has agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third-party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, YH001 to us at cost plus a low double-digit markup for commercial sales pursuant to the terms of a commercial supply and quality agreement that will be separately negotiated and agreed in good faith between the parties within 180 days prior to the anticipated first commercial sale in North America.

Pursuant to the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, each party agreed that during the term of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, it would not develop, manufacture, commercialize or license from any third party a monospecific inhibitor to CTLA-4.

The term of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement continues until the earlier of (i) the date that the parties cease further development and commercialization of YH001 in North America or (ii) on a country-by-county basis, the expiration of the royalty obligations in such country.  The YH001 Collaboration Agreement may be terminated earlier by a party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to YH001. In the event of a termination of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, other than by us as a result of Eucure’s material uncured breach or bankruptcy, (i) our license shall terminate and (ii) we would be obligated to grant Eucure an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the right to grant sublicenses under its rights in all development data and intellectual property to develop, register, sell, offer to sell, have sold, market and distribute YH001 in North America. In the event of a termination of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement by us as a result of Eucure’s material uncured breach or bankruptcy, the license shall continue in the Initial Indications in North America, provided that (i) such license shall remain exclusive during the royalty term and non-exclusive thereafter; (ii) we shall have the right to have YH001 manufactured for its development and commercialization requirements in the Initial Indications in North America; and (iii) the license shall terminate in the event of an uncured material breach by us of any provision (including payment obligations) that survives termination of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement.  In the event the YH001 Collaboration Agreement terminates for safety reasons related to YH001, by mutual agreement of the parties or by Eucure in the event of an uncured material breach or bankruptcy by us, then our rights and obligations under the YH001 Collaboration Agreement will revert to Eucure.  In the event Eucure does not approve the Company Option, we may terminate the YH001 Collaboration Agreement for convenience with a 30-day notice to Eucure, provided that such termination is given within 12 months of the effective date of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement (the Company Option Termination).  In the event of a Company Option Termination, Eucure would be obligated to reimburse us for all costs and expenses that we incurred in performing the development activities.

20

Collaboration Agreements with I-Mab Biopharma

In November 2018, we entered into two separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreements with I-Mab for the development of multiple immuno-oncology programs, including I-Mab’s proprietary CD73 antibody TJ004309 as well as up to five proprietary bispecific antibodies currently under development by I-Mab.

In the TJ004309 Agreement, we are collaborating with I-Mab on developing TJ004309, and will bear the costs of filing an IND application and for Phase 1 clinical trials, share costs equally for Phase 2 clinical trials, and we will bear 40% and I-Mab 60% of the costs for pivotal clinical trials. I-Mab will also be responsible for the cost of certain non-clinical activities and the supply of TJ004309 and any reference drugs used in the development activities. We also agreed with I-Mab for a specified period of time to not develop or license to or from a third party any monoclonal antibody targeting CD73 or any other biologic for certain indications that a JSC, as set up under the TJ004309 Agreement, selects for TJ004309 development.

In the event that I-Mab licenses rights to TJ004309 to a third party, we would be entitled to receive escalating portions of royalty and non-royalty consideration received by I-Mab with respect to territories outside of Greater China. In the event that I-Mab commercializes TJ004309, we would be entitled to receive a royalty on net sales by I-Mab in North America ranging from the mid-single digits to low double digits, and in the EU and Japan in the mid-single digits. The portions of certain third party royalty and non-royalty consideration and the royalty from net sales by I-Mab to which we would be entitled escalate based on the phase of development and relevant clinical trial obligations we complete under the TJ004309 Agreement, ranging from a high-single digit to a mid-teen percentage of non-royalty consideration as well as a double digit percentage of royalty consideration. In March 2020, I-Mab issued a press release announcing a strategic partnership with KG Bio, whereby KG Bio received what the press release described as a right of first negotiation outside North America for TJ004309 for up to $340 million in potential payments to I-Mab. On April 8, 2020, we issued a notice of dispute regarding possible breach of the TJ004309 Agreement, which resulted in a binding arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits in February 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the TJ004309 Agreement dispute remains under consideration by the Tribunal, and we expect their decision in 2022. We believe we may be entitled to receive payments due to I-Mab’s strategic partnership with KG Bio under the TJ004309 Agreement, although I-Mab has disputed any payment is due.

The TJ004309 Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to TJ004309. I-Mab may also terminate the TJ004309 Agreement if we cause certain delays in completing a Phase 1 clinical trial. In addition, I-Mab may terminate the TJ004309 Agreement for any reason within 90 days following the completion of the first Phase 1 clinical trial, in which case we would be entitled to a minimum termination fee of $9.0 million, or following the completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial, in which case we would be entitled to a pre-specified termination fee of $15.0 million and either a percentage of non-royalty consideration I-Mab may receive as part of a license to a third party or an additional payment if TJ004309 is approved for marketing outside Greater China before a third party license is executed, in addition to a double digit percentage of royalty consideration. In 2021, I-Mab sent us notices purporting to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement, which would result in I-Mab owing us a prespecified termination fee of $9.0 million. However, I-Mab does not have an option to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement without cause until the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of TJ004309 is “Complete,” as that term is defined in the TJ004309 Agreement, and we responded by disputing the basis for I-Mab’s termination. In March 2021, I-Mab filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking an order of specific performance requiring us to comply with I-Mab’s effort to terminate the agreement. We disagreed with I-Mab’s position and in May 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the lawsuit filed by I-Mab and subsequently this matter was remanded and included in the proceeding before the Tribunal.

The claims under the arbitration under the TJ00439 Agreement are substantial and complex and the result is inherently uncertain. The dispute with I-Mab has caused and could continue to cause us to incur significant costs.

Pursuant to the Bispecific Agreement, we and I-Mab may mutually select through a JSC up to five of I-Mab’s BsAb product candidates within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America.

For each product candidate selected by the JSC for development under the Bispecific Agreement, I-Mab will be responsible and bear the costs for IND-enabling studies and establishing manufacturing for the product candidate, we will be responsible for and bear the costs of filing an IND and conducting Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, and we will be responsible for and will share equally with I-Mab in the costs of conducting Phase 3 or pivotal clinical trials, in each case within North America. Subject to I-Mab’s right to co-promote an approved product candidate, we will be responsible for commercializing any approved product candidates in North America, and we will share profits and losses equally with I-Mab in North America. We would also be entitled to receive tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of product candidates in the EU and Japan.

At any time prior to completing the first pivotal clinical trial for a product candidate or if I-Mab ceases to support development costs or pay its portion of Phase 3 clinical trial costs for a product candidate or the JSC decides to cease development over our objections after initiating Phase 3 clinical trials, we will have an option to obtain an exclusive license to such product candidate in all territories except Greater China and Korea and any other territories in which I-Mab previously licensed rights to a third party subject to our right of first refusal for any licenses I-Mab may grant to third-parties.  

21

If we exercise our licensing option, we would assume sole responsibility for developing and commercializing the product candidate in the licensed territory, and in lieu of profit or loss sharing with I-Mab with respect to such product candidate, we would owe I-Mab pre-specified upfront and milestone payments and royalties on net sales, with the payments and royalties escalating depending on the phase of development the product candidate reached at the time we obtained the exclusive license as follows: (i) if before IND-enabling studies and the preparation of the CMC activities of the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $10.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $90.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the mid-single digits on annual net sales; (ii) if after IND submission but before completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial of the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $25.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $125.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high single digits on annual net sales; (iii) if after completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial but before completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $50.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $250.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the low double digits on annual net sales; and (iv) if after completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial and before completion of a pivotal trial for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $80.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $420.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high-teens on annual net sales.

Each party agreed that for a specified period of time, it would not develop or license to or from any third party any bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting the same two biological targets as those of any selected product candidates under the Bispecific Agreement.

If development of any selected product candidates is terminated by a decision of the JSC, all rights to the product candidate will revert to I-Mab, subject to our rights to obtain an exclusive license in certain circumstances.  If development is terminated after submission of an IND and prior to initiating Phase 3 clinical studies or after initiating Phase 3 clinical studies and with our concurrence, we would be entitled to tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of the product candidate in North America, the EU and Japan.

The Bispecific Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or with respect to any selected product candidate, for safety reasons related to that product candidate.

In March 2020, we learned that I-Mab had entered into two license and collaboration agreements with ABL Bio in July 2018. Under ABL Bio License 1, I-Mab granted to ABL Bio exclusive, worldwide (excluding Greater China), royalty-bearing rights to develop and commercialize a BsAb using certain monoclonal antibody sequences. Under ABL License 2, I-Mab and ABL agreed to collaborate to develop three PD-L1-based bispecific antibodies by using ABL Bio’s proprietary BsAb technology and commercialize them in their respective territories, which, collectively, include China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and South Korea, and other territories throughout the rest of the world if both parties agree to do so in such other territories during the performance of the agreement. On April 8, 2020, we issued a notice of dispute regarding possible breach of the Bispecific Agreement, which resulted in a binding arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits in February 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the Bispecific Agreement dispute remains under consideration by the Tribunal, and we expect their decision in 2022. The claims under the arbitration under the Bispecific Agreement are substantial and complex and the result is inherently uncertain. The dispute with I-Mab has caused and could continue to cause us to incur significant costs.

License Agreement with Case Western

In August 2006, we entered into a license agreement with Case Western, under which we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property controlled by Case Western related to methoxyamine, which we refer to as the TRC102 Technology. Under the agreement, as amended, we have the right to use, manufacture and commercialize products utilizing the TRC102 Technology for all mammalian therapeutic uses, and to sublicense these rights.

Under the agreement, we are generally obligated to use our best efforts to commercialize the TRC102 Technology as soon as possible. We are also required to meet specified diligence milestones, and if we fail to do so and do not cure such failure, Case Western may convert our license into a non-exclusive license or terminate the agreement.

In consideration of the rights granted to us under the agreement, we paid a one-time upfront fee to Case Western. In addition, we may be required to pay up to an aggregate of approximately $9.8 million in milestone payments, of which $0.7 million relates to the initiation of certain development activities and approximately $9.1 million relates to the submission of certain regulatory filings and receipt of certain regulatory approvals. If products utilizing the TRC102 Technology are successfully commercialized, we will be required to pay Case Western a single-digit royalty on net sales, subject to adjustments in certain circumstances. Beginning on the earlier of a specified number of years from the effective date of the agreement and the anniversary of the effective date following the occurrence of a specified event, we will be required to make a minimum annual royalty payment of $75,000, which will be credited against our royalty obligations. In the event we sublicense any of our rights under the agreement relating to the TRC102 Technology,

22

we will be obligated to pay Case Western a portion of certain fees we may receive under the sublicense. Our royalty obligations will continue through the later of (i) the expiration of any orphan drug marketing exclusivity for a product utilizing the TRC102 Technology, (ii) August 2026, or (iii) on a country-by-country basis upon the expiration of the last valid claim under the TRC102 Technology or any patent we receive that is a derivative of the TRC102 Technology.

We may unilaterally terminate this agreement in its entirety, for any reason or for no reason, upon at least 30 days’ notice to Case Western. If we do so, we will be required to pay Case Western a termination fee. If we fail to pay any amount required under the agreement and do not cure the default within 90 days of receiving notice, Case Western will have the right to convert our exclusive license to a non-exclusive license or to terminate the agreement entirely. Either party may terminate the agreement in the event of the other party’s material breach of the agreement that remains uncured 60 days after receiving notice of the breach.

Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with NCI

We are a party to a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as represented by NCI, for the development of TRC102 for the treatment of cancer. We entered into the CRADA governing the development of TRC102 (TRC102 CRADA) in August 2012 with NCI’s Center for Cancer Research.

Under the CRADA, as amended, NCI conducts clinical trials and non-clinical studies of TRC102. Pursuant the TRC102 CRADA, we are required to pay NCI $20,000 per year per Phase 1 clinical trial and $25,000 per year per Phase 2 clinical trial, as well as expenses incurred by NCI in connection with carrying out its responsibilities under the TRC102 CRADA, up to an aggregate maximum per year of $200,000. We may also provide funding to support assays and other studies, and if NCI supplies TRC102 for additional mutually approved clinical trials beyond the planned trials, we will reimburse NCI for costs associated with manufacturing TRC102. In addition, we made a one-time payment of $20,000 for the initial IND filing and may be required to make additional one-time payments of $10,000 each for additional IND filings. Funding for clinical trials beyond those contemplated by the TRC102 CRADA will be determined in an amendment to the applicable CRADA.

Under the CRADA, each party individually owns all inventions, data and materials produced solely by its employees in the course of performing research activities pursuant to the CRADA. The parties jointly own any inventions and materials that are jointly produced by employees of both parties. Subject to certain conditions, we have the option under the CRADA to negotiate commercialization licenses from the government to intellectual property conceived or first reduced to practice in performance of the CRADA research plan that was developed solely by NCI employees or jointly by us and NCI employees.

The TRC102 CRADA had an original five-year term and was subsequently amended to extend the term to August 7, 2023. The CRADA may be terminated at any time by mutual written consent, and we or NCI may unilaterally terminate the CRADA for any reason or no reason by providing written notice at least 60 days before the desired termination date.

Manufacturing

We do not own or operate, nor do we expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage, distribution or testing. We contract with third parties or our collaboration partners for the manufacture of our product candidates and we intend to continue to do so in the future.

Envafolimab is manufactured by AlphaMab in China and fill finish is performed by a contract manufacturer in the United States. Pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, envafolimab to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use.

YH001 is manufactured by an experienced contract manufacturer in China. Pursuant to the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, Eucure and Biocytogen have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, YH001 to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use pursuant to the terms of a clinical supply and quality agreement to be separately negotiated.

TRC102 drug substance is manufactured through a standard chemical synthesis and may be obtained from multiple manufacturers.

TJ004309 is supplied to us from a contract manufacturer contracted by I-Mab as I-Mab is responsible for the supply of TJ004309 and all related drug supply activities under the terms of the TJ004309 Agreement.

Competition

The development and commercialization of new drugs is highly competitive, and we and our collaborators face competition with respect to each of our product candidates in their target indications. Many of the entities developing and marketing potentially competing products have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a

23

smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Our commercial opportunity will be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are more effective, have fewer side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop.

If our product candidates are approved, they will compete with currently marketed drugs and therapies used for treatment of the following indications, and potentially with drug candidates currently in development for the same indications.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of any approved product will include its efficacy, safety profile, price, method of administration and level of promotional activity.

Oncology Therapies

There is no PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy approved by the FDA for the treatment of sarcoma. Keytruda (marketed by Merck) has a compendia listing for the treatment of UPS, and is used off-label for the treatment of patients with UPS. If envafolimab is approved, it may nevertheless compete with currently marketed PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, including Opdivo (marketed by BMS), Keytruda (marketed by Merck), Imfinzi (marketed by AstraZeneca), and Tecentriq (marketed by Roche) which are approved by the FDA in multiple indications other than soft tissue sarcoma. PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors collectively sold over $21 billion worldwide in 2019.

There is no CTLA-4 therapy approved by the FDA for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma.  If YH001 is approved, it may nevertheless compete with the currently marketed CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, marketed by BMS), which is approved by the FDA in multiple indications other than soft tissue sarcoma. Other antibodies to CTLA-4 are being studied in clinical trials of cancer patients.

We are developing TRC102 to be used in combination with alkylating chemotherapeutics (including Temodar) and antimetabolite chemotherapeutics (including Alimta and Fludara) for the treatment of cancer. If TRC102 is approved, it could compete with other inhibitors of DNA repair. Tesaro, Inc. (now GSK), Clovis Oncology and Astra Zeneca each market inhibitors of DNA repair that work by a mechanism of action that is distinct from that of TRC102. In addition to the therapies mentioned above, there are many generic chemotherapeutics and other regimens commonly used to treat various types of cancer, including soft tissue sarcoma and glioblastoma.

We are developing TJ004309 for the treatment of solid tumors. If TJ004309 is approved, it could compete with other anti-CD73 immunotherapies including CD73 antibodies as well as adenosine receptor inhibitors already in clinical development sponsored by BMS, AstraZeneca, Arcus Biosciences and Corvus Pharmaceuticals.

Commercialization

We hold North America commercialization rights in the field of sarcoma for envafolimab (subject to certain rights held by 3D Medicines and Alphamab), North America commercialization rights of multiple human indications, including the Initial Indications or one or more of the Substitute Indications, which may be substituted for Initial Indications at our discretion, for YH001, and worldwide commercialization rights for TRC102. If any of our product candidates are approved in oncology indications, our plan is to build an oncology-focused specialty sales force in the United States to support their commercialization and seek a partner(s) to support commercialization outside the United States to the extent we have commercial rights in other territories. We believe that a specialty sales force will be sufficient to target key prescribing physicians in oncology. We currently do not have any sales or marketing capabilities or experience as a company. We plan to establish the required capabilities within an appropriate time frame ahead of any product approval and commercialization to support a product launch.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our protein therapeutics, novel biological discoveries, to operate without infringing on the proprietary rights of others and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. Our policy is to seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing U.S. and foreign patent applications related to our proprietary technology, inventions and improvements that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position. Additionally, we expect to benefit from a variety of statutory frameworks in the United States, Europe, Japan and other countries that relate to the regulation of biosimilar molecules and orphan drug status. These statutory frameworks provide periods of non-patent-based exclusivity for qualifying molecules. See “Government Regulation.”

Our patenting strategy is focused on our protein and small molecule therapeutics. We seek composition of matter and method of treatment patents for each such protein or small molecule in key therapeutic areas. We also seek patent protection with respect to

24

companion diagnostic methods and compositions and treatments for targeted patient populations. We have sought patent protection alone or jointly with our collaborators, as dictated by our collaboration agreements.

Individual patents extend for varying periods of time depending on the date of filing of the patent application or the date of patent issuance and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued from applications filed in the United States are effective for twenty years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period; however, the restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term including the restoration period must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of foreign patents varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also twenty years from the earliest international filing date. Our issued patents and pending applications with respect to our protein therapeutic candidates (excluding licensed rights) will expire on dates ranging from 2027 to 2030, exclusive of possible patent term extensions. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product by product basis, from country to country and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of extensions of patent term, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

National and international patent laws concerning protein therapeutics remain highly unsettled. No consistent policy regarding the patent-eligibility or the breadth of claims allowed in such patents has emerged to date in the United States, Europe or other countries. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries can diminish our ability to protect our inventions and enforce our intellectual property rights. Accordingly, we cannot predict the breadth or enforceability of claims that may be granted in our patents or in third-party patents. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are characterized by extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. Our ability to maintain and solidify our proprietary position for our drugs and technology will depend on our success in obtaining effective claims and enforcing those claims once granted. We do not know whether any of the patent applications that we may file or license from third parties will result in the issuance of any patents. The issued patents that we own or may receive in the future, may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the rights granted under any issued patents may not provide us with sufficient protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar technology. Furthermore, our competitors may be able to independently develop and commercialize similar drugs or duplicate our technology, business model or strategy without infringing our patents. Because of the extensive time required for clinical development and regulatory review of a drug we may develop, it is possible that, before any of our drugs can be commercialized, any related patent may expire or remain in force for only a short period following commercialization, thereby reducing any advantage of any such patent. The patent positions for our most advanced programs are summarized below:

Envafolimab Patent Coverage

Specific to the development of envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America, we hold an exclusive license from 3D Medicines and Alphamab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering envafolimab. We also hold a non-exclusive license for the conduct of clinical trials in the EU in support of the development of envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America. 3D Medicines and Alphamab retain ownership of any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical composition or preparation comprising envafolimab.

YH001 Patent Coverage

Eucure has an issued patent on the composition of matter and a pending application on the methods of use of YH001 in the United States. The terms of the patent would expire in 2037, exclusive of any patent term extension. We hold an exclusive (including with respect to Eucure and its affiliates), nontransferable, license to develop and commercialize YH001 in North America for the treatment, through administration of YH001 by intravenous or subcutaneous means, of multiple human indications, including the Initial Indications or one or more of the Substitute Indications, which may be substituted for Initial Indications at our discretion.  

TRC102 Patent Coverage

We hold issued patents directed to combination of TRC102 and pemetrexed in the United States, Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. We also have pending applications in other jurisdictions, including Brazil, China, Hong Kong, and India. The expected expiration date for these patents is 2027, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

We hold an issued patent on further combinations of TRC102 in Europe. The expected expiration date for these patents is 2031, exclusive of possible patent term extensions.

TJ004309 Patent Coverage

Specific to the development of TJ004309 in North America, we hold a non-exclusive license from I-Mab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical composition or preparation comprising or containing TJ004309. I-Mab retains ownership of any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical

25

composition or preparation comprising or containing TJ004309.

Trade Secrets, Trademarks and Know-How

In addition to patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secrets, trademarks and know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary information, in part, using confidentiality agreements with our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants and invention assignment agreements with our employees and consultants. These agreements are designed to protect our proprietary information and, in the case of the invention assignment agreements, to grant us ownership of technologies that are developed through a relationship with a third party. These agreements may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our commercial partners, collaborators, employees and consultants use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. In addition, we seek trademark protection in the United States and internationally where available and when we deem appropriate. Furthermore, we are a party to a number of license agreements under which we are granted intellectual property rights to know-how that are important to our business.

U.S. Government Regulation

The preclinical studies and clinical testing, manufacture, labeling, storage, record keeping, advertising, promotion, export, marketing and sales, among other things, of our product candidates and future products, are subject to extensive regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries. In the United States, pharmaceutical products are regulated by the FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and other laws, including, in the case of biologics, the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), in addition to the FDA’s implementing regulations. We expect envafolimab to be regulated by the FDA as a biologic, which requires the submission of a BLA and approval by the FDA prior to being marketed in the United States. We expect our small molecule product candidate TRC102 to be regulated as a drug and subject to New Drug Application, or NDA, requirements, which are substantially similar to the BLA requirements discussed below. Manufacturers of our product candidates may also be subject to state regulation. Failure to comply with FDA requirements, both before and after product approval, may subject us or our partners, contract manufacturers and suppliers to administrative or judicial sanctions, including FDA refusal to approve applications, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, fines and/or criminal prosecution.

The steps required before a biologic may be approved for marketing of an indication in the United States generally include:

26

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation as well as animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the biologic candidate. Preclinical studies must be conducted in compliance with FDA regulations regarding GLPs. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND. Nonclinical testing may continue after the IND is submitted. In addition to including the results of the preclinical testing, the IND will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated if the first phase or phases of the clinical trial lends themselves to an efficacy determination. The IND will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA within the 30-day time period places the IND on clinical hold because of its concerns about the drug candidate or the conduct of the trial described in the clinical protocol included in the IND. The FDA can also place the IND on clinical hold at any time during drug development for safety concerns related to the investigational drug or to the class of products to which it belongs. The IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before clinical trials can proceed.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified principal investigators in accordance with GCPs. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the applicable phase of the trial, dosing procedures, research subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and progress reports detailing the status of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA annually. Sponsors also must timely report to the FDA serious and unexpected adverse reactions, any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator’s brochure, or any findings from other studies or animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk in humans exposed to the drug. An institutional review board, or IRB, at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve the protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution, approve the information regarding the trial and the consent form that must be provided to each research subject or the subject’s legal representative, and monitor the trial until completed.

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, but the phases may overlap and different trials may be initiated with the same drug candidate within the same phase of development in similar or differing patient populations. Phase 1 clinical trials may be conducted in a limited number of patients, but are usually conducted in healthy volunteer subjects for indications other than oncology. The drug candidate is initially tested for safety and, as appropriate, for absorption, metabolism, distribution, excretion, PD and PK.

Phase 2 usually involves trials in a larger, but still limited, patient population to evaluate preliminarily the efficacy of the drug candidate for specific, targeted indications to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage and to identify possible short-term adverse effects and safety risks.

Phase 3 trials are undertaken to further evaluate clinical efficacy of a specific endpoint and to test further for safety within an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites. Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 testing might not be completed successfully within any specific time period, if at all, with respect to any of our product candidates. Results from one trial are not necessarily predictive of results from later trials. Furthermore, the FDA or the sponsor may suspend clinical trials at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects or patients 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 drug candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

The results of the preclinical studies and clinical trials, together with other detailed information, including information on the manufacture and composition of the product, are submitted to the FDA as part of a marketing application requesting approval to market the drug candidate for a proposed indication. Under the PDUFA, the fees payable to the FDA for reviewing a marketing application, as well as annual program fees for approved products, can be substantial. The fees typically increase each year. Each marketing application submitted to the FDA for approval is reviewed for administrative completeness and reviewability within 60 days following receipt by the FDA of the application. If the application is found complete, the FDA will file the marketing application, triggering a full review of the application. The FDA may refuse to file any marketing application that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission. The FDA’s established goal is to review 90% of priority marketing applications within six months after the application is accepted for filing and 90% of standard marketing applications within 10 months of the acceptance date, whereupon a review decision is to be made. The FDA, however, may not approve a drug candidate within these established goals and its review goals are subject to change from time to time. Further, the outcome of the review, even if generally favorable, may not be an actual approval but a “complete response letter” that describes additional work that must be done before the application can be approved. Before approving a marketing application, the FDA may inspect the facility or facilities at which the product is manufactured and will not approve the product unless the facility complies with cGMPs. The FDA may deny approval of a marketing application if applicable statutory or regulatory criteria are not satisfied, or may require additional testing or information, which can extend the review process. FDA approval of any application may include many delays or never be granted. If a product is approved, the approval may impose limitations on the uses for which the product may be marketed, may require that warning statements be included in the product labeling, may require that additional studies be conducted following approval as a condition of the approval, and may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. The FDA must approve a marketing application supplement or a new marketing application before a product may be marketed for other uses or before certain manufacturing or other changes may be made. Further post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of a product is required. Also, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if safety or manufacturing problems

27

occur following initial marketing. In addition, new government requirements may be established that could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our product candidates under development.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, created a pathway for licensure, or approval, of biological products that are biosimilar to, and possibly interchangeable with, earlier biological products licensed under the PHSA. Also under the BPCIA, innovator manufacturers of original reference biological products are granted 12 years of exclusivity before biosimilars can be approved for marketing in the United States.

Both before and after the FDA approves a product, the manufacturer and the holder or holders of the marketing application for the product are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight. For example, quality control and manufacturing procedures must conform, on an ongoing basis, to cGMP requirements, and the FDA periodically inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to spend time, money and effort to maintain cGMP compliance.

Additionally, the FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability. However, physicians may, in their independent medical judgment, prescribe legally available products for off-label uses. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments but the FDA does restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products.

Other Healthcare Laws

Although we currently do not have any products on the market in the United States, we may be subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal, fraud and abuse, including anti-kickback and false claims, privacy and security and physician sunshine laws and regulations, many of which may become more applicable if our product candidates are approved and we begin commercialization. For additional details regarding the federal, state and foreign healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Industry— “We are subject to extensive federal, state, and foreign regulation, and our failure to comply with these laws could harm our business.” If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, significant civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, imprisonment, and additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

Orphan Drug Act

The United States Orphan Drug Act provides incentives to manufacturers to develop and market drugs for rare diseases and conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 persons in the United States at the time of application for orphan drug designation. ODD. ODD must be requested before submitting a BLA. ODD does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product that has ODD subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the holder of the approval is entitled to a seven-year exclusive marketing period in the United States for that product except in very limited circumstances. For example, a drug that the FDA considers to be clinically superior to, or different from, another approved orphan drug, even though for the same indication, may also obtain approval in the United States during the seven-year exclusive marketing period. In addition, holders of exclusivity for orphan drugs are expected to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of their orphan drugs to meet the needs of patients. Failure to do so could result in the withdrawal of marketing exclusivity for the drug.

Legislation similar to the Orphan Drug Act has been enacted outside the United States, including in the EU and Japan. The orphan legislation in the EU is available for therapies addressing chronic debilitating or life-threatening conditions that affect five or fewer out of 10,000 persons or are financially not viable to develop. The market exclusivity period is for ten years, although that period can be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, available evidence establishes that the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. The market exclusivity may be extended to 12 years if sponsors complete a pediatric investigation plan agreed upon with the relevant committee of the European Medicines Agency. Orphan legislation in Japan similarly provides for ten years of marketing exclusivity for drugs that are approved for the treatment of rare diseases and conditions.

Exclusivity

New biological products will benefit, if approved, from the data exclusivity provisions legislated in the United States, the EU and Japan. All three regions effectively provide a period of data exclusivity to innovator biologic products. U.S. legislation provides a 12-year period of data exclusivity from the date of first licensure of a reference biologic product. EU legislation provides a period of 10 to 11 years and Japan legislation provides a period of 8 years during which companies cannot be granted approval as generic drugs to approved biologic therapies. Protection from generic competition is also available for new chemical entities, including potentially the small molecule TRC102, in the United States for 5 years, in the EU for 10 to 11 years and in Japan for 8 years.

28

Exclusivity in the European Union

The EU has led the way among the International Council for Harmonisation regions in establishing a regulatory framework for biosimilar products. The marketing authorization of generic medicinal products and similar biological medicinal products are governed in the EU by Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (2001). Unlike generic medicinal products, which only need to demonstrate bioequivalence to an authorized reference product, similar biological medicinal products are required to submit preclinical and clinical data, the type and quantity of which is dictated by class and product specific guidelines. In order to submit a marketing authorization for a similar biological medicinal product, the reference product must have been authorized for marketing in the EU for at least 8 years. Biosimilars can only be authorized for use once the period of data exclusivity on the biological reference medicine has expired. In general, this means that the biological reference medicine must have been authorized for at least 10 years before a similar biological medicine can be made available by another company. The 10-year period can be extended to a maximum of 11 if, during the first 8 years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison to existing therapies.

Many EU countries have banned interchangeability of biosimilars with their reference products to ensure adequate characterization of the safety profile of the biosimilar and to enable comparison to that of reference product.

Exclusivity in Japan

In 2009, Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, or MHLW, and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Device Agency, or PMDA, issued the first Japanese guidance on biosimilars. The guideline (currently available only in Japanese), which shares common key features to EU guidelines, outlines the nonclinical, clinical and CMC requirements for biosimilar applications and describes the review process, naming conventions and application fees.

Japan does not grant exclusivity to pharmaceutical products; however, the country does have a Post Marketing Surveillance, or PMS, system that affects the timing of generic entry and, in effect, provides a period of market exclusivity to innovator products. This system allows safety data to be acquired for each product. A PMS period is set for most of new drug approvals, and until this period is over, generic companies cannot submit their applications for drug approvals as generic drugs. Recently, this period was extended to 8 years for all new drug approvals. Japan’s regulations do not allow currently for interchangeability of biosimilars with their reference products.

Expedited Review and Approval

The FDA has various programs, including Fast Track, priority review, and accelerated approval, which are intended to expedite or simplify the process for reviewing drugs and biologics, and/or provide for the approval of a drug or biologic on the basis of a surrogate endpoint. Even if a drug qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the drug no longer meets the conditions for qualification or that the time period for FDA review or approval will be shortened. Generally, drugs that are eligible for these programs are those for serious or life-threatening conditions, those with the potential to address unmet medical needs and those that offer meaningful benefits over existing treatments. For example, Fast Track is a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions and fill unmet medical needs. Breakthrough therapy designation is for products that are intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Priority review is designed to give drugs that offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists an initial review within six months as compared to a standard review time of ten months. Although Fast Track and priority review do not affect the standards for approval, the FDA will attempt to facilitate early and frequent meetings with a sponsor of a Fast Track designated drug and expedite review of the application for a drug designated for priority review. Accelerated approval provides for an earlier approval for a new drug that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and that fills an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is a laboratory measurement or physical sign used as an indirect or substitute measurement representing a clinically meaningful outcome. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug candidate receiving accelerated approval perform post-marketing clinical trials to confirm the clinically meaningful outcome as predicted by the surrogate marker trial.

Pediatric Exclusivity and Pediatric Use

Under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, certain drugs may obtain an additional six months of exclusivity, if the sponsor submits information requested in writing by the FDA, or a Written Request, relating to the use of the active moiety of the drug in children. The FDA may decline to issue a Written Request for studies on unapproved or approved indications or where it

29

determines that information relating to the use of a drug in a pediatric population, or part of the pediatric population, may not produce health benefits in that population.

We have not received a Written Request for such pediatric studies, although we may ask the FDA to issue a Written Request for such studies in the future. To receive the six-month pediatric market exclusivity, we would have to receive a Written Request from the FDA, conduct the requested studies in accordance with a written agreement with the FDA or, if there is no written agreement, in accordance with commonly accepted scientific principles, and submit reports of the studies. A Written Request may include studies for indications that are not currently in the labeling if the FDA determines that such information will benefit the public health. The FDA will accept the reports upon its determination that the studies were conducted in accordance with and are responsive to the original Written Request or commonly accepted scientific principles, as appropriate, and that the reports comply with the FDA’s filing requirements.

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric studies for most drugs and biologicals, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs, BLAs and supplements thereto must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must include the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric studies for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug or biologic is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric studies are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data needs to be collected before the pediatric studies begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval. In both domestic and foreign markets, sales and reimbursement of any approved products will depend, in part, on the extent to which third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations provide coverage, and establish adequate reimbursement levels, for such products. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services and imposing controls to manage costs. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication. Additionally, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our products. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other therapies, the payors may not cover our products after approved as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of reimbursement may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

The containment of healthcare costs also has become a priority of federal and state governments and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit our net revenue and results.

Outside the United States, ensuring adequate coverage and payment for our products will face challenges. Pricing of prescription pharmaceuticals is subject to governmental control in many countries. Pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can extend well beyond the receipt of regulatory marketing approval for a product and may require us to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost effectiveness of our product candidates or products to other available therapies. The conduct of such a clinical trial could be expensive and result in delays in our commercialization efforts. Third-party payors are challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, and many third-party payors limit reimbursement for newly-approved health care products. Recent budgetary pressures in many EU countries are also causing governments to consider or implement various cost-containment measures, such as price freezes, increased price cuts and rebates. If budget pressures continue, governments may implement additional cost-containment measures. Cost-control initiatives could decrease the price we might establish for products that we may develop or sell, which would result in lower product revenues or royalties payable to us. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products.

Healthcare Reform

There have been a number of federal and state proposals during the last few years regarding the pricing of pharmaceutical and biological products, government control and other changes to the healthcare system of the United States. It is uncertain what legislative proposals will be adopted or what actions federal, state or private payors for medical goods and services may take in response to any healthcare reform proposals or legislation. Adoption of new legislation at the federal or state level could further limit reimbursement for pharmaceuticals, including our product candidates if approved. We cannot predict the effect medical or healthcare reforms may have on our business, and no assurance can be given that any such reforms will not have a material adverse effect. For

30

additional details regarding health reform activity, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Commercialization of Product Candidates — “Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.”

Foreign Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we and our collaborators will be subject to a variety of foreign regulations governing clinical trials and commercial sales and distribution of our product candidates. Whether or not we or our collaborators obtain FDA approval for a product candidate, we or our collaborators must obtain approval from the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries or economic areas, such as the EU, before we or our collaborators may commence clinical trials or market products in those countries or areas. The approval process and requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from place to place, and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval.

Certain countries outside of the United States have a process that requires the submission of a clinical trial application much like an IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In Europe, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be approved by the competent national health authority and by independent ethics committees in each country in which a company intends to conduct clinical trials. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical trial development may proceed in that country. In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with good clinical practices, or GCPs and other applicable regulatory requirements.

Under EU regulatory systems, a company may submit marketing authorization applications either under a centralized or decentralized procedure. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicinal products produced by biotechnology or those medicinal products containing new active substances for specific indications such as the treatment of AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, viral diseases and designated orphan medicines, and optional for other medicines which are highly innovative. Under the centralized procedure, a marketing application is submitted to the European Medicines Agency where it will be evaluated by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. A favorable opinion typically results in the grant by the European Commission of a single marketing authorization that is valid for all EU member states within 67 days of receipt of the opinion. The initial marketing authorization is valid for five years, but once renewed is usually valid for an unlimited period. The decentralized procedure provides for approval by one or more “concerned” member states based on an assessment of an application performed by one member state, known as the “reference” member state. Under the decentralized approval procedure, an applicant submits an application, or dossier, and related materials to the reference member state and concerned member states. The reference member state prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. Within 90 days of receiving the reference member state’s assessment report, each concerned member state must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a member state does not recognize the marketing authorization, the disputed points are eventually referred to the European Commission, whose decision is binding on all member states.

In China, the NMPA monitors and supervises the administration of pharmaceutical products, as well as medical devices and equipment.  In order to conduct clinical trials in China a clinical trial application must be submitted and approved by the NMPA.  When clinical trials have been completed, an applicant must apply to the NMPA for approval of a new drug application. The NMPA, the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE), and the Drug Inspection Institution will then conduct reviews and on-site inspections. The NMPA determines whether to approve the application according to the comprehensive evaluation opinions produced by the reviews and on-site inspections. We or our collaborators must obtain approval of new drug applications before our product candidates can be manufactured and sold in the Chinese market.  In addition, all facilities and techniques used in the manufacture of products for clinical use or for sale in China must be operated in conformity with good manufacturing practice guidelines as established by the NMPA. Failure to comply with applicable requirements could result in the termination of manufacturing and significant fines.

Additional Regulation

We are also subject to regulation under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and other present and potential federal, state or local regulations. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological and chemical substances used in, and waste generated by our operations. Our research and development involves the controlled use of hazardous materials, chemicals and viruses. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of such materials comply with the standards prescribed by state and federal regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be completely eliminated. In the event of such an accident, we could be held liable for any damages that result and any such liability could exceed our resources.

Employees

As of December 31, 2021, we had a total of 19 employees, 12 of whom are involved in research, development or manufacturing, and three of whom have Ph.D., Pharm.D. or M.D. degrees. We have no collective bargaining agreements with our employees and we have not experienced any work stoppages. We consider our relations with our employees to be good.

31

Corporate and Other Information

We were incorporated in the state of Delaware on October 28, 2004. Our principal executive offices are located at 4350 La Jolla Village Dr., Suite 800, San Diego, California 92122, and our telephone number is (858) 550-0780. Our corporate website address is www.traconpharma.com and we regularly post copies of our press releases as well as additional information about us on our website. Information contained on or accessible through our website is not a part of this Annual Report, and the inclusion of our website address in this Annual Report is an inactive textual reference only.    

Access to our Annual Report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to these reports filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may be obtained through the investor section of our website at https://ir.traconpharma.com/. We do not charge for access to and viewing of these reports. Information in the investor section and on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings. Our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included unless otherwise specified, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

This Annual Report contains references to our trademarks and to trademarks belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or TM symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that their respective owners will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend our use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and you should carefully consider them. Accordingly, in evaluating our business, we encourage you to consider the following discussion of risk factors, in its entirety, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report as well as our other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Risks Related to our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred losses from operations since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur substantial operating losses for the foreseeable future. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a clinical stage company with limited operating history. All the product candidates we are developing will require substantial additional development time and resources before we or our partners would be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and begin generating revenue from product sales. We have incurred losses from operations in each year since our inception, including net losses of $28.7 million and $16.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. At December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $207.8 million.

We expect to continue to incur substantial expenses as we expand our development activities and advance our clinical programs. To become and remain profitable, we or our partners must succeed in developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for them, and manufacturing, marketing and selling those products for which we or our partners may obtain regulatory approval. We or they may not succeed in these activities, and we may never generate revenue from product sales that is significant enough to achieve profitability. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical and biological product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. In addition, our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to perform studies or trials in addition to those currently expected, or if there are any delays in completing our clinical trials or the development of any product candidates. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, develop other product candidates or continue our operations.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and failure to obtain additional financing when needed could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our drug development efforts. There is substantial doubt as to our ability to continue as a going concern.

Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. We expect our current level of research and development expenses to increase in 2022 due to the continued enrollment of the ENVASARC trial and initiation of a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of YH001 in combination with envafolimab in certain sarcoma subtypes.

At December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling $24.1 million. In July 2021, we completed an underwritten public offering which resulted in net proceeds to us of approximately $13.4 million. Based upon our current operating plan, we believe

32

that our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to fund our operating expenses and capital requirements into 2023. We will need additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of product candidates, including envafolimab and YH001. In addition, in November 2018, we entered into separate collaboration and clinical trial agreements with I-Mab for the development of multiple immuno-oncology programs, in December 2019 we entered into a collaboration and clinical trial agreement with 3D Medicines and Alphamab, and in October 2021 we entered into a collaborative development and commercialization agreement with Eucure and Biocytogen. Under these agreements, we are responsible for various portions of the costs to conduct clinical trials, among other development obligations. We will need additional funds to advance the development of these programs and meet our cost-sharing obligations, and these requirements may be substantial depending on how many programs are selected for development and the stage of development each program reaches. As more fully discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report, the uncertainties around our ability to obtain additional funding raise substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern for a period of twelve months following the date that these consolidated financial statements were issued.

Regardless of our expectations, changing circumstances beyond our control, including the COVID-19 pandemic, may cause us to consume capital more rapidly than we currently anticipate. For example, our clinical trials may encounter technical, enrollment or other difficulties or we could encounter difficulties obtaining clinical trial material that could increase our development costs more than we expect. In addition, we may continue to incur substantial legal expenses in connection with our on-going dispute with I-Mab, including in connection with enforcing and collecting any award from the arbitration process. In any event, we will require additional capital prior to completing clinical development, filing for regulatory approval, or commercializing any product candidates.

In December 2020, we entered into a Capital on Demand^TM Sales Agreement (JonesTrading Agreement) with JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC (JonesTrading) pursuant to which we could sell from time to time, at our option, up to an aggregate of $50.0 million of shares of our common stock through JonesTrading, as sales agent or principal, all of which remains available for sale as of December 31, 2021. In October 2019, we entered into a Common Stock Purchase Agreement (2019 Purchase Agreement) with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (Aspire Capital) pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in the 2019 Purchase Agreement, as amended in April 2020, Aspire Capital committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of our common stock at our request from time to time. As of December 31, 2021, we had sold an aggregate 4.8 million shares of common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital for net proceeds of $9.6 million. While the JonesTrading Agreement and 2019 Purchase Agreement provide us with additional options to raise capital through sales of our common stock, there can be no guarantee that we will be able to sell shares under either agreement in the future, or that any sales will generate sufficient proceeds to meet our capital requirements. In particular, JonesTrading is under no obligation to sell any shares of our common stock that we may request to be sold under the JonesTrading Agreement from time to time, and while Aspire Capital is obligated to purchase shares of our common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement, the obligation is subject to our satisfaction of various conditions which we may not be able to meet in the future. If sales are made under either the JonesTrading Agreement or the 2019 Purchase Agreement, our existing stockholders may experience dilution and such sales, or the perception that such sales are or will be occurring, may cause the trading price of our common stock to decline.

Attempting to secure additional financing may divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken to slow its spread, as well as actual or anticipated changes in interest rates and economic inflation, the global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions, including diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. If we are unable to raise additional capital when required or on acceptable terms, we may be required to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of product candidates or otherwise significantly curtail, or cease, operations. If we are unable to pursue or are forced to delay our planned drug development efforts due to lack of financing, it would have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects.

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to product candidates on unfavorable terms to us.

We may seek additional capital through a variety of means, including through equity offerings and debt financings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. Debt financing, if available, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through licensing or collaboration arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us.

33

Our loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) contains restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business. We may be required to make a prepayment or repay the outstanding indebtedness earlier than we expect if a prepayment event or an event of default occurs, including a material adverse change with respect to us, which could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

On May 3, 2018, we entered into an amended loan and security agreement with SVB to borrow $7.0 million, all of which was used to refinance amounts outstanding under prior credit facilities with SVB. The agreement, as amended, contains various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions. These covenants limit our ability to, among other things:

The restrictive covenants of the agreement could cause us to be unable to pursue business opportunities that we or our stockholders may consider beneficial.

A breach of any of these covenants could result in an event of default under the agreement. An event of default will also occur if, among other things, a material adverse change in our business, operations or condition occurs, which could potentially include negative results in clinical trials, or a material impairment of the prospect of our repayment of any portion of the amounts we owe under the agreement occurs. In the case of a continuing event of default under the agreement, SVB could elect to declare all amounts outstanding to be immediately due and payable, proceed against the collateral in which we granted SVB a security interest under the agreement, or otherwise exercise the rights of a secured creditor. Amounts outstanding under the agreement are secured by all of our existing and future assets, excluding intellectual property, which is subject to a negative pledge arrangement.

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Regulatory Approval of Product Candidates

If the response rate of envafolimab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab in UPS/MFS is not significantly higher than existing therapies, our strategy of pursuing accelerated approval of envafolimab on ORR as the primary endpoint could delay or prevent the approval of envafolimab in UPS/MFS.

We are initially developing envafolimab in refractory UPS/MFS, where the PD-(L)1 inhibitors given as single agents or in combination with ipilimumab demonstrated response rates which were significantly higher than the response rate demonstrated by the approved treatment Votrient or chemotherapy in UPS/MFS. If the response rate of envafolimab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab in UPS/MFS is not significantly higher than Votrient or other chemotherapy, our strategy of pursuing accelerated approval of envafolimab on ORR as the primary endpoint will be unlikely to succeed, which could delay or prevent the approval of envafolimab in UPS/MFS.

Our plan to develop envafolimab in combination with ipilimumab and YH001 in combination with envafolimab exposes us to additional risks.

We intend to develop envafolimab in combination with ipilimumab and to develop YH001 in combination with envafolimab, and may in the future develop other product candidates in combination with other approved therapies or therapies in development. Patients may not be able to tolerate envafolimab or any of our other product candidates in combination with ipilimumab, YH001 or other therapies or dosing of envafolimab in combination with ipilimumab, YH001 or other therapies may have unexpected consequences. Even if any of our product candidates were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination

34

with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with any of our product candidates, or safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. In addition, it is possible that existing therapies with which our product candidates are approved for use could themselves fall out of favor or be relegated to later lines of treatment. This could result in the need to identify other combination therapies for our product candidates or our own products being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

Additionally, if the third-party providers of therapies or therapies in development used in combination with our product candidates are unable to produce sufficient quantities for clinical trials or for commercialization of our product candidates, or if the cost of combination therapies are prohibitive, our development and commercialization efforts would be impaired, which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Clinical development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. Failure can occur at any stage of clinical development.

Clinical development is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Even if product candidates demonstrate favorable results in ongoing or planned Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, many product candidates fail to show desired safety and efficacy traits in late-stage clinical trials despite having progressed through earlier trials. In addition to the potential lack of safety or efficacy of product candidates, clinical trial failures may result from a multitude of factors including flaws in trial design, manufacture of clinical trial material, dose selection and patient enrollment criteria, or differences in determination of progression events by investigators compared to central radiographic reviewers. With respect to envafolimab and YH001, while results of trials conducted by others outside of the United States have been promising, they may not be predictive of results in U.S. trials due to differences in trial design, target indications, patient populations, availability of alternative treatments and other factors. Based upon the recommendation of the IDMC following an interim analysis of data from the ENVASARC trial, we will proceed in the trial using a dose of envafolimab that is twice the dose administered to the first patients in the trial. While dosing at higher levels has shown promising results in other trials outside of the United States, we cannot be certain that we will observe similar results in ENVASARC, including whether the higher dose will result in tolerability issues that were not encountered with the lower dose. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Based upon negative or inconclusive results, we or our partners may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical trials or preclinical studies. In addition, data obtained from trials and studies are susceptible to varying interpretations, and regulators may not interpret our data as favorably as we do, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. If patients drop out of our trials, miss scheduled doses or follow-up visits or otherwise fail to follow trial protocols, or if our trials are otherwise disrupted due to COVID-19 or actions taken to slow its spread, the integrity of data from our trials may be compromised or not accepted by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, which would represent a significant setback for the applicable program.

If any product candidate is found to be unsafe or lack efficacy, we will not be able to obtain regulatory approval for it and our stock price would be materially and adversely affected.

Interim, topline and preliminary data from preclinical studies and clinical trials may change as more data become available, and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

We and our collaboration partners publicly disclose from time to time, interim, topline or preliminary data from preclinical studies and clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change as more data become available. We and our collaboration partners may also announce topline data following the completion of a preclinical study or clinical trial, which may be subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We and our collaboration partners also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of the analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. In addition, the manner in which clinical data and results are reported may differ depending on the jurisdiction in which a trial is conducted or between us and our collaboration partners. As a result, the interim, topline or preliminary results that we or our collaboration partners report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Topline data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the previously published preliminary data. As a result, interim, topline and preliminary data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. Adverse differences between previous preliminary or interim data and future interim or final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

From time to time, we or our collaboration partners may also disclose interim data from clinical trials. Interim data from clinical trials are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available or as patients from clinical trials continue other treatments for their disease. Adverse differences

35

between preliminary or interim data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects. Further, disclosure of interim data by us, our collaboration partners, or by our competitors could result in volatility in the price of our common stock after this offering.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular product candidate or product, our company in general and our common stock. In addition, the information we or our collaboration partners choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we or our collaboration partners determine to be material or otherwise appropriate information to include in such disclosure, and any information we or our collaboration partners determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular product candidate or our business. If the interim, topline, or preliminary data that is reported for our product candidates differ from future or more comprehensive data, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for and commercialize our product candidates, our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition may be harmed.

Delays in clinical trials are common and have many causes, and any delay could result in increased costs to us and jeopardize or delay our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commence product sales.

We may experience delays in clinical trials of product candidates. Our ongoing and planned clinical trials may not begin on time, have an effective design, enroll a sufficient number of patients or be completed on schedule, if at all. Our clinical trials can be delayed for a variety of reasons, including:

For example, assuming sufficient patient responses in line with meeting the ENVASARC trial endpoint, we intend to apply for fast track designation with the FDA for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma subtypes in the United States in 2022, and for breakthrough designation following the initial efficacy interim analysis. We expect final response assessment data including duration of response in all patients from the ENVASARC trial in 2024, and, assuming positive data, to submit a biologics license application to the FDA seeking accelerated approval in 2024. At any time that we reach nine responses in each cohort and meet the endpoint, we expect to discuss the submission process with the FDA. The FDA may require additional or different data in order to move forward with a BLA submission, which could ultimately delay regulatory approval and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted clinical trials broadly, including our own with some sites pausing enrollment or not completing all assessments specified in the protocol, and some patients choosing not to enroll or continue participating in ongoing trials. We and our collaborators may continue to experience delays in site initiation and patient enrollment, failures to comply with trial protocols, delays in the manufacture of product candidates for clinical testing and other difficulties in starting or competing our clinical trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

36

If initiation or completion of our ongoing or planned clinical trials are delayed for any of the above reasons or other reasons, our development costs may increase, our approval process could be delayed and our ability to commercialize product candidates could be materially harmed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our product candidates or those of our partners may cause adverse events or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval or limit the scope of any approved label or market acceptance.

AEs caused by product candidates or other potentially harmful characteristics of product candidates could cause us, our partners, including Eucure, Biocytogen, 3D Medicines, Alphamab or the National Cancer Institute (NCI), clinical trial sites or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in the denial of regulatory approval.

Envafolimab has produced AEs consistent with other inhibitors of the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathways, including rare fatal immune related toxicities. Based on the August 9, 2021 data cutoff from the YH001 Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial being conducted in Australia, no dose limiting toxicities had occurred and a single related serious adverse event of grade 3 colitis was reported, which led to treatment discontinuation. Phase 1 or Phase 2 clinical trials of TRC102 conducted to date have generated AEs related to the trial drug, some of which have been serious. The most common AE identified in our clinical trials of TRC102 has been anemia. There can be no assurance that AEs associated with product candidates will not be observed. As is typical in drug development, we have a program of ongoing toxicology studies in animals for clinical stage product candidates and cannot provide assurance that the findings from such studies or any ongoing or future clinical trials will not adversely affect our clinical development activities.

Further, if any approved products cause serious or unexpected side effects after receiving market approval, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

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

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA and comparable foreign authorities are lengthy, time consuming and inherently unpredictable, and if we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for product candidates, our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable but typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the substantial discretion of the regulatory authorities. In addition, approval policies, regulations, or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions. For example, we cannot guarantee that for certain oncology indications where the FDA has traditionally granted approval to therapies that can demonstrate progression-free survival, the agency will not later require us to demonstrate overall survival, which would greatly extend the time and increase the capital required to complete clinical development. We have not obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:

37

This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market product candidates, which would harm our business, results of operations and prospects significantly.

In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we request, may not approve the price we intend to charge for our products, may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials, or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate. Any of the foregoing scenarios could harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates or those of our partners.

We have not previously submitted a marketing application, or any similar drug approval filing to the FDA or any comparable foreign authority for any product candidate, and we cannot be certain that any product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approvals to market one or more product candidates, our revenue will be dependent, to a significant extent, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval. If the markets for patients or indications that we are targeting are not as significant as we estimate, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, if approved.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve proposed clinical trials or new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new product candidates to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

Separately, in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 the FDA announced its intention to postpone most foreign and domestic inspections of manufacturing facilities. In July 2020, the FDA restarted on-site inspections on a risk-based basis. Regulatory authorities outside the United States have and may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may attempt to secure approval from the FDA through the use of accelerated approval pathways. If we are unable to obtain such approval, we may be required to conduct additional clinical trials beyond those that we contemplate, which could increase the expense of obtaining, and delay the receipt of, necessary marketing approvals. Even if we receive accelerated approval from the FDA, if our confirmatory trials do not verify clinical benefit, or if we do not comply with rigorous post-marketing requirements, the FDA may seek to withdraw accelerated approval.

We may in the future seek accelerated approval for one or more of our product candidates, including envafolimab in UPS/MFS. Under the accelerated approval program, the FDA may grant accelerated approval to a product candidate designed to treat a serious or

38

life-threatening condition that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit over available therapies upon a determination that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The FDA considers a clinical benefit to be a positive therapeutic effect that is clinically meaningful in the context of a given disease, such as irreversible morbidity or mortality. For the purposes of accelerated approval, a surrogate endpoint is a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure that is thought to predict clinical benefit, but is not itself a measure of clinical benefit. An intermediate clinical endpoint is a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. The accelerated approval pathway may be used in cases in which the advantage of a new drug over available therapy may not be a direct therapeutic advantage, but is a clinically important improvement from a patient and public health perspective. If granted, accelerated approval is usually contingent on the sponsor’s agreement to conduct, in a diligent manner, additional post- approval confirmatory studies to verity and describe the drug’s clinical benefit. If such post-approval studies fail to confirm the drug’s clinical benefit, the FDA may withdraw its approval of the drug. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials for accelerated approval products, once approved.

If we decide to submit an application for accelerated approval for our product candidates, there can be no assurance that such submission or application will be accepted or that any expedited development, review or approval will be granted on a timely basis, or at all. The FDA could require us to conduct further studies prior to considering our application or granting approval of any type. A failure to obtain accelerated approval or any other form of expedited development, review or approval for our product candidates would result in a longer time period to commercialization of such product candidate, if any, could increase the cost of development of such product candidate and could harm our competitive position in the marketplace.

We may not receive Fast Track designation for our product candidates from the FDA, or Fast Track designation may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

Fast track designation provides increased opportunities for sponsor meetings with the FDA during preclinical and clinical development, in addition to the potential for rolling review once a marketing application is filed. A new drug or biologic is eligible for Fast Track designation if it is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and the drug demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation, and even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for this designation, we cannot assure you that the FDA will grant it. The FDA may also withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

We may be unsuccessful in our efforts to obtain ODDs from the FDA for product candidates, and even if these designations are obtained, we may not ultimately realize the potential benefits of ODD.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 people in the United States, or a patient population of greater than 200,000 people in the United States, but for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. Orphan drugs do not require prescription drug user fees with a marketing application, may qualify the drug development sponsor for certain tax credits, and may be eligible for a market exclusivity period of seven years.

In October 2020, the FDA granted ODD for TRC102 for the treatment of patients with malignant glioma, including glioblastoma and in June 2021, we received ODD for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma subtypes. Generally, if a drug with an ODD subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug may be entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same orphan designated indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States, which may be extended by six months, in the case of product candidates that have complied with the respective regulatory agency’s agreed upon pediatric investigation plan. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. In addition, even after a drug is granted orphan exclusivity and approved, the FDA can subsequently approve another drug for the same condition before the expiration of the seven-year exclusivity period if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, if an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than or different from what is designated, such product may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Even though the FDA has granted ODD, if we receive approval for a modified or different indication, our current orphan designations may not provide us with exclusivity.

ODD does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review or approval process. Also, regulatory approval for any product candidate may be withdrawn, and other product candidates may obtain approval before us and receive orphan

39

drug exclusivity, which could block us from entering the market. For example, 3D Medicines has U.S. ODD for envafolimab for the treatment of BTC, an indication that is outside the scope of our current license agreement with 3D Medicines.

Orphan drug exclusivity also may not effectively protect us from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition and the same drug can be approved for different conditions before the expiration of any orphan drug exclusivity period.

If orphan drug exclusivity is lost and we were unable to successfully enforce any remaining patents covering our eligible product candidates, we could be subject to generic competition earlier than we anticipate. In addition, if a subsequent drug is approved for marketing for the same or a similar indication as any product candidates that receive marketing approval, we may face increased competition and lose market share regardless of orphan drug exclusivity.

Although we intend to seek breakthrough therapy designation for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma subtypes, such designation may not be granted, and even if granted this may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that envafolimab will receive marketing approval in the United States.

A breakthrough therapy is defined as a therapy that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other therapies, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the therapy may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For therapies that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Therapies designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA may also be eligible for priority review and accelerated approval. Although we intend to seek breakthrough therapy designation for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma if our interim data with the 600mg dose from the ENVASARC trial is positive, we may not be granted such designation and even if designated this may not lead to a faster development, regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that envafolimab will receive marketing approval in the United States. In addition, if granted breakthrough therapy designation, the FDA may later decide that envafolimab no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

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

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

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

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

Any product candidates for which we receive regulatory approvals will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) in order to approve product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, establishment registration and drug listing, as well as continued compliance with regulatory requirements for current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, and current good clinical practices, or cGCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-

40

approval. Although physicians, in the practice of medicine, may prescribe an approved drug for unapproved indications, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from promoting uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with the labeling. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses of approved pharmaceutical products, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label may be subject to significant liability. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with product candidates, including AEs of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

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

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We and our partners rely on third party manufacturers to make product candidates, and any failure by a third party manufacturer may delay or impair our ability to complete clinical trials or commercialize our product candidates.

Manufacturing drugs and biologics is complicated and is tightly regulated by regulatory authorities, including the FDA and foreign equivalents. We currently rely on third party manufacturers to supply us with drug substance for preclinical and clinical trials. Moreover, the market for contract manufacturing services for drug products is highly cyclical, with periods of relatively abundant capacity alternating with periods in which there is little available capacity. If our need for contract manufacturing services increases during a period of industry-wide tight capacity, we may not be able to access the required capacity on a timely basis or on commercially viable terms, which could result in delays in initiating or completing clinical trials or our ability to apply for or receive regulatory approvals.

We rely on other third parties for drug substance and to perform additional steps in the manufacturing process, including filling into vials, shipping and storage.  For our clinical stage pipeline programs, there can be no guarantee that lack of clinical supplies will not force us or our partners to delay or terminate any ongoing or planned clinical trials.  

We expect to continue to rely on third party manufacturers for any drug required for commercial supply and do not intend to build our own manufacturing capability. Successfully transferring complicated manufacturing techniques to contract manufacturing organizations and scaling up these techniques for commercial quantities is costly, time consuming and subject to potential difficulties and delays. With respect to envafolimab, pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, envafolimab to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use. With respect to YH001, Eucure has agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, YH001 to us for clinical trials pursuant to the terms of a clinical supply and quality agreement to be separately negotiated, but we cannot guarantee that we will successfully negotiate and enter into the contemplated clinical supply and quality agreement or do so on commercially favorable terms.

We do not have any long-term supply agreements for the manufacture of product candidates and cannot guarantee that any third party manufacturer would be willing to continue supplying drug product for clinical trials or commercial sale at a reasonable cost or at all.  In addition, manufacturing agreements are often subject to early termination by the third party manufacturer under certain circumstances.

The facilities used by our current or future third party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit a BLA or an NDA to the FDA. While we work closely with

41

our third party manufacturers on the manufacturing process for product candidates, we generally do not control the implementation of the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our third party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP regulatory requirements and for manufacture of both drug substances and finished drug products. If our third party manufacturers or those of our collaborators cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to applicable specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or other regulatory authorities, we may experience delays in initiating planned clinical trials and we may not be able to secure or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers or other third party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize product candidates.

We depend in part on NCI and other third party sponsors to advance clinical development of TRC102. If these third party sponsors ceased their support for our product candidates, our ability to advance clinical development of product candidates could be limited and we may not be able to pursue the number of different indications for our product candidates that are currently being pursued.

NCI is currently sponsoring and funding multiple clinical trials involving TRC102. In addition, Case Western has sponsored and funded two separate clinical trials involving TRC102. The advancement of TRC102 depends in part on the continued sponsorship and funding of clinical trials by these organizations, as our resources and capital would not be sufficient to conduct these trials on our own. None of these third party sponsors are obligated to continue sponsorship or funding of any clinical trials involving our product candidates and could stop their support at any time. If these third party sponsors ceased their support for our product candidates, our ability to advance clinical development of product candidates could be limited and we may not be able to pursue the number of different indications for our product candidates that are currently being pursued.

Even if these third party sponsors continue to sponsor and fund clinical trials of our product candidates, our reliance on their support subjects us to numerous risks. For example, we have limited control over the design, execution or timing of their clinical trials and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to how they are providing and administering our product candidates. If a clinical trial sponsored by a third party has a failure due to poor design of the trial, errors in the way the clinical trial is executed or for any other reason, or if the sponsor fails to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or if there are errors in the reported data, it could represent a major set-back for the development and approval of our product candidates, even if we were not directly involved in the trial and even if the clinical trial failure was not related to the underlying safety or efficacy of the product candidate. In addition, these third party sponsors could decide to de-prioritize clinical development of our product candidates in relation to other projects, which could adversely affect the timing of further clinical development. We are also subject to various confidentiality obligations with respect to the clinical trials sponsored by third party sponsors, which could prevent us from disclosing current information about the progress or results from these trials until the applicable sponsor publicly discloses such information or permits us to do so. This may make it more difficult to evaluate our business and prospects at any given point in time and could also impair our ability to raise capital on our desired timelines.

We are dependent on 3D Medicines and Alphamab with respect to certain aspects of our development of envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America and on Eucure and Biocytogen with respect to certain aspects of our development of YH001 for the treatment of certain sarcoma subtypes in North America. The failure to maintain these collaboration and clinical trial agreements, the failure of 3D Medicines, Alphamab, Eucure or Biocytogen to perform their obligations under the agreements, or the actions of 3D Medicines, Alphamab, Eucure or Biocytogen or their other partners with respect to envafolimab and YH001 in other indications or outside North America could negatively impact our business.

Pursuant to the terms of our collaboration and clinical trial agreement with 3D Medicines and Alphamab, we were granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize envafolimab for sarcoma in North America. Pursuant to the terms of our collaborative development and commercialization agreement with Eucure and Biocytogen, we were granted an exclusive (including with respect to Eucure and its affiliates), nontransferable, license to develop and commercialize YH001 in North America for the treatment of multiple human indications, including the Initial Indications or one or more of the Substitute Indications, which may be substituted for Initial Indications at our discretion. While we are generally responsible for clinical development, 3D Medicines and Alphamab are responsible for certain critical activities associated with envafolimab and Eucure and Biocytogen are responsible for certain critical activities associated with YH001, including, as applicable, the manufacture and supply of envafolimab and YH001, CMC activities and prosecution and enforcement of intellectual property rights. We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that 3D Medicines, Alphamab, Eucure and Biocytogen will dedicate to their respective efforts, and their failure to perform their obligations would impair our ability to develop envafolimab for sarcoma in North America and YH001 for certain sarcoma subtypes in North America.  In addition, we have very limited influence or control over 3D Medicines’, Alphamab’s, Eucure’s or Biocytogen’s (or their respective other partners’) activities with respect to the development and commercialization of envafolimab and YH001 in non-licensed indications or indications outside of North America, even though these activities could have a significant impact on the development and commercialization of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America and YH001 for certain sarcoma subtypes in North America. For example, Eucure may pursue clinical trials for YH001 in North America outside of the Initial Indications or Substitute

42

Indications, and also within the Initial Indications or Substitute Indications as part of a combination therapy of YH001 and an additional Eucure product, any of which could have a significant impact on the development and commercialization of YH001 for sarcoma in North America. Additionally, adverse events in clinical trials outside of the United States could cause the FDA to put clinical trials of envafolimab or YH001 in the United States on hold, and negative results of clinical trials of envafolimab in other indications may cast doubt as to the likelihood of positive results of clinical trials in UPS/MFS or other sarcoma indications.

We are subject to a number of other risks associated with these collaboration and clinical trial agreements, including:

If we have disagreements with our corporate partners, if they do not perform their obligations under the collaboration and clinical trial agreements or there are negative events with respect to envafolimab or YH001 outside of the licensed indications or North America, there could be material adverse consequences to our ability to successfully develop and commercialize envafolimab and YH001 in North America or to the value of envafolimab and YH001 to us.

Our ability to realize value from any product candidates developed under our agreements with I-Mab will depend in part on I-Mab’s activities and willingness to fund future development.

Pursuant to the terms of our strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreements with I-Mab, we are largely responsible for clinical development activities and I-Mab is responsible for pre-clinical development and manufacturing activities. Consequently, our ability to realize value or generate any revenues from the development of product candidates in collaboration with I-Mab will depend in part on I-Mab’s willingness and ability to successfully complete pre-clinical development and manufacturing activities, in addition to funding agreed-upon portions of the costs of clinical development.  We have limited control over the amount and timing of resources that I-Mab will dedicate to its respective efforts, and have limited rights in the event that I-Mab determines to cease development or manufacturing activities or funding for any product candidate under the collaboration.  We could also encounter disagreements with I-Mab over the timing and scope of development or manufacturing of any product candidates or payments owed under the collaboration or which, if any, BsAb product candidates are selected for development. For example, in March 2020, I-Mab issued a press release announcing a strategic partnership with Kalbe Genexine Biologics (KG Bio), whereby KG Bio received what the press release described as a right of first negotiation outside North America for TJ004309 for up to $340 million in potential payments to I-Mab. In March 2020, we also learned that I-Mab had entered into two license and collaboration agreements with ABL Bio in July 2018 (ABL Bio License 1 and ABL Bio License 2). Under ABL Bio License 1, I-Mab granted to ABL Bio exclusive, worldwide (excluding Greater China), royalty-bearing rights to develop and commercialize a BsAb using certain monoclonal antibody sequences. Under ABL License 2, I-Mab and ABL agreed to collaborate to develop three PD-L1-based bispecific antibodies by using ABL Bio’s proprietary BsAb technology and commercialize them in their respective territories, which, collectively, include China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and South Korea, and other territories throughout the rest of the world if both parties agree to do so in such other territories during the performance of the agreement. On April 8, 2020, we issued a notice of dispute regarding possible breaches of the TJ004309 Agreement and the Bispecific Agreement, which resulted in a binding arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce before an arbitration tribunal seated in New York City (the Tribunal). The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits in February 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the TJ004309 Agreement and Bispecific Agreement disputes remain under consideration by the Tribunal, and we expect their decision in 2022. We believe we may be entitled to receive payments due to I-Mab’s strategic partnership with KG Bio under the TJ004309 Agreement, although I-Mab has disputed any payment is due. In 2021, I-Mab sent us notices purporting to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement, which would result in I-Mab owing us a prespecified termination fee of $9.0 million. However, I-Mab does not have an option to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement without cause until the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of TJ004309 is “Complete,” as that term is defined in the TJ004309 Agreement, and we responded by disputing the basis for I-Mab’s termination. In March 2021, I-Mab filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking an order of specific performance requiring us to comply with I-Mab’s effort to terminate the agreement. We disagreed with I-Mab’s position and in May 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the lawsuit filed by I-Mab and subsequently this matter was remanded and included in the proceeding before the Tribunal. The claims under the arbitration are substantial and complex and the result is inherently uncertain. The dispute with I-Mab has caused and could continue to cause us to incur significant costs, as well as distract our management over an extended period. We cannot currently predict the outcome of the

43

dispute with I-Mab or the arbitration, which could materially adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. Until these disputes are concluded, we will be unable to provide a timeline as to when or if we will file an IND for a BsAb under the Bispecific Agreement. Furthermore, our ability to license bispecific product candidates from I-Mab may be more limited than we previously believed.

We may not be successful in establishing and maintaining additional collaborations, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our existing product candidates or to leverage our clinical development capabilities.

A part of our strategy is to strategically evaluate and, as deemed appropriate, enter into additional licensing and collaboration agreements, including potentially with major biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. In particular, we are actively seeking additional corporate partnerships in which we would share in the cost and risk of clinical development and commercialization of innovative product candidates of third parties. We face significant competition in seeking appropriate partners, and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. In order for us to successfully partner our product candidates, potential partners must view these product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy and as being economically valuable in light of the terms that we are seeking and other available products for licensing by other companies. With respect to additional partnerships whereby we would develop third party product candidates, we will need to identify promising product candidates where the owner of the development and commercial rights could benefit from our clinical development capabilities. Under our collaboration and clinical trial agreement with I-Mab for TJ004309, we are prohibited from developing other biologic product candidates targeting the same indications for which TJ004309 is being developed, which increases our reliance on the success of I-Mab’s activities with respect to TJ004309 and could limit our ability to collaborate with others with respect to biologic product candidates in certain indications. Even if we are successful in our efforts to establish new collaborations, the terms that we agree upon may not be favorable to us, and we may not be able to maintain such collaborations if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. Any inability or delay in entering into new collaboration agreements related to our product candidates, in particular in foreign countries where we do not have and do not intend to establish significant capabilities, could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates and reduce their market potential.  If we are unable to enter into additional collaborations that leverage our clinical development capabilities, we may be forced to reduce these capabilities, which could lower the value of our company and make it less likely that third parties will seek to collaborate with us to develop their product candidates.

We rely on third parties to conduct preclinical studies and clinical trials of product candidates, and if they do not properly and successfully perform their obligations to us, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approvals for product candidates.

We do not have our own capabilities to perform preclinical testing of product candidates, and therefore rely entirely on third party contractors and laboratories to conduct these studies for us. In addition, while we intend to continue designing, monitoring and managing our clinical trials of product candidates using our clinical operations and regulatory team, we still depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities and medical institutions, to conduct our clinical trials at their sites under agreements with us. We will compete with many other companies for the resources of these third party contractors, laboratories, investigators and collaborators, and the initiation and completion of our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be delayed if we encounter difficulties in engaging these third parties or need to change service providers during a preclinical study or clinical trial.

We control only certain aspects of the activities conducted for us by the third parties on which we currently rely and on which we will rely in the future for our preclinical studies and clinical trials. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials and certain of our preclinical studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. With respect to clinical trials, we and these third parties are required to comply with cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable cGCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the cGCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product candidates produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state health care laws, including, among others, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security, and physician payment transparency laws. Any third parties conducting our preclinical studies and clinical trials are not and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical development programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be

44

replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates or those of our partners would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding third parties to conduct our preclinical studies and clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired development timelines.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to our product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates. If we do not adequately protect our intellectual property, competitors may be able to use our technologies which could do harm to our business and affect our ability to be profitable. In particular, our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our product candidates. Additionally, we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other countries. We may also fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Any disclosure or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, eroding our competitive position in our market.

The patent position of biotechnology companies is generally uncertain because it involves complex legal and factual considerations in a legal framework that is constantly evolving. The standards applied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. For example, there is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter or the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology patents. There is a substantial amount of prior art in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields, including scientific publications, patents and patent applications. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found. We may be unaware of prior art that could be used to invalidate an issued patent or prevent our pending patent applications from issuing as patents. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

If patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us. Several patent applications covering our product candidates have been filed recently. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patents or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Any successful challenge to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidate that we may develop. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate.

For applications filed before March 16, 2013, or patents issuing from such applications, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party, or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the claims of our applications and patents. As of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. The change to “first-to-file” from “first-to-invent” is one of the changes to the patent laws of the United States resulting from the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011. Among some of the other significant changes to the patent laws are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. It is not yet clear, what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent

45

applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

Patents granted by the European Patent Office may be opposed by any person within nine months from the publication of their grant and, in addition, may be challenged before national courts at any time. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, our patents and patent applications may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims. Furthermore, due to the patent laws of a country, or the decisions of a patent examiner in a country, or our own filing strategies, we may not obtain patent coverage for all our product candidates or methods involving these product candidates in the parent patent application.

In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available; however, the life of a patent and the protection it affords is limited. If we encounter delays in obtaining regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic and biosimilar products.

Obtaining and enforcing patents is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications or maintain and/or enforce patents that may issue based on our patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner, including delays as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic impacting our or our licensors’ operations.

Any loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. We may be unable to prevent competitors from entering the market with a product that is similar to or the same as our products.

We depend on our licensors to prosecute and maintain patents and patent applications that are material to our business. Any failure by our licensors to effectively protect these intellectual property rights could adversely impact our business and operations.*

Specific to the development of YH001 in North America, we hold an exclusive (including with respect to Eucure and its affiliates), nontransferable, license to develop and commercialize YH001 in North America for the treatment, through administration of YH001 by intravenous or subcutaneous means, of multiple human indications, including the Initial Indications or one or more of the Substitute Indications, which may be substituted for Initial Indications at our discretion. As it relates to the development of envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America, we hold an exclusive license from 3D Medicines and Alphamab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering envafolimab. We also hold a non-exclusive license for the conduct of clinical trials in the EU in support of the development of envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America. Regarding the development of TJ004309 in North America, we hold a non-exclusive license from I-Mab to any and all intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks and know-how, claiming or covering any pharmaceutical composition or preparation comprising or containing TJ004309.

As a licensee of third parties, we rely on these third parties to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the licensed intellectual property under some of our license agreements. We have not had and do not have primary control over these activities for certain of our patents or patent applications and other intellectual property rights. We cannot be certain that such activities by third parties have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents or other intellectual property rights. Pursuant to the terms of the license agreements with some of our licensors, the licensors may have the right to control enforcement of our licensed patents or defense of any claims asserting the invalidity of these patents and even if we are permitted to pursue such enforcement or defense, we will require the cooperation of our licensors. We cannot be certain that our licensors will allocate sufficient resources or prioritize their or our enforcement of such patents or defense of such claims to protect our interests in the licensed patents. Even if we are not a party to these legal actions, an adverse outcome could harm our business because it might prevent us from continuing to license intellectual property that we may need to operate our business.

Third party claims of intellectual property infringement or misappropriation may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on us and our partners not infringing the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation and other proceedings, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, reexamination and review proceedings before the USPTO and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist in the fields in which we and our partners are developing and may develop our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

46

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. There may be third party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates, that we failed to identify. For example, applications filed before November 29, 2000 and certain applications filed after that date that will not be filed outside the United States remain confidential until issued as patents. Except for the preceding exceptions, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are generally published only after a waiting period of approximately 18 months after the earliest filing. Therefore, patent applications covering our product candidates or methods of use of our product candidates could have been filed by others without our knowledge. Additionally, pending patent applications which have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our product candidates or the use or manufacture of our product candidates.

The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Also, in proceedings before courts in Europe, the burden of proving invalidity of the patent usually rests on the party alleging invalidity. Third parties could bring claims against us that would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, if successful against us, could cause us to pay substantial damages. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit.

If any third party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment, the holders of any such patents would be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate until such patent expired or unless we or our partner obtain a license. These licenses may not be available on acceptable terms, if at all. Even if we or our partner were able to obtain a license, the rights may be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Ultimately, we or our partner could be prevented from commercializing a product, or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we or our partner are unable to enter into licenses on acceptable terms.

Parties making claims against us or our partner may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our or our partner’s ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defending against claims of patent infringement or misappropriation of trade secrets could be costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Third parties may submit applications for patent term extensions in the United States and/or supplementary protection certificates in the EU member states seeking to extend certain patent protection which, if approved, may interfere with or delay the launch of one or more of our products.

We may face a claim of misappropriation if a third party believes that we inappropriately obtained and used trade secrets of such third party. If we are found to have misappropriated a third party’s trade secrets, we may be prevented from further using such trade secrets, limiting our ability to develop our product candidates, and we may be required to pay damages.

During the course of any patent or other intellectual property litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our product candidates or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our common stock may decline.

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

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property, including our patents or the patents of our licensors. In addition, one or more of our third party collaborators may have submitted, or may in the future submit, a patent application to the USPTO without naming a lawful inventor that developed the subject matter in whole or in part while under an obligation to execute an assignment of rights to us. As a result, we may be required to file infringement or inventorship claims to stop third party infringement, unauthorized use, or to correct inventorship. This can be expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. Any claims that we assert

47

against perceived infringers could also provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their intellectual property rights. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover its technology or that the factors necessary to grant an injunction against an infringer are not satisfied.

An adverse determination of any litigation or other proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing.

Interference, derivation or other proceedings brought at the USPTO or any foreign patent authority may be necessary to determine the priority or patentability of inventions with respect to our patent applications or those of our licensors or collaborators. Litigation or USPTO proceedings brought by us may fail. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceedings could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party, or could cause us to lose valuable intellectual property rights. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, if any license is offered at all. Even if we are successful, domestic or foreign litigation or USPTO or foreign patent office proceedings may result in substantial costs and distraction to our management. We may not be able, alone or with our licensors or collaborators, to prevent misappropriation of our trade secrets, confidential information or proprietary rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect such rights as fully as in the United States.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation or other proceedings, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation or proceedings. In addition, during the course of this kind of litigation or proceedings, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments or public access to related documents. If investors perceive these results to be negative, the market price for our common stock could be significantly harmed.

We have in-licensed a portion of our intellectual property, and, if we fail to comply with our obligations under these arrangements, we could lose such intellectual property rights or owe damages to the licensor of such intellectual property.

We are a party to a number of license agreements that are important to our business, and we may enter into additional license agreements in the future. YH001 and associated intellectual property have been licensed from Eucure and Biocytogen, envafolimab and associated intellectual property have been licensed from 3D Medicines and Alphamab, and TJ004309 and associated intellectual property have been licensed from I-Mab.  

Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If there is any conflict, dispute, disagreement or issue of non-performance between us and our licensing partners regarding our rights or obligations under the license agreements, including any such conflict, dispute or disagreement arising from our failure to satisfy payment or diligence obligations under any such agreement, we may owe damages, our licensor may have a right to terminate the affected license, and our and our partners’ ability to utilize the affected intellectual property in our drug development efforts, and our ability to enter into collaboration or marketing agreements for a product candidate, may be adversely affected.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States and in some cases may even force us to grant a compulsory license to competitors or other third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate; and the

48

damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

In addition, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in domestic and foreign intellectual property laws.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and applications. The USPTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to use our technologies and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Commercialization of Product Candidates

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of product candidates, the products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, third party payors and others in the medical community.

Factors that will influence whether product candidates are accepted in the market include:

If, for any of these or other reasons, product candidates fail to achieve market acceptance among physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers, third party payors or others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate significant revenue. Even if our products achieve market acceptance, we may not be able to maintain that market acceptance over time if new products or technologies are introduced that are more favorably received than our products, are more cost effective or render our products obsolete.

Off-label use of approved drugs could adversely impact peak sales of our product candidates if approved, including Keytruda’s off-label use in UPS/MFS.

While no PD-(L)1 treatments are currently FDA approved in UPS/MFS or any other sarcoma subtype, Keytruda has a compendia listing in UPS and is reimbursed for off-label use in UPS. The off-label use of Keytruda in UPS/MFS may adversely affect the peak net sales of envafolimab in UPS/MFS and other sarcoma subtypes, if envafolimab is approved by the FDA and

49

commercialized in the United States. Similarly, while no CTLA-4 therapy is approved by the FDA for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma, if YH001 is approved, it may nevertheless compete with the currently marketed CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy, marketed by BMS), which is approved by the FDA in multiple indications other than soft tissue sarcoma.

We face intense competition and rapid technological change and the possibility that our competitors may develop therapies that are more advanced or effective than ours, which may adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to successfully commercialize product candidates.

We face competition both in the United States and internationally, including from major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions.

Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we may develop, or achieve earlier patent protection, regulatory approval, product commercialization and market penetration than we do. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing product candidates against competitors.

Under the terms of our license agreement with Case Western, we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property controlled by Case Western related to TRC102. Despite our exclusive license, Case Western retained the right to grant non-exclusive licenses to third parties in the same field of use as our exclusive license as a means to settle any intellectual property disputes Case Western may have in the future with such third parties. While Case Western has not made us aware of any present intent to exercise this right, there can be no guarantee that Case Western will not do so in the future or that it would not grant such a non-exclusive license to a competitor of ours seeking to develop and commercialize a product that is identical to TRC102 in the same field of use that we are pursuing. If this were to occur, and we did not have other intellectual property outside of the Case Western license agreement to prevent competitive products for the same indications, we may face competition much earlier than we currently anticipate and the value of TRC102 may decline substantially.

Even if we are successful in achieving regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate faster than our competitors, we may face competition from “biosimilars” due to the changing regulatory environment. In the United States, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are demonstrated to be “highly similar,” or “biosimilar,” to or “interchangeable” with an FDA-approved biological product. This pathway could allow competitors to reference data from biological products already approved after 12 years from the time of approval. Future FDA standards or criteria for determining biosimilarity and interchangeability, and FDA discretion to determine the nature and extent of product characterization, non-clinical testing and clinical testing on a product-by-product basis, may further facilitate the approval of biosimilar products and their ability to compete with our product candidates or those of our partners. In addition, companies may be developing biosimilars in other countries that could compete with our products. If competitors are able to obtain marketing approval for biosimilars referencing our products, our products may become subject to competition from such biosimilars, with the attendant competitive pressure and consequences. Any such event or further changes in the law could decrease the period for which we have exclusivity and consequently negatively impact our business and competitive position. Expiration or successful challenge of our applicable patent rights could also trigger competition from other products, assuming any relevant exclusivity period has expired.

Finally, as a result of the expiration or successful challenge of our patent rights, we could face litigation with respect to the validity and/or scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize.

Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell product candidates profitably.

Successful sales of product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third party payors. In addition, because our product candidates and those of our partners represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from these product candidates.

Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors are critical to new product acceptance.

50

Government authorities and other third party payors, such as commercial health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Coverage and reimbursement by a third party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third party payor’s determination that use of a product is:

In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data to each payor separately for the use of our products, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, the resulting reimbursement rates might not be adequate for us to achieve or sustain profitability or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of product candidates. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

We intend to seek approval to market product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in the EU, the pricing of biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third party payors for product candidates.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Third party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, and governments are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, collectively, the ACA, was enacted in the United States. Since its enactment, there have been executive, judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA.  For example, legislation enacted in 2017, informally titled the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Tax Act) includes a provision which repealed, effective January 1, 2019, the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” Additionally, on June 17, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how any such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative changes to the statute will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 pandemic relief legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022. Under current legislation, the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester.  In January 2013, the former U.S. President signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment

51

centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There has been heightened governmental scrutiny over pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump signed several executive orders that attempt to implement several of the Trump administration proposals. The FDA also released a final rule and guidance in September 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing pathways for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a new safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed by the Biden administration until  January 1, 2023. On November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing the former President Trump’s Most Favored Nation, or MFN, executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. As a result of litigation challenging the MFN model, on December 27, 2021, CMS published a final rule that rescinded the MFN interim final rule. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue to advance these principles. No legislation or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. In addition, Congress is considering drug pricing as part of other reform initiatives. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

We cannot predict whether future healthcare initiatives will be implemented at the federal or state level or in countries outside of the United States in which we may do business in the future, or the effect any future legislation or regulation will have on us. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

If we obtain approval to commercialize any approved products outside of the United States, a variety of risks associated with international operations could materially adversely affect our business.

If any product candidates are approved for commercialization, we expect that we or our partners will be subject to additional risks related to entering into international business relationships, including:

52

If we or our partners outside of the United States are unable to successfully manage these risks associated with international operations, the market potential for our product candidates or those of our partners outside the United States will be limited and our results of operations may be harmed.

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

If we fail to develop, acquire or in-license other product candidates or products, our business and prospects will be limited.

We do not have internal new drug discovery capabilities or a technology platform with which to develop novel product candidates. Unless we develop or acquire these capabilities or a technology platform, our only means of expanding our product pipeline will be to acquire or in-license product candidates that complement or augment our current targets, or that otherwise fit into our development or strategic plans on terms that are acceptable to us. In addition, part of our corporate strategy is to leverage our existing internal clinical development and regulatory capabilities by entering into collaborations where we conduct development activities related to third party product candidates in exchange for commercialization and payment rights, such as our collaborations with Eucure and Biocytogen with respect to YH001, 3D Medicines and Alphamab with respect to envafolimab, and I-Mab with respect to TJ004309 and potential BsAb candidates. Identifying, selecting and acquiring or licensing promising product candidates requires substantial technical, financial and human resources. Efforts to do so may not result in the actual development, acquisition or license of a particular product candidate, potentially resulting in a diversion of our management’s time and the expenditure of our resources with no resulting benefit. With respect to TJ004309, if I-Mab licenses rights to TJ004309 to a third party, while we would be entitled to receive varying portions of royalty and non-royalty payments from I-Mab, we would have no further rights to develop, commercialize or realize value from TJ004309. With respect to envafolimab, 3D Medicines and Alphamab retain certain rights to reacquire the rights for sarcoma in North America in connection with an arm’s length sale to a third party of the rights to develop and commercialize envafolimab in North America for all indications.  While we and 3D Medicines and Alphamab must negotiate in good faith and agree to fair compensation be paid to us for the value of and opportunity represented by the reacquired rights, we cannot guarantee that any compensation paid to us would adequately cover our investments in the program, the present value of the rights to us or our opportunity costs as a result of having advanced the program prior to reacquisition.  Also, in the event that envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and within three years of the commercial launch of envafolimab in North America for sarcoma 3D Medicines and Alphamab replace us as the party responsible for commercialization, and we do not co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, then 3D Medicine and Alphamab will be required to compensate us for our costs associated with preparing for and conducting commercial activities. However, we may not be able to agree with 3D Medicines and Alphamab on adequate compensation and cannot guarantee that any agreed-upon compensation would adequately cover our investments in commercializing envafolimab in North America or our lost opportunity costs in pursuing commercialization. If we are unable to retain existing product candidates and add additional product candidates to our pipeline, we may not be able to execute on an important part of our business strategy and our long-term business and prospects will be limited.

We and our partners are subject to extensive federal, state, and foreign regulation, and our failure to comply with healthcare laws could harm our business.

Although we do not currently have any products on the market, we and our partners are subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The healthcare laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

53

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

We are also subject to laws and regulations governing data privacy and the protection of health-related and other personal information. These laws and regulations govern our processing of personal data, including the collection, access, use, analysis, modification, storage, transfer, security breach notification, destruction and disposal of personal data. There are foreign and state law versions of these laws and regulations to which we are currently and/or may in the future, be subject. For example, the collection and use of personal health data in the EU is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation, or the EU GDPR. The EU GDPR, which is wide-ranging in scope, imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, the security and confidentiality of the personal data, data breach notification and the use of third party processors in connection with the processing of personal data. The EU GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EU to the United States, provides an enforcement authority and imposes large monetary penalties for noncompliance. The EU GDPR requirements apply not only to third party transactions, but also to transfers of information within our company, including employee information. The EU GDPR and similar data privacy laws of other jurisdictions place significant responsibilities on us and create potential liability in relation to personal data that we or our third party vendors process, including in clinical trials conducted in the United States and EU. In addition, we expect that there will continue to be new proposed laws, regulations and industry standards relating to privacy and data protection in the United States, the EU and other jurisdictions, and we cannot determine the impact such future laws, regulations and standards may have on our business.

Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including without limitation, significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages,

54

reputational harm, imprisonment, exclusion from governmental health care programs, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

We face potential product liability, and, if successful claims are brought against us, we may incur substantial liability.

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

We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical trials with limits we believe are customary for other companies in our field and stage of development. Our current product liability insurance coverage may not be sufficient to reimburse us for any expenses or losses we may suffer. Moreover, insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive and in the future we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. If we obtain marketing approval for product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of commercial products; however, we may be unable to obtain product liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or in adequate amounts. On occasion, large judgments have been awarded in class action lawsuits based on drugs that had unanticipated adverse effects. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

As of December 31, 2021, we had federal and California net operating loss carryforwards (NOLs) of approximately $179.4 million and $144.4 million, respectively, which expire in various years beginning in 2030, if not utilized. Under the Tax Act, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act, federal NOLs generated in tax years beginning after 2017 may be carried forward indefinitely. As of December 31, 2021, we had federal and California research and development and Orphan Drug tax credit carryforwards of approximately $11.9 million and $2.7 million, respectively. The federal research and development and Orphan Drug tax credit carryforwards expire in various years beginning in 2031, if not utilized. The California research and development credit will carry forward indefinitely under current law. Under Sections 382 and 383 of Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code), if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOLs and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its post-change income and taxes may be limited. In general, an “ownership change” occurs if there is a cumulative change in our ownership by “5% shareholders” that exceeds 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period. Similar rules may apply under state tax laws. We believe we have experienced certain ownership changes in the past and have reduced our deferred tax assets related to NOLs and research and development tax credit carryforwards accordingly. In the event we experience one or more ownership changes as a result of future transactions in our stock, then we may be further limited in our ability to use our NOLs and other tax assets to reduce taxes owed on the net taxable income that we earn in the event that we attain profitability. Any such limitations on the ability to use our NOLs and other tax assets could adversely impact our business, financial condition and operating results in the event that we attain profitability. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOL carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited (including, without limitation, legislation enacted by California in June 2020 that suspends the use of California NOLs and limits the use of California R&D tax credits for certain years), which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed.

New or future changes to tax laws could materially adversely affect us.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances

55

could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. For example, the Tax Act enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to the Tax Act may affect us, and certain aspects of the Tax Act could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the CARES Act modified certain provisions of the Tax Act and proposals have recently been made in Congress (which have not yet been enacted) to increase the federal income tax rate applicable to corporate income and make other tax law changes that could have a material adverse impact on us. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act, the CARES Act or any newly enacted federal tax legislation. The impact of the Tax Act and CARES Act and any future changes in tax laws on holders of our common stock is also uncertain and could be adverse.

The COVID-19 pandemic could continue to adversely impact our business, including our clinical trials, supply chain and business development activities.

COVID-19, a novel strain of coronavirus (together with its variants, COVID-19), has become a global pandemic and many states and municipalities in the United States announced aggressive actions to reduce the spread of COVID-19, including limiting non-essential gatherings of people, ceasing all non-essential travel, ordering certain businesses and government agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations and issuing “shelter-in-place” orders which direct individuals to shelter at their places of residence (subject to limited exceptions). For example, on March 19, 2020, the Executive Department of the State of California issued Executive Order N-33-20, ordering all individuals in the State of California to stay at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors. Since then, almost all of our employees have been telecommuting, which has impacted certain of our operations and may continue to do so over the long term. We may experience further limitations on employee resources in the future, including because of sickness of employees or their families. The effects of government actions and our own policies and those of third parties to reduce the spread of COVID-19 may negatively impact productivity and slow down or delay our ongoing and future clinical trials, preclinical studies and research and development activities, and may cause disruptions to our supply chain. In addition, travel restrictions, quarantine requirements and shutdowns in business operations as a result of the pandemic have limited our ability to pursue our business development strategy with respect to China-based biopharmaceutical companies seeking U.S. drug development expertise. In the event that government authorities were to enhance current restrictions, our employees who currently are not telecommuting may no longer be able to access our facilities, and our operations may be further limited or curtailed.

As COVID-19 continues to spread and new variants emerge, we may experience ongoing disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials, including:

56

These and other disruptions in our operations and the global economy could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

Our clinical trials have been, and may in the future be, affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, some of our clinical trial sites have started to slow down or stop further enrollment of new patients in clinical trials, denied access to site monitors and otherwise curtailed certain operations. Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, may be adversely impacted. Our ongoing or planned clinical trials may also be impacted by interruptions or delays in the operations of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory agencies. We and our CROs have also made certain adjustments to the operation of our trials in an effort to ensure the monitoring and safety of patients and minimize risks to trial integrity during the pandemic in accordance with the guidance issued by the FDA, and may need to make further adjustments in the future. Many of these adjustments are new and untested, may not be effective, and may have unforeseen effects on the enrollment, progress and completion of these trials and the findings from these trials. These events could delay our clinical trials, increase the cost of completing our clinical trials and negatively impact the integrity, reliability or robustness of the data from our clinical trials.

In addition, quarantines, shelter-in-place and similar government orders, or the perception that such orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations could occur, related to COVID-19 or other infectious diseases could impact personnel at third-party manufacturing facilities upon which we rely, or the availability or cost of materials, which could disrupt the supply chain for our product candidates. To the extent our suppliers and service providers are unable to comply with their obligations under our agreements with them or they are otherwise unable to deliver or are delayed in delivering goods and services to us due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our ability to continue meeting clinical supply demand for our product candidates or otherwise advancing development of our product candidates may become impaired.

The spread of COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread may also materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, there could be a significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity and financial position. In addition, the trading prices for other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock or such sales may be on unfavorable terms.

COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread continue to rapidly evolve. The extent to which COVID-19 may impede the development of our product candidates, reduce the productivity of our employees, disrupt our supply chains, delay our clinical trials, reduce our access to capital or limit our business development activities, will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile, and our stockholders may not be able to resell their shares at a desired market price and could lose all or part of their investment.

Even though our common stock trades on the Nasdaq Capital Market, we cannot assure you that an active, liquid trading market for our shares will develop or persist. Our stockholders may not be able to sell their shares quickly or at a recently reported market price if trading in our common stock is not active.  The trading price of our common stock has been, and is likely to continue to be, volatile. Our stock price could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a variety of factors, including the following:

57

In addition, the stock market in general, and the Nasdaq Capital Market in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations, and we have in the past experienced volatility that has been unrelated or disproportionate to our operating performance. From January 1, 2021 through March 11, 2022, the closing price of our common stock has ranged between $2.13 and $11.65 per share. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

If we fail to continue to meet all applicable listing requirements, our common stock may be delisted from the Nasdaq Capital Market, which could have an adverse impact on the liquidity and market price of our common stock.

Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market, which has qualitative and quantitative listing criteria. If we are unable to meet any of the Nasdaq listing requirements in the future, including, for example, if the closing bid price for our common stock falls below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive trading days, or if we are unable to maintain at least $2.5 million in stockholders’ equity, Nasdaq could determine to delist our common stock.  

A delisting of our common stock could adversely affect the market liquidity of our common stock, decrease the market price of our common stock, adversely affect our ability to obtain financing for the continuation of our operations and result in the loss of confidence in our company.

In the event that our common stock is delisted from Nasdaq and is not eligible for quotation or listing on another market or exchange, trading of our common stock could be conducted only in the over-the-counter market or on an electronic bulletin board established for unlisted securities such as the Pink Sheets or the OTC Bulletin Board. In such event, it could become more difficult to dispose of, or obtain accurate price quotations for, our common stock, and there would likely also be a reduction in our coverage by securities analysts and the news media, which could cause the price of our common stock to decline further.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

We expect that significant additional capital will be needed in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell common stock,

58

convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. These sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to our existing stockholders.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividend on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Additionally, our credit agreement with SVB contains covenants that restrict our ability to pay dividends. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders or remove our current management.

Some provisions of our charter documents and Delaware law may have anti-takeover effects that could discourage an acquisition of us by others, even if an acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management. These provisions include:

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management. In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which generally prohibits a Delaware corporation from engaging in any of a broad range of business combinations with an interested stockholder for a period of three years following the date on which the stockholder became an interested stockholder, unless such transactions are approved by our board of directors. This provision could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control, whether or not it is desired by or beneficial to our stockholders. Further, other provisions of Delaware law may also discourage, delay or prevent someone from acquiring us or merging with us.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our development processes that involve proprietary know-how or information that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, and outside scientific advisors, contractors and collaborators. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, or outside scientific advisors might intentionally or inadvertently disclose our trade secret information to competitors. In addition, competitors may otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques.

General Risk Factors

We are subject to stringent and changing obligations related to data privacy and security.  Our actual or perceived failure to comply with such obligations could lead to regulatory investigations or actions; litigation; fines and penalties; disruptions of our business operations, reputational harm, and other adverse business impacts.

In the ordinary course of business, we process personal data and other sensitive data, including proprietary and confidential business data, trade secrets, intellectual property, data we collect about trial participants in connection with clinical trials, and sensitive

59

third-party data. Our data processing activities also subject us to numerous data privacy and security obligations, such as various laws, regulations, guidance, industry standards, external and internal privacy and security policies, contracts, and other obligations that govern the processing of personal data by us and on our behalf.

In the United States, federal, state, and local governments have enacted numerous data privacy and security laws, including data breach notification laws, personal data privacy laws, and consumer protection laws. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, or CCPA, imposes obligations on businesses to which it applies. These obligations include, without limitation, providing specific disclosures in privacy notices, affording California residents certain rights related to their personal data, and requiring businesses subject to the CCPA to implement certain measures to effectuate California residents’ personal data rights. The CCPA allows for statutory fines for noncompliance (up to $7,500 per violation). In addition, it is anticipated that the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or CPRA, effective January 1, 2023, will expand the CCPA. For example, the CPRA establishes a new California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the CCPA (as amended), which could increase the risk of an enforcement action. Other states have enacted data privacy laws.  For example, Virginia passed its Consumer Data Protection Act, and Colorado passed the Colorado Privacy Act, both of which differ from the CPRA and become effective in 2023.

Outside the United States, an increasing number of laws, regulations, and industry standards apply to data privacy and security.  For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and the United Kingdom’s GDPR (UK GDPR) impose strict requirements for processing the personal data of individuals located, respectively, within the European Economic Area, or EEA, and the United Kingdom, or UK. For example, under the EU GDPR, government regulators may impose temporary or definitive bans on data processing, as well as fines up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenue, whichever is greater. Further, individuals may initiate litigation related to our processing of their personal data.

Certain jurisdictions have enacted data localization laws and cross-border personal data transfers laws. For example, absent appropriate safeguards or other circumstances, the EU GDPR generally restricts the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EEA, such as the United States, which the European Commission does not consider to provide an adequate level of personal data protection. The European Commission released a set of “Standard Contractual Clauses” that are designed to be a valid mechanism by which entities can transfer personal data out of the EEA to jurisdictions that the European Commission has not found to provide an adequate level of protection.  Currently, these Standard Contractual clauses are a valid mechanism to transfer personal data outside of the EEA.  The Standard Contractual Clauses, however, require parties that rely upon that legal mechanism to comply with additional obligations such as conducting transfer impact assessments to determine whether additional security measures are necessary to protect the at-issue personal data. Moreover, due to potential legal challenges, there exists some uncertainty regarding whether the Standard Contractual Clauses will remain a valid mechanism for personal data transfers out of the EEA. In addition, laws in Switzerland and the UK similarly restrict personal data transfers outside of those jurisdictions to countries such as the United States that do not provide an adequate level of personal data protection. In addition to European restrictions on cross-border personal data transfers, other jurisdictions have enacted or are considering similar cross-border personal data transfer laws and local personal data residency laws, any of which could increase the cost and complexity of doing business. If we cannot implement a valid compliance mechanism for cross-border personal data transfers, we may face increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines, and injunctions against processing or transferring personal data from Europe or elsewhere.  Inability to import personal data to the United States may significantly and negatively impact our business operations, including by limiting our ability to conduct clinical trial activities in Europe and elsewhere; limiting our ability to collaborate with parties subject to European and other data protection laws or requiring us to increase our personal data processing capabilities in Europe and/or elsewhere at significant expense.

Our obligations related to data privacy and security are quickly changing in an increasingly stringent fashion. These obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent among jurisdictions or in conflict. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources (including, without limitation, financial and time-related resources). These obligations may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems, and practices and those of any third parties that process personal data on our behalf.  In addition, these obligations may even require us to change to our business model. Although we endeavor to comply with all applicable data privacy and security obligations, we may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) to do so.  Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third-parties upon whom we rely may fail to comply such obligations that impacts our compliance posture.  

If we fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences.  These consequences may include, but are not limited to, government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections and similar); litigation (including class-related claims); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; and orders to destroy or not use personal data. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, or financial condition, including but not limited to: loss of customers; interruptions or stoppages in our business operations (including clinical trials); inability to process personal data or operate in certain jurisdictions; limited ability to develop or commercialize our products; expenditure of time and resources to defend any claim or inquiry; adverse publicity; or revision or restructuring our operations.  

60

If our information technology systems or data is or were compromised, we could experience adverse impacts resulting from such compromise, including, but not limited to, interruptions to our operations such as our clinical trials, claims that we breached our data protection obligations and harm to our reputation.

In the ordinary course of our business, we may collect, store, use, transmit, disclose, or otherwise process proprietary, confidential, and sensitive data, including personal data (such as health-related data), intellectual property, and trade secrets. We may rely upon third-party service providers and technologies to operate critical business systems to process confidential and personal information in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, third-party providers of cloud-based infrastructure, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, content delivery to business partners, and other functions.  Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place.  We may share or receive sensitive data with or from third parties.

Cyberattacks, malicious internet-based activity, and online and offline fraud are prevalent and continue to increase.  These threats are becoming increasingly difficult to detect. These threats come from a variety of sources. In addition to traditional computer “hackers,” threat actors, personnel (such as through theft or misuse), sophisticated nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors now engage and are expected to continue to engage in cyber attacks, including without limitation nation-state actors for geopolitical reasons and in conjunction with military conflicts and defense activities.  During times of war and other major conflicts, we and the third parties upon which we rely may be vulnerable to a heightened risk of these attacks, including cyber-attacks that could materially disrupt our systems and operations, supply chain, and ability to produce, sell and distribute our goods and services. We and the third parties upon which we rely may be subject to a variety of evolving threats, including but not limited to social-engineering attacks (including through phishing attacks), malicious code (such as viruses and worms), malware (including as a result of advanced persistent threat intrusions), denial-of-service attacks (such as credential stuffing), personnel misconduct or error, ransomware attacks, supply-chain attacks, software bugs, server malfunctions, software or hardware failures, loss of data or other information technology assets, adware, telecommunications failures, earthquakes, fires, floods, and other similar threats. Ransomware attacks, including those perpetrated by organized criminal threat actors, nation-states, and nation-state-supported actors, are becoming increasingly prevalent and severe and can lead to significant interruptions in our operations, loss of data and income, reputational harm, and diversion of funds. Extortion payments may alleviate the negative impact of a ransomware attack, but we may be unwilling or unable to make such payments due to, for example, applicable laws or regulations prohibiting such payments. Similarly, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties and infrastructure in our supply chain or our third-party partners’ supply chains have not been compromised or that they do not contain exploitable defects or bugs that could result in a breach of or disruption to our information technology systems or the third-party information technology systems that support us and our services. The COVID-19 pandemic and our remote workforce poses increased risks to our information technology systems and data, as more of our employees work from home, utilizing network connections outside our premises.

Third party sites that take part in clinical trials we sponsor or third parties that are also sponsoring clinical trials involving our product candidates or those of our partners, such as NCI and Case Western, face similar risks and any security breach of their systems could adversely affect us. A security breach or privacy violation that leads to disclosure or modification of, or prevents access to, patient information, including personally identifiable information or protected health information, could harm our reputation, compel us to comply with federal and/or state breach notification laws and foreign law equivalents, subject us to mandatory corrective action, require us to verify the correctness of database contents and otherwise subject us to litigation or other liability under laws and regulations that protect personal data, any of which could disrupt our business and/or result in increased costs or loss of revenue. Any of these events could be particularly harmful to our business due to our reliance on internal clinical development functions and systems to conduct our clinical trials. For example, for clinical trials that we conduct, we rely on third party hosted software to manage the resulting clinical data. While the third party vendor is obligated to back up our clinical data on its servers, we do not independently back up our clinical data, and a loss of our clinical data by the third party vendor could result in delays in our development programs, cause us to breach of our obligations to our third party collaborators, and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data.

Any of the previously identified or similar threats could cause a security incident or other interruption.  A security incident or other interruption could result in unauthorized, unlawful, or accidental acquisition, modification, destruction, loss, alteration, encryption, disclosure of, or access to data. A security incident could disrupt our (and third parties upon whom we rely) ability to conduct our clinical development activities. We may expend significant resources or modify our business activities (including our clinical trial activities) in an effort to protect against security incidents. Certain data privacy and security obligations may require us to implement and maintain specific security measures, industry-standard or reasonable security measures to protect our information technology systems and data.

While we have implemented security measures designed to protect against security incidents, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective. We may be unable in the future to detect vulnerabilities in our information technology systems because such threats and techniques change frequently, are often sophisticated in nature, and may not be detected until after a security incident has occurred. Despite our efforts to identify and remediate vulnerabilities, if any, in our information technology systems, our efforts may not be successful.  Further, we may experience delays in developing and deploying remedial measures designed to address

61

any such identified vulnerabilities.

Applicable data privacy and security obligations may require us to notify relevant stakeholders of security incidents.  Such disclosures are costly, and the disclosures or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to adverse consequences. If we (or a third party upon whom we rely) experience a security incident or are perceived to have experienced a security incident, we may experience adverse consequences.  These consequences may include: government enforcement actions (for example, investigations, fines, penalties, audits, and inspections); additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; restrictions on processing data (including personal data); litigation (including class claims); indemnification obligations; negative publicity; reputational harm; monetary fund diversions; interruptions in our operations (including availability of data); financial loss; and other similar harms. Security incidents and attendant consequences may cause customers to stop using our products, deter new customers from using our products, and negatively impact our ability to grow and operate our business.

Our contracts may not contain limitations of liability, and even where they do, there can be no assurance that limitations of liability in our contracts are sufficient to protect us from liabilities, damages, or claims related to our data privacy and security obligations. We cannot be sure that our insurance coverage will be adequate or sufficient to protect us from or to mitigate liabilities arising out of our privacy and security practices, that such coverage will continue to be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or that such coverage will pay future claims.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common stock.

Effective internal controls over financial reporting are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us conducted in connection with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or the subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm, may reveal deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our consolidated financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common stock.

Other business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our contractors, consultants and collaborators, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self-insured. To the extent our collaborators are unable to comply with their obligations under our agreements with them or they are otherwise unable to complete or are delayed in completing development activities due to business disruptions, our ability to advance development in the United States may become impaired.  In addition, NCI may be affected by government shutdowns in the United States or withdrawn funding, which may lead to suspension or termination of ongoing NCI-sponsored clinical development of our product candidates. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. In addition, our ability and the ability of our partners to obtain clinical supplies of product candidates could be disrupted if the operations of our third party manufacturers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters are located in San Diego, California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.

We are at risk of securities class action litigation.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because pharmaceutical companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could harm our business.

If we fail to attract and keep senior management and key clinical operations and regulatory personnel, we may be unable to successfully develop product candidates and execute our business strategy.

We are highly dependent on members of our senior management, including Charles Theuer, M.D., Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer. Our clinical development strategy and ability to directly manage or oversee our on-going and planned clinical trials are also dependent on the members of our clinical operations and regulatory team. The loss of the services of any of these persons could impede the development of product candidates and our ability to execute our business strategy. We may be particularly impacted by the unexpected loss of employees due to our small employee base and limited ability to quickly shift

62

responsibilities to other employees in our organization. We do not maintain “key person” insurance for any of our executives or other employees.

Recruiting and retaining other qualified employees for our business, including scientific, quality assurance and technical personnel, will also be critical to our success. There is currently a shortage of skilled executives in our industry, which is likely to continue. As a result, competition for skilled personnel is intense, particularly in the San Diego, California area, and the turnover rate can be high. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel on acceptable terms given the competition among numerous pharmaceutical companies for individuals with similar skill sets. The inability to recruit or loss of the services of any executive or key employee could impede the progress of our development and strategic objectives.

Our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees, independent contractors, principal investigators, consultants, vendors and commercial partners may engage in fraudulent conduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or unauthorized activities that violate:

Additionally, these parties may fail to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws intended to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We may encounter difficulties in managing our growth and expanding our operations successfully.

As we seek to advance product candidates through clinical trials and commercialization, we will need to expand our development, regulatory, manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities or contract with additional third parties to provide these capabilities for us. As our operations expand, we expect that we will need to manage additional relationships with partners, consultants, suppliers and other third parties. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of our management, including having to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day operating activities to implement and manage future growth. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage any future growth effectively. To that end, we must be able to manage our development efforts and clinical trials effectively and hire, train and integrate additional management, administrative and, if necessary, sales and marketing personnel. We may not be able to accomplish these tasks, and our failure to accomplish any of them could prevent us from successfully growing our company.

If our third party manufacturers use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.

Our development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials, by our third party manufacturers. Our manufacturers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States and abroad governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous

63

materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability, including through obligations to indemnify our third party manufacturers, or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our development and production efforts or those of our third party manufacturers, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.

Not applicable.

Our principal executive offices are located at 4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 800, San Diego, California 92122 in a facility we lease encompassing 6,724 square feet of office space pursuant to our August 2021 lease amendment. Our lease expires in April 2027.

We are not currently a party to any material legal proceedings. From time to time, we may be involved in various claims and legal proceedings relating to claims arising out of our operations. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. For a description of our disputes and related proceedings with I-Mab, see Note 7, Collaborations of the Notes to consolidated financial statements, included in Item 15 of Part IV of this Annual Report.

Not applicable.

64

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the ticker symbol “TCON”.

Holders of Common Stock

As of March 11, 2022, there were approximately 115 holders of record of our common stock. Certain shares of our common stock are held in “street” name and thus the actual number of beneficial owners of such shares is not known or included in the foregoing number.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, pursuant to our credit and security agreement with SVB, we are prohibited from paying cash dividends without the prior consent of SVB. Any future determination related to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon, among other factors, our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference to Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities.

None.

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this Annual Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and future financial performance, includes forward-looking statements that are based upon current beliefs, plans and expectations and involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. You should review the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report for a discussion of important factors that could cause our actual results and the timing of selected events to differ materially from those described in or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in the following discussion and analysis. Please also see the section within Part I of this Annual Report entitled “Forward-Looking Statements.”

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel targeted therapeutics for cancer and utilizing our cost efficient, contract research organization (CRO) independent product development platform to partner with ex-U.S. companies to develop and commercialize innovative products in the United States.

In December 2019, we entered into a collaboration and clinical trial agreement (the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement) with 3D Medicines Co., Ltd. (3D Medicines) and Jiangsu Alphamab Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (Alphamab) for the development of envafolimab, also known as KN035, an investigational PD-L1 single-domain antibody (sdAb) administered by rapid subcutaneous injection for the treatment of sarcoma in North America. The ENVASARC Phase 2 pivotal trial (the ENVASARC trial) began dosing in December 2020 at 300mg of envafolimab every three weeks in cohort A, and 300mg of envafolimab every three weeks in combination with Yervoy® at 1mg/kg every three weeks for four doses in cohort B, in the sarcoma subtypes of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and myxofibrosarcoma (MFS). In December 2021, the IDMC reviewed interim safety and efficacy data from 18 patients enrolled into each cohort who completed a minimum of 12 weeks of efficacy evaluations (two on-treatment scans).  The objective response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review (BICR) in each cohort satisfied the prespecified futility rule of having at least one response in each cohort. Envafolimab was well tolerated, with only a single Grade 3 related adverse event

65

reported in 36 patients. Based on the tolerability profile and the significantly higher ORR observed in lower weight patients, the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) recommended the trial continue, using a higher dose of envafolimab of 600mg every three weeks. Given the activity demonstrated by higher doses of envafolimab in completed trials, including in the pivotal trial in MSI-H/dMMR cancer that was the basis for approval of envafolimab in China, we agreed with the IDMC guidance and proposed a doubling of the envafolimab dose to 600mg every three weeks to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in an amendment which was cleared without comment. The ENVASARC trial will now assess up to 80 new patients in a cohort of single agent envafolimab at 600mg every three weeks and up to 80 new patients in a cohort of envafolimab at 600mg every three weeks with Yervoy at 1mg/kg every three weeks for four doses. Nine of 80 responses by BICR in either cohort are needed to satisfy the primary objective of the trial which is to statistically exceed the known 4% ORR of Votrient® (pazopanib), the only FDA-approved treatment for patients with refractory UPS or MFS. Achieving the primary endpoint of ORR could be the basis for accelerated approval of envafolimab by the FDA as a single agent and/or in combination with Yervoy. The trial will provide at least 86% power to demonstrate the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval is greater than 5% in each cohort, which would be greater than the 4% ORR of Votrient reported in soft tissue sarcoma in its package insert. Votrient is the only approved treatment for refractory soft tissue sarcoma, which includes UPS and MFS.

An initial interim efficacy analysis at the higher 600mg dose is planned following the 12-week efficacy scan in the 36th enrolled patient, to allow for determination of the preliminary ORR, which we expect in the second half of 2022. There must be at least one response among the initial 18 patients enrolled at 600mg into each cohort to continue enrollment in that cohort per the futility rules of the trial. A second interim efficacy analysis at the 600mg dose is planned following the 12-week efficacy scan in the 92nd enrolled patient, to allow for determination of the preliminary ORR, which we expect in 2023. There must be at least three responses among the initial 46 patients enrolled at 600mg into each cohort to continue enrollment in that cohort per the futility rules of the trial.

Assuming sufficient patient responses in line with meeting the ENVASARC trial endpoint, we intend to apply for fast track designation with the FDA for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma subtypes in the United States in 2022, and for breakthrough designation following the initial efficacy interim analysis. We expect final response assessment data including duration of response in all patients from the ENVASARC trial in 2024, and, assuming positive data, to submit a biologics license application to the FDA seeking accelerated approval in 2024. At any time that we reach nine responses in each cohort and meet the endpoint, we expect to discuss the submission process with the FDA.

In June 2021, we received orphan drug designation (ODD) for envafolimab for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. The ODD application included data demonstrating that two of five patients with alveolar soft parts sarcoma (ASPS) treated with envafolimab in Phase 1 trials conducted by 3D Medicines and Alphamab demonstrated partial responses (PR), each with a duration of response greater than six months. In June and August 2021, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) recommended that the ENVASARC trial proceed as planned following the review of safety data from the more than 20 patients enrolled in the trial at that time.

In November 2021, we announced that our partners 3D Medicines and Alphamab had received marketing authorization for envafolimab from the Chinese National Medical Products Association (NMPA) in the indication of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) cancer.

Our other clinical stage oncology product candidates include YH001, which is a monospecific investigational CTLA-4 antibody, that we licensed from Eucure (Beijing) Biopharma Co., Ltd. (Eucure) and Biocytogen Pharmaceuticals (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (Biocytogen) in October 2021, TRC102, which is a small molecule that has been studied in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials for the treatment of mesothelioma, lung cancer, glioblastoma and solid tumors, and TJ004309, which is a CD73 antibody in Phase 1 clinical development for the treatment of solid tumors, that we licensed from I-Mab Biopharma (I-Mab) in November 2018.

YH001 is an investigational humanized CTLA-4 IgG1 monoclonal antibody that is being developed in two Phase 1 trials by Eucure for the treatment of various cancer indications. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) is a protein expressed on T-cells and expressed at high levels specifically on regulatory T-cells (Tregs) and contributes to the suppressor function of Tregs by acting as a checkpoint to inhibit effector T-cell immune responses to cancer cells. The CTLA-4 inhibitor Yervoy (ipilimumab) marketed by BMS has been approved as a single agent in melanoma and approved in combination with other therapies in multiple indications including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and MSI-H/dMMR cancer. As of August 9, 2021, YH001 had been dosed in more than 34 patients in China and Australia. No CTLA-4 therapy is approved by the FDA for the treatment of soft tissue sarcoma. We intend to initiate a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of YH001 in combination with envafolimab and with doxorubicin chemotherapy, an approved treatment for soft tissue sarcoma, in the second half of 2022. Additionally, we plan to initiate trials of YH001 as a single agent or in combination with immunotherapies in other tumor types.

TRC102 is a small molecule in clinical development to reverse resistance to specific chemotherapeutics by inhibiting DNA base excision repair (BER). In initial clinical trials of more than 100 patients, TRC102 has shown good tolerability and we believe, promising anti-tumor activity in combination with alkylating and antimetabolite chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer patients. TRC102 has been studied in Phase 1 or Phase 2 trials in mesothelioma patients in combination with the approved chemotherapeutic Alimta® (pemetrexed), in glioblastoma, ovarian cancer, lung and colorectal cancer patients in combination with the approved chemotherapeutic Temodar® (temozolomide) and in lung cancer patients in combination with the approved chemotherapeutics Alimta and cisplatin as well as external beam radiation (i.e., chemoradiation). All current TRC102 trials are sponsored and funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). We retain global rights to develop and commercialize TRC102 in all indications. In October 2020, we

66

received ODD from the FDA for TRC102 for the treatment of patients with malignant glioma, including glioblastoma. O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) deficiency is observed in about one-third of glioblastoma patients, and a prior study of Temodar and TRC102 reported at the Society for Neuro-Oncology in 2018 demonstrated that two MGMT deficient glioblastoma patients had prolonged survival when treated with Temodar and TRC102 after progressing previously on Temodar and radiation therapy. A December 2020 publication in Cancer Cell also demonstrated Temodar and TRC102 were active in MGMT deficient patients with colorectal cancer. Based on these data, we believe a trial in first line glioblastoma patients of Temodar, radiation therapy and TRC102 is warranted and are discussing further development with investigators at this time. In addition, based on data presented at the ASCO 2020 virtual meeting that the combination of chemoradiation and TRC102 produced objective responses in all 15 evaluable patients with advanced localized lung cancer treated in a Phase 1 trial, in January 2022, the NCI initiated a randomized trial of chemoradiation with or without TRC102, followed by consolidative durvalumab treatment. The primary objective is to improve the 56% progression free survival (PFS) rate with current standard of care to 75% with current standard of care plus TRC102. The trial is expected to begin enrollment in June 2022 and complete in 2024.

TJ004309, also known as TJD5 or uliledlimab, is a novel humanized antibody against CD73 expressed on stromal cells and tumors that converts extracellular adenosine monophosphate (AMP) to the immunosuppressive metabolite adenosine. We are developing TJ004309 in collaboration with I-Mab under a strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement that we entered into in November 2018 (the TJ004309 Agreement). In July 2019, we began enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical trial to assess safety and preliminary efficacy of TJ004309 as a single agent and when combined with the PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitor Tecentriq® in patients with advanced solid tumors, and in June 2021 we presented data from the ongoing Phase 1 trial at the ASCO 2021 virtual meeting. In a poster presentation titled “The safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD) and clinical efficacy of uliledlimab (TJ004309), a differentiated CD73 antibody, in combination with atezolizumab in patients with advanced cancer,” uliledlimab was found to be well-tolerated up to 20mg/kg every three weeks and 15mg/kg once weekly as a monotherapy and in combination therapy with atezolizumab 1200mg every three weeks and no dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not reached. There was one complete response in a PD-(L)1 naïve patient, two PRs with one PR in a PD-(L)1 naïve patient and one PR in a PD-(L)1 refractory patient, and three cases of stable disease (SD) following treatment with uliledlimab and atezolizumab. We expect to complete the TJ004309 Phase 1 in the first half of 2022.

We entered into a separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreement (the Bispecific Agreement) which allows for the development of up to five of I-Mab’s proprietary bispecific antibody (the BsAb) product candidates to be nominated by I-Mab within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America, with the option to opt-in and acquire product rights outside of Greater China and Korea prior to completing the first pivotal clinical trial for any bispecific product candidate.

In March 2020, I-Mab issued a press release announcing a strategic partnership with Kalbe Genexine Biologics (KG Bio), whereby KG Bio received what the press release described as a right of first negotiation outside North America for TJ004309 for up to $340 million in potential payments to I-Mab. In March 2020, we also learned that I-Mab had entered into two license and collaboration agreements with ABL Bio in July 2018 (ABL Bio License 1 and ABL Bio License 2). Under ABL Bio License 1, I-Mab granted to ABL Bio exclusive, worldwide (excluding Greater China), royalty-bearing rights to develop and commercialize a BsAb using certain monoclonal antibody sequences. Under ABL License 2, I-Mab and ABL agreed to collaborate to develop three PD-L1-based bispecific antibodies by using ABL Bio’s proprietary BsAb technology and commercialize them in their respective territories, which, collectively, include China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and South Korea, and other territories throughout the rest of the world if both parties agree to do so in such other territories during the performance of the agreement. On April 8, 2020, we issued a notice of dispute regarding possible breaches of the TJ004309 Agreement and the Bispecific Agreement, which resulted in a binding arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce before an arbitration tribunal seated in New York City (the Tribunal). The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits in February 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the TJ004309 Agreement and Bispecific Agreement disputes remain under consideration by the Tribunal, and we expect their decision in 2022. We believe we may be entitled to receive payments due to I-Mab’s strategic partnership with KG Bio under the TJ004309 Agreement, although I-Mab has disputed any payment is due. In 2021, I-Mab sent us notices purporting to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement, which would result in I-Mab owing us a prespecified termination fee of $9.0 million. However, I-Mab does not have an option to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement without cause until the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of TJ004309 is “Complete,” as that term is defined in the TJ004309 Agreement, and we responded by disputing the basis for I-Mab’s termination. In March 2021, I-Mab filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking an order of specific performance requiring us to comply with I-Mab’s effort to terminate the agreement. We disagreed with I-Mab’s position and in May 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the lawsuit filed by I-Mab and subsequently this matter was remanded and included in the proceeding before the Tribunal. The claims under the arbitration under the TJ00439 and Bispecific Agreements are substantial and complex and the result is inherently uncertain. The dispute with I-Mab has caused and could continue to cause us to incur significant costs.

67

The following table summarizes key information regarding ongoing and planned development of our clinical stage product candidates:

We utilize a CRO-independent product development platform that emphasizes capital efficiency. Our experienced clinical operations, data management, quality assurance, product development and regulatory affairs groups manage significant aspects of our clinical trials with internal resources. We use these internal resources to reduce the costs associated with utilizing CROs to conduct clinical trials. In our experience, this model has resulted in capital efficiencies and improved communication with clinical trial sites, which can expedite patient enrollment and improve the quality of patient data as compared to a CRO-managed model. We have leveraged this platform in all of our sponsored clinical trials. We have also leveraged our product development platform to diversify our product pipeline without payment of upfront license fees through license agreements with Eucure and Biocytogen, 3D Medicines and Alphamab, I-Mab, and Janssen. We continue to evaluate ex-U.S. companies that would benefit from a rapid and capital-efficient U.S. drug development solution that includes U.S. and European Union (EU) clinical development expertise. We believe we will continue to be recognized as a preferred U.S. clinical development partner through a cost- and risk-sharing partnership structure, which may include U.S. commercialization.  

Our goal is to be a leader in the development of targeted therapies for patients with cancer and other diseases of high unmet medical need.

Since our inception in 2004, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development efforts relating to our product candidates, including conducting clinical trials, in-licensing related intellectual property, providing general and administrative support for these operations, and protecting our intellectual property. To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales and instead, have funded our operations from the sales of equity securities, payments received in connection with our collaboration agreements, and commercial bank debt under our credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). At December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling $24.1 million.

We do not own or operate, nor do we expect to own or operate, facilities for product manufacturing, storage, distribution or testing. We contract with third parties or our collaboration partners for the manufacture of our product candidates and we intend to continue to do so in the future.

We have incurred losses from operations in each year since our inception. Our net losses were $28.7 million and $16.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. At December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $207.8 million.

We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for at least the next several years. Our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. We expect our expenses to remain relatively constant in 2022 as we:

We do not expect to generate any revenues from product sales until we successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for one or more product candidates, which we expect will take a number of years. If we obtain regulatory approval for any product candidates, we expect to incur significant commercialization expenses related to product sales, marketing, and distribution. Accordingly, we will need to raise substantial additional capital. The amount and timing of our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including the pace and results of our preclinical and clinical development efforts, developments under our collaboration agreements, including whether and when we receive milestone and other potential payments, the outcome of our dispute with I-Mab, and the timing and nature of the regulatory approval process for product candidates. We anticipate that we will seek to fund our operations through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources. Debt financing, if available, may involve

68

covenants further restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders.  Further, we may be unable to raise additional funds or enter into such other arrangements when needed on favorable terms or at all. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken to slow its spread, as well as actual and anticipated changes in interest rates or economic inflation, the global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions, including diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. Our failure to raise capital or enter into such other arrangements when needed would have a negative impact on our financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Collaboration and License Agreements

Collaboration Agreement with 3D Medicines and Alphamab

In December 2019, we, 3D Medicines, and Alphamab entered into the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement for the development of envafolimab, an investigational PD-L1 sdAb, or nanobody, administered by rapid subcutaneous injection, for the treatment of sarcoma in North America.

Pursuant to the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we were granted an exclusive license to develop and commercialize envafolimab for the treatment of sarcoma in North America.  We are responsible for conducting and will bear the costs of any Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 or post-approval clinical trial in North America for envafolimab in the indications of refractory and first line treatment of sarcoma. 3D Medicines and Alphamab are responsible for conducting and will bear the costs of investigational new drug (IND)-enabling studies (other than those specific to the sarcoma indication) and the preparation of the chemistry, manufacturing and controls (CMC) activities sections of an IND application for envafolimab. 3D Medicines and Alphamab have agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third-party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, envafolimab to us at pre-negotiated prices that vary based on clinical or commercial use. 3D Medicines and Alphamab retained the right to develop envafolimab in all territories outside of North America as well as within North America for all indications other than sarcoma.

We will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue, unless (a) envafolimab is first approved in North America for an indication other than sarcoma and launched in North America, or (b) envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and subsequently approved in North America for an additional non-orphan indication and sold commercially by 3D Medicines and/or Alphamab, or licensee, in which case 3D Medicines and Alphamab will be responsible for commercializing envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, including booking of sales revenue. If 3D Medicines and Alphamab become responsible for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we have the option to co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America. In the event that envafolimab is first approved in North America for sarcoma and within three years of the commercial launch of envafolimab in North America for sarcoma 3D Medicines and Alphamab replace us as the party responsible for commercialization, and we elect and 3D Medicines and Alphamab agree for us to not co-market envafolimab for sarcoma in North America, then 3D Medicines and Alphamab will be required to compensate us for our costs associated with preparing for and conducting commercial activities.

If we have the responsibility for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we will owe 3D Medicines and Alphamab tiered double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits.  If 3D Medicines and Alphamab have responsibility for commercialization under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, we will be entitled to (a) tiered double digit royalties on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America ranging from the teens to mid-double digits if we have elected to not co-market envafolimab in sarcoma or (b) a 50% royalty on net sales of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America if we have chosen to co-market envafolimab in sarcoma.  Payment obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continue on a country-by-country basis until the last to expire licensed patent covering envafolimab expires.

3D Medicines and Alphamab retain the right to reacquire the rights to envafolimab for sarcoma in North America in connection with an arm’s length sale to a third party of the rights to develop and commercialize envafolimab in North America for all indications, provided that the sale may not occur prior to completion of a pivotal trial of envafolimab in sarcoma without our written consent and the parties must negotiate in good faith and agree to fair compensation be paid to us for the value of and opportunity represented by the reacquired rights.

Each party agreed that during the term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement, it would not develop or license from any third party a monospecific inhibitor to PD-L1 or PD-1 in sarcoma.

The term of the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement continues until the later of the date the parties cease further development and commercialization of envafolimab for sarcoma in North America or the expiration of all payment obligations.  The Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement may be terminated earlier by a party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to envafolimab.  In the event we elect, or a joint steering committee (JSC) determines, to cease further development or commercialization of envafolimab, or if we fail to use commercially reasonable efforts to

69

develop (including progress in clinical trials) and commercialize envafolimab and do not cure such failure within a specified time period, then our rights and obligations under the Envafolimab Collaboration Agreement will revert to 3D Medicines and Alphamab.

Collaboration Agreement with Eucure and Biocytogen

In October 2021, we, Eucure and Biocytogen entered into a collaborative development and commercialization agreement (the YH001 Collaboration Agreement) for the development of YH001, a monospecific investigational CTLA-4 antibody. Pursuant to the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, we were granted an exclusive (including with respect to Eucure and its affiliates), nontransferable, license to develop and commercialize YH001 in North America for the treatment, through administration of YH001 by intravenous or subcutaneous means, of multiple human indications, including sarcoma, microsatellite stable colorectal cancer, RCC, and K-ras positive non-small cell lung cancer (collectively, the Initial Indications) or one or more of bladder cancer, endometrial cancer, and melanoma as substitute indications, which may be substituted for Initial Indications at our discretion (each upon such substitution, a Substitute Indication). We are responsible for, and will bear the costs of, preparing and filing all regulatory submissions and conducting any Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, or post-approval clinical trials in North America for YH001 in the Initial Indications and potentially the Substitute Indications, while Eucure is responsible for conducting, and will bear the costs of, the preparation of CMC activities for YH001. Eucure has agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third-party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, YH001 to us for clinical trials pursuant to the terms of a clinical supply and quality agreement that will be separately negotiated and agreed in good faith between the parties.

Eucure may pursue clinical trials for YH001 in North America outside of the Initial Indications or Substitute Indications, and also within the Initial Indications or Substitute Indications as part of a combination therapy of YH001 and an additional Eucure product. During a specified period, we have the option, subject to Eucure’s prior written approval, to expand the license to include the development and commercialization of YH001 for the treatment, through administration by intravenous or subcutaneous means, of all human and veterinary therapeutic indications in North America for a payment to Eucure in the low single digit millions (the Company Option).

Pursuant to the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, we granted Eucure an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, exclusive license, with the right to grant sublicenses to develop, register, sell, offer to sell, have sold, market and distribute YH001 in all territories outside of North America as well as within North America for all indications other than the Initial Indications and the Substitute Indications.  

We will be responsible for commercializing YH001 in North America, including booking of sales revenue in the Initial and Substitute Indications. We will owe Eucure escalating double digit royalties on net sales of YH001 in North America ranging from the mid-twenties to mid-double digits; provided that until the end of the first full calendar year following the first commercial sale of YH001, royalties will range from the lower double digits to the mid-double digits. If sales of YH001 exceed a pre-determined sales threshold in the first full year of sales following first commercial sale, we will owe a milestone to Eucure in the high single digit millions. Payment obligations under the YH001 Collaboration Agreement continue on a country-by-country basis until the latest of (i) expiration of the last to expire licensed patent covering YH001, (ii) expiration of marketing or regulatory exclusivity covering YH001 and (iii) 10 years from the first commercial sale of YH001 in such country in North America. Eucure has agreed to manufacture and supply, or to arrange for a third-party manufacturer to manufacture and supply, YH001 to us at cost plus a low double-digit markup for commercial sales pursuant to the terms of a commercial supply and quality agreement that will be separately negotiated and agreed in good faith between the parties within 180 days prior to the anticipated first commercial sale in North America.

Pursuant to the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, each party agreed that during the term of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, it would not develop, manufacture, commercialize or license from any third party a monospecific inhibitor to CTLA-4.

The term of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement continues until the earlier of (i) the date that the parties cease further development and commercialization of YH001 in North America or (ii) on a country-by-county basis, the expiration of the royalty obligations in such country.  The YH001 Collaboration Agreement may be terminated earlier by a party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to YH001. In the event of a termination of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement, other than by us as a result of Eucure’s material uncured breach or bankruptcy, (i) our license shall terminate and (ii) we would be obligated to grant Eucure an irrevocable, perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the right to grant sublicenses under its rights in all development data and intellectual property to develop, register, sell, offer to sell, have sold, market and distribute YH001 in North America. In the event of a termination of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement by us as a result of Eucure’s material uncured breach or bankruptcy, the license shall continue in the Initial Indications in North America, provided that (i) such license shall remain exclusive during the royalty term and non-exclusive thereafter; (ii) we shall have the right to have YH001 manufactured for its development and commercialization requirements in the Initial Indications in North America; and (iii) the license shall terminate in the event of an uncured material breach by us of any provision (including payment obligations) that survives termination of the YH001 Collaboration Agreement.  In the event the YH001 Collaboration Agreement terminates for safety reasons related to YH001, by mutual agreement of the parties or by Eucure in the event of an uncured material breach or bankruptcy by us, then our rights and obligations under the YH001 Collaboration Agreement will revert to Eucure.  In the event Eucure does not approve the Company Option, we may terminate the YH001 Collaboration Agreement for convenience with a 30-day notice to Eucure, provided that such termination is given within 12 months of the effective date of the YH001 Collaboration

70

Agreement (the Company Option Termination).  In the event of a Company Option Termination, Eucure would be obligated to reimburse us for all costs and expenses that we incurred in performing the development activities.

Collaboration Agreements with I-Mab Biopharma

In November 2018, we entered into two separate strategic collaboration and clinical trial agreements with I-Mab for the development of multiple immuno-oncology programs, including I-Mab’s proprietary CD73 antibody TJ004309 as well as up to five proprietary bispecific antibodies currently under development by I-Mab.

In the TJ004309 Agreement, we are collaborating with I-Mab on developing TJ004309, and will bear the costs of filing an IND application and for Phase 1 clinical trials, share costs equally for Phase 2 clinical trials, and we will bear 40% and I-Mab 60% of the costs for pivotal clinical trials. I-Mab will also be responsible for the cost of certain non-clinical activities and the supply of TJ004309 and any reference drugs used in the development activities. We also agreed with I-Mab for a specified period of time to not develop or license to or from a third party any monoclonal antibody targeting CD73 or any other biologic for certain indications that a JSC, as set up under the TJ004309 Agreement, selects for TJ004309 development.

In the event that I-Mab licenses rights to TJ004309 to a third party, we would be entitled to receive escalating portions of royalty and non-royalty consideration received by I-Mab with respect to territories outside of Greater China. In the event that I-Mab commercializes TJ004309, we would be entitled to receive a royalty on net sales by I-Mab in North America ranging from the mid-single digits to low double digits, and in the EU and Japan in the mid-single digits. The portions of certain third party royalty and non-royalty consideration and the royalty from net sales by I-Mab to which we would be entitled escalate based on the phase of development and relevant clinical trial obligations we complete under the TJ004309 Agreement, ranging from a high-single digit to a mid-teen percentage of non-royalty consideration as well as a double digit percentage of royalty consideration. In March 2020, I-Mab issued a press release announcing a strategic partnership with KG Bio, whereby KG Bio received what the press release described as a right of first negotiation outside North America for TJ004309 for up to $340 million in potential payments to I-Mab. On April 8, 2020, we issued a notice of dispute regarding possible breach of the TJ004309 Agreement, which resulted in a binding arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits in February 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the TJ004309 Agreement dispute remains under consideration by the Tribunal, and we expect their decision in 2022. We believe we may be entitled to receive payments due to I-Mab’s strategic partnership with KG Bio under the TJ004309 Agreement, although I-Mab has disputed any payment is due.

The TJ004309 Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or for safety reasons related to TJ004309.  I-Mab may also terminate the TJ004309 Agreement if we cause certain delays in completing a Phase 1 clinical trial. In addition, I-Mab may terminate the TJ004309 Agreement for any reason within 90 days following the completion of the first Phase 1 clinical trial, in which case we would be entitled to a minimum termination fee of $9.0 million, or following the completion of the first Phase 2 clinical trial, in which case we would be entitled to a pre-specified termination fee of $15.0 million and either a percentage of non-royalty consideration I-Mab may receive as part of a license to a third party or an additional payment if TJ004309 is approved for marketing outside Greater China before a third party license is executed, in addition to a double digit percentage of royalty consideration. In 2021, I-Mab sent us notices purporting to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement, which would result in I-Mab owing us a prespecified termination fee of $9.0 million. However, I-Mab does not have an option to terminate the TJ004309 Agreement without cause until the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of TJ004309 is “Complete,” as that term is defined in the TJ004309 Agreement, and we responded by disputing the basis for I-Mab’s termination. In March 2021, I-Mab filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking an order of specific performance requiring us to comply with I-Mab’s effort to terminate the agreement. We disagreed with I-Mab’s position and in May 2021, the Delaware Court of Chancery stayed the lawsuit filed by I-Mab and subsequently this matter was remanded and included in the proceeding before the Tribunal.

The claims under the arbitration under the TJ00439 Agreement are substantial and complex and the result is inherently uncertain. The dispute with I-Mab has caused and could continue to cause us to incur significant costs.

Pursuant to the Bispecific Agreement, we and I-Mab may mutually select through a JSC up to five of I-Mab’s BsAb product candidates within a five-year period for development and commercialization in North America.

For each product candidate selected by the JSC for development under the Bispecific Agreement, I-Mab will be responsible and bear the costs for IND-enabling studies and establishing manufacturing for the product candidate, we will be responsible for and bear the costs of filing an IND and conducting Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, and we will be responsible for and will share equally with I-Mab in the costs of conducting Phase 3 or pivotal clinical trials, in each case within North America. Subject to I-Mab’s right to co-promote an approved product candidate, we will be responsible for commercializing any approved product candidates in North America, and we will share profits and losses equally with I-Mab in North America. We would also be entitled to receive tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of product candidates in the EU and Japan.

At any time prior to completing the first pivotal clinical trial for a product candidate or if I-Mab ceases to support development costs or pay its portion of Phase 3 clinical trial costs for a product candidate or the JSC decides to cease development over our

71

objections after initiating Phase 3 clinical trials, we will have an option to obtain an exclusive license to such product candidate in all territories except Greater China and Korea and any other territories in which I-Mab previously licensed rights to a third party subject to our right of first refusal for any licenses I-Mab may grant to third-parties.  

If we exercise our licensing option, we would assume sole responsibility for developing and commercializing the product candidate in the licensed territory, and in lieu of profit or loss sharing with I-Mab with respect to such product candidate, we would owe I-Mab pre-specified upfront and milestone payments and royalties on net sales, with the payments and royalties escalating depending on the phase of development the product candidate reached at the time we obtained the exclusive license as follows: (i) if before IND-enabling studies and the preparation of the CMC activities of the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $10.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $90.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the mid-single digits on annual net sales; (ii) if after IND submission but before completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial of the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $25.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $125.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high single digits on annual net sales; (iii) if after completion of a Phase 1a clinical trial but before completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $50.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $250.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the low double digits on annual net sales; and (iv) if after completion of a Phase 2 proof of concept clinical trial and before completion of a pivotal trial for the collaborative product, we would owe I-Mab a one-time upfront payment of $80.0 million, development and regulatory based milestone payments totaling up to $420.0 million that begin upon completion of a pivotal trial, sales milestones totaling up to $250.0 million, and royalties in the high-teens on annual net sales.

Each party agreed that for a specified period of time, it would not develop or license to or from any third party any bispecific monoclonal antibody targeting the same two biological targets as those of any selected product candidates under the Bispecific Agreement.

If development of any selected product candidates is terminated by a decision of the JSC, all rights to the product candidate will revert to I-Mab, subject to our rights to obtain an exclusive license in certain circumstances.  If development is terminated after submission of an IND and prior to initiating Phase 3 clinical studies or after initiating Phase 3 clinical studies and with our concurrence, we would be entitled to tiered low single digit royalties on net sales of the product candidate in North America, the EU and Japan.

The Bispecific Agreement may be terminated by either party in the event of an uncured material breach by the other party or bankruptcy of the other party, or with respect to any selected product candidate, for safety reasons related to that product candidate.

In March 2020, we learned that I-Mab had entered into two license and collaboration agreements with ABL Bio in July 2018. Under ABL Bio License 1, I-Mab granted to ABL Bio exclusive, worldwide (excluding Greater China), royalty-bearing rights to develop and commercialize a BsAb using certain monoclonal antibody sequences. Under ABL License 2, I-Mab and ABL agreed to collaborate to develop three PD-L1-based bispecific antibodies by using ABL Bio’s proprietary BsAb technology and commercialize them in their respective territories, which, collectively, include China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and South Korea, and other territories throughout the rest of the world if both parties agree to do so in such other territories during the performance of the agreement. On April 8, 2020, we issued a notice of dispute regarding possible breach of the Bispecific Agreement, which resulted in a binding arbitration proceeding under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held a hearing on the merits in February 2022. As of the date of this Annual Report, the Bispecific Agreement dispute remains under consideration by the Tribunal, and we expect their decision in 2022. The claims under the arbitration under the Bispecific Agreement are substantial and complex and the result is inherently uncertain. The dispute with I-Mab has caused and could continue to cause us to incur significant costs.

License Agreement with Case Western

Under our license agreement with Case Western, we may be required to pay up to an aggregate of approximately $9.8 million in milestone payments, of which $0.7 million relates to the initiation of certain development activities ($0.2 million of which has been paid) and approximately $9.1 million relates to the submission of certain regulatory filings and receipt of certain regulatory approvals. If products utilizing certain intellectual property licensed from Case Western, or the TRC102 Technology, are successfully commercialized, we will be required to pay Case Western a single-digit royalty on net sales, subject to adjustments in certain circumstances. Beginning on the earlier of a specified number of years from the effective date of the agreement and the anniversary of the effective date following the occurrence of a specified event, we will be required to make a minimum annual royalty payment of $75,000, which will be credited against our royalty obligations. In the event we sublicense any of our rights under the agreement relating to the TRC102 Technology, we will be obligated to pay Case Western a portion of certain fees we may receive under the sublicense. Our royalty obligations will continue on a country-by-country basis through the later of the expiration of the last valid claim under the TRC102 Technology or 14 years after the first commercial sale of a product utilizing the TRC102 Technology in a given country.

72

Financial Operations Overview

Revenue

Our revenue during the year ended December 31, 2021 was derived from our 2021 license and supply agreement with Enviro Therapeutics Inc. (Enviro) and Kairos Pharma, Ltd. (Kairos) under which we granted to Enviro access to inactive IND filings for TRC105 in the United States, ownership of existing supplies of TRC105 drug product, and assignment of our patent rights to CD105 technologies, which includes the TRC105 antibody. The terms of this arrangement contain multiple promised goods and provided for the receipt of multiple types of payments, including a non-refundable upfront payment, milestone payments, and royalties on net product sales. In accordance with our revenue recognition policy, we identified one performance obligation and recognized revenue for the fixed or determinable consideration at a point in time, which occurred in the second quarter of 2021.

We expect that any revenue we generate will fluctuate from quarter to quarter as a result of the timing of any additional collaboration agreements and recognition of associated upfront and milestone payments, and the extent to which any of our products are approved and successfully commercialized by us or our partners. If we or our partners fail to develop product candidates in a timely manner or obtain regulatory approval for them, our ability to generate future revenues, our results of operations and our financial position could be adversely affected.

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses consist of costs associated with the preclinical and clinical development of product candidates. These costs consist primarily of:

Research and development costs, including third party costs reimbursed in connection with our collaboration agreements, are expensed as incurred. We account for nonrefundable advance payments for goods and services that will be used in future research and development activities as expenses when the service has been performed or when the goods have been received.

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses by product candidate for the periods indicated:

73

Unallocated expenses consist primarily of our internal personnel and facility related costs.

We expect our current level of research and development expenses to increase in 2022 due to the continued enrollment of the ENVASARC trial and initiation of a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of YH001 in combination with envafolimab in certain sarcoma subtypes.

We cannot determine with certainty the timing of initiation, the duration or the completion costs of current or future preclinical studies and clinical trials of product candidates due to the inherently unpredictable nature of preclinical and clinical development. Clinical and preclinical development timelines, the probability of success and development costs can differ materially from expectations. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken to slow its spread, many clinical trial sites have temporarily suspended dosing of previously-enrolled patients and/or enrollment of new patients, and patients in clinical trials may choose to not enroll, not participate in follow-up clinical visits or drop out of trials as a precaution against, or as a result of, contracting COVID-19. These events have impacted our clinical trials and those of our collaborators and we cannot predict with certainty the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic will ultimately delay our clinical trials or those of our collaborators or increase our expenses in completing clinical trials. We anticipate that we will make determinations as to which product candidates to pursue and how much funding to direct to each product candidate on an ongoing basis in response to the results of ongoing and future preclinical studies and clinical trials, regulatory developments and our ongoing assessments as to each product candidate’s commercial potential. We will need to raise substantial additional capital in the future. In addition, we cannot forecast which product candidates may be subject to future collaborations, when such arrangements will be secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements.

The costs of clinical trials to us and the timing of such costs may vary significantly based on factors such as:

74

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related costs for employees in executive, finance and administration, corporate development and administrative support functions, including stock-based compensation expenses and benefits. Other significant general and administrative expenses include legal services, including those associated with obtaining and maintaining patents, insurance, occupancy costs, accounting services, and the cost of various consultants.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses for 2022 will decrease with the conclusion of the arbitration on the TJ004309 Agreement and Bispecific Agreement.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) primarily consists of interest related to our loan agreement with SVB offset in part by interest income from our short-term investments and cash equivalents.

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP). The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, as well as the reported revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. These items are monitored and analyzed by us for changes in facts and circumstances, and material changes in these estimates could occur in the future. We base our estimates on our historical experience and on various other factors that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Changes in estimates are reflected in reported results for the period in which they become known. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

While our significant accounting policies are more fully described in the notes to our consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report, we believe that the following accounting policies related to revenue recognition, expense accruals, and stock-based compensation are most critical to understanding and evaluating our reported financial results.

Revenue Recognition

Our revenue during the year ended December 31, 2021 was derived from our 2021 license and supply agreement with Enviro and Kairos. The terms of this arrangement included payments to us for the following: a non-refundable, up-front license fee; equity ownership in Enviro; financing milestone payments; and royalties on net sales of the licensed product.  In accordance with Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, we perform the following five steps in determining the appropriate amount of revenue to be recognized as we fulfill our obligations under each of these agreements: (i) identification of the contract(s) with a customer; (ii) determination of whether the promised goods or services are performance obligations including whether they are distinct in the context of the contract; (iii) measurement of the transaction price, including any constraint on variable consideration; (iv) allocation of the transaction price to the performance obligations; and (v) recognition of revenue when, or as, we satisfy each performance obligation.  We only apply the five-step model to contracts when it is probable that we will collect the consideration we are entitled to in exchange for the goods or services transferred to the customer. Once a contract is determined to be within the scope of Accounting Standards Codification 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, at contract inception, we assess the goods or services promised within the contract to determine those that are performance obligations and assess whether each promised good is distinct. We then recognize as revenue the amount of the transaction price that is allocated to the respective performance obligation when, or as, the performance obligation is satisfied.

As part of the accounting for these types of arrangements, we develop assumptions that require judgment to determine the stand-alone selling price for each performance obligation identified in the contract. We use key assumptions to determine the stand-alone selling price, which may include development timelines, reimbursement rates for personnel costs, discount rates, and probabilities of technical and regulatory success.

75

Licenses of intellectual property:  If the license to our intellectual property is determined to be distinct from the other performance obligations identified in the arrangement, we recognize revenues allocated to the license when the license is transferred to the customer and the customer is able to use and benefit from the license. For licenses that are bundled with other promises, we utilize judgment to assess the nature of the combined performance obligation to determine whether the combined performance obligation is satisfied over time or at a point in time and, if over time, the appropriate method of measuring progress for purposes of recognizing revenue from non-refundable, up-front fees. We evaluate the measure of progress each reporting period and, if necessary, adjusts the measure of performance and related revenue recognition.

 Milestone Payments:  At the inception of each arrangement that includes development, commercialization, and regulatory milestone payments, we evaluate whether the achievement of the milestones is considered probable and estimate the amount to be included in the transaction price using the most likely amount method. Performance milestone payments represent a form of variable consideration. If it is probable that a significant revenue reversal would not occur, the associated milestone payment is included in the transaction price.  Achievement of milestones that are not within our control or the licensee, such as regulatory approvals, are not considered probable until the approvals are achieved. The transaction price is then allocated to each performance obligation on a relative stand-alone selling price basis, for which we recognize revenue as or when the performance obligations under the contract are satisfied.  At the end of each subsequent reporting period, we re-evaluate the probability of achieving such development milestones and any related constraint, and if necessary, adjust our estimate of the overall transaction price.  Any such adjustments are recorded on a cumulative catch-up basis, which would affect revenues and earnings in the period of adjustment.

 Manufacturing Supply Services: Arrangements that include a promise for future supply of drug substance or drug product for either clinical development or commercial supply at the customer’s discretion are generally considered options. We assess if these options provide a material right to the licensee and if so, they are accounted for as separate performance obligations at the outset of the arrangement.  

 Royalties:  For arrangements that include sales-based royalties, including milestone payments based on the level of sales, and the license is deemed to be the predominant item to which the royalties relate, we recognize revenue at the later of (i) when the related sales occur, or (ii) when the performance obligation to which some or all of the royalty has been allocated has been satisfied (or partially satisfied). To date, we have not recognized any royalty revenue resulting from any of our out-licensing arrangements.

 We receive payments from our collaborators based on billing schedules established in each contract. Up-front payments and fees may require deferral of revenue recognition to a future period until we perform our obligations under the collaboration arrangements. Amounts are recorded as accounts receivable when our right to consideration is unconditional. We do not assess whether a contract has a significant financing component if the expectation at contract inception is such that the period between payment by the customer and the transfer of the promised goods or services to the customer will be one year or less.

Clinical Trial Expense Accruals

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate expenses resulting from our obligations under contracts with vendors, clinical sites, and consultants in connection with conducting clinical trials. The financial terms of these contracts vary and may result in payment flows that do not match the periods over which materials or services are provided under such contracts.

Our objective is to reflect the appropriate trial expenses in our consolidated financial statements by recording those expenses in the period in which services are performed and efforts are expended. We account for these expenses according to the progress of the trial as measured by patient progression and the timing of various aspects of the trial. We determine accrual estimates taking into account discussion with applicable personnel and outside service providers as to the progress or state of consummation of trials. During the course of a clinical trial, we adjust the clinical expense recognition if actual results differ from our estimates. We make estimates of accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date based on the facts and circumstances known at that time. Our clinical accruals are dependent upon accurate reporting by third-party vendors. Although we do not expect our estimates to differ materially from amounts actually incurred, our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in reporting amounts that are too high or too low for any particular period. For the three years ended December 31, 2021, there were no material adjustments to our prior period estimates of accrued expenses for clinical trials.

76

Other Company Information

Net Operating Loss and Research and Development Tax Credit Carryforwards

At December 31, 2021, we had federal and California net operating loss (NOL) carryforwards, of approximately $179.4 million and $144.4 million, respectively. The federal and California NOL carryforwards will begin expiring in 2030, unless previously utilized. The federal NOL generated after 2017 of $96.2 million will carryforward indefinitely. At December 31, 2021, we had federal and California research and development and Orphan Drug credit carryforwards of approximately $11.9 million and $2.7 million, respectively. The federal research and development and Orphan Drug credit carryforwards will begin expiring in 2031, unless previously utilized. The California research and development credit carryforwards do not expire.

Pursuant to Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and Amended (Code), our annual use of our NOL and research and development credit carryforwards may be limited in the event that a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% occurs within a three-year period. We completed a Section 382/383 analysis regarding the limitation of our NOL and research and development credit carryforwards as of December 31, 2018 and did not identify a cumulative change in ownership of more than 50% within the proceeding three-year period. Future ownership changes, including changes during the year ended December 31, 2021, may limit our ability to utilize our remaining NOL and research and development tax credit carryforwards. As of December 31, 2021, we had a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets.

Results of Operations

This section discusses our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2020. For a discussion and analysis of the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to the year ended December 31, 2019 please refer to the section titled Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included in Part II, Item 7 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 filed with the SEC on February 25, 2021.

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2021 and 2020

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020:

License revenue. License revenue was $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and related to revenue recognized under the Enviro license agreement with no corresponding revenue in the comparable period in 2020.

77

Research and development expenses. Research and development expenses were $11.1 million and $8.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The increase of $2.9 million was primarily due to the continued enrollment of the ENVASARC trial.

General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses were $17.5 million and $8.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. The increase of $9.5 million was primarily due to legal expenses incurred in connection with the lawsuit filed by I-Mab in the Delaware Court of Chancery and arbitration of disputes related to the TJ004309 Agreement and Bispecific Agreement.

Other expense, net. Other expense, net was $0.3 million and $0.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Our sources of cash liquidity include our cash and cash equivalents. In July 2021, we completed an underwritten public offering which resulted in net proceeds to us of approximately $13.4 million (July 2021 Financing). We believe that our cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2021 will be sufficient to fund the current requirements of working capital and other financial commitments, including our long-term debt and operating lease obligations, into 2023. Based on our current business plan, we believe that there is substantial doubt as to whether our existing cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our obligations as they become due within one year from the date the consolidated financial statements are issued.

We may also fund our future liquidity needs by selling shares of our common stock under existing common stock purchase agreements, including our common stock purchase agreement with Aspire Capital and our Capital on Demand^TM sales agreement with JonesTrading Institutional Services LLC (JonesTrading). In addition to our existing common stock purchase agreements, we periodically consider various other financing alternatives and may, from time to time, seek to take advantage of favorable interest rate environments or other market conditions.

We have incurred losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $207.8 million, and we expect to continue to incur net losses for the foreseeable future. We expect our current level of research and development expenses to increase in 2022 due to the continued enrollment of the ENVASARC trial and the initiation of a Phase 1/2 clinical trial of YH001 in combination with envafolimab in certain sarcoma subtypes. Given we do not anticipate any revenues from product sales in the foreseeable future, we will need additional capital to fund our operations, which we may seek to obtain through one or more equity offerings, debt financings, government or other third party funding, and licensing or collaboration arrangements.

Common Stock Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital

In October 2019, as amended in April 2020, we entered into the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital which provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and limitations of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $15.0 million of shares of our common stock at our request from time to time during the 30 month term of the 2019 Purchase Agreement and at prices based on the market price of our common stock at the time of each sale. In consideration for entering into the 2019 Purchase Agreement and concurrently with the execution of the 2019 Purchase Agreement, we issued to Aspire Capital 142,658 shares of our common stock. As of December 31, 2021, we had sold an aggregate of approximately 4.8 million shares of common stock under the 2019 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital for net proceeds of $9.6 million.  

ATM Facility

In December 2020, we entered into a Capital on Demand^TM Sales Agreement (the Sales Agreement) with JonesTrading  pursuant to which we could sell from time to time, at our option, up to an aggregate of $50.0 million of shares of our common stock through JonesTrading, as sales agent or principal, all of which remains available for sale as of December 31, 2021. Sales of our common stock made pursuant to the Sales Agreement, if any, will be made on the Nasdaq Capital Market under our effective registration statement on Form S-3, by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions at market prices. Additionally, under the terms of the Sales Agreement, we may also sell shares of our common stock through JonesTrading, on the Nasdaq Capital Market or otherwise, at negotiated prices or at prices related to the prevailing market price. JonesTrading will use its commercially reasonable efforts to sell our common stock from time to time, based upon our instructions (including any price, time or size limits or other customary parameters or conditions we may impose). We are required to pay JonesTrading 2.5% of gross proceeds from the common stock sold through the Sales Agreement.

Credit Facility with SVB

In May 2018, we entered into a third amendment to our Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement with SVB (the 2018 Amended SVB Loan) under which we borrowed $7.0 million, all of which was used to refinance previously outstanding

78

amounts under the loan and security agreement. In connection with the 2018 Amended SVB Loan, we issued warrants to purchase up to 5,363 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $26.10 per share. The warrants are fully exercisable and expire on May 3, 2025.

The 2018 Amended SVB Loan provides for interest to be paid at a rate of 9.0% per annum, with interest-only payments due monthly through June 30, 2019. Thereafter, in addition to interest accrued during such period, the monthly payments include an amount equal to the outstanding principal at June 30, 2019 divided by 30 months. At maturity (or earlier prepayment), we are also required to make a final payment equal to 4.0% of the original principal amount of the amounts borrowed. In April 2020, we entered into an agreement with SVB (Deferral Agreement) which granted us an interest-only payment period for six months, with a corresponding six-month extension to the maturity date which is now June 2022. All other material terms and conditions of the 2018 Amended SVB Loan remained unchanged.

The 2018 Amended SVB Loan is collateralized by substantially all of our assets, other than our intellectual property, and contains customary conditions of borrowing, events of default and covenants, including covenants that restrict our ability to dispose of assets, merge with or acquire other entities, incur indebtedness and make distributions to holders of our capital stock. Should an event of default occur, including the occurrence of a material adverse change, we could be required to immediately repay all obligations under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan. As of December 31, 2021, we were in compliance with all covenants and conditions of the 2018 Amended SVB Loan.

As of December 31, 2021, the total outstanding balance owed under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan amounted to $1.4 million and future minimum principal and interest payments under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan, including the final payment, were $1.7 million for each of the next 12 and 24 months.

Operating Lease Obligations

Our operating lease obligations relate to our corporate headquarters in San Diego, California. In August 2021, we amended our lease, which now expires in April 2027. As of December 31, 2021, future minimum lease payments under this lease were $0.3 million and $0.6 million for each of the next 12 and 24 months, respectively.

Other Obligations

We enter into contracts in the normal course of business with clinical trial sites and clinical supply manufacturing organizations and with vendors for preclinical safety and research studies, research supplies and other services and products for operating purposes. These contracts generally provide for termination on notice, and therefore are cancelable contracts.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our net cash flow activity for each of the periods set forth below:

Operating activities. Net cash used in operating activities was $22.6 million and $17.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, and was primarily due to our net loss for the respective year, adjusted for noncash items and offset by changes in our working capital.

Investing activities. Net cash provided by investing activities was $4.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and was due to maturities of short-term investments. Net cash used in investing activities was $4.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 and was primarily due to the purchase of short-term investment securities.

Financing activities. Net cash provided by financing activities was $10.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and primarily resulted from $13.4 million in net proceeds raised in connection with an underwritten public offering in July 2021, offset by $2.8 million in net repayments on borrowings under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan. Net cash provided by financing activities was $36.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 and primarily resulted from net proceeds received from the sale of common stock and pre-funded warrants during 2020, offset by $1.4 million in net repayments on borrowings under the 2018 Amended SVB Loan.

79

Funding Requirements

At December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents totaling $24.1 million. In July 2021, we completed an underwritten public offering which resulted in net proceeds to us of approximately $13.4 million. We believe that our cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2021, will be sufficient to fund our obligations into 2023. We will need additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates or those of our partners. In addition, we may evaluate in-licensing and acquisition opportunities to gain access to new product candidates that fit with our strategy. Any such transaction will likely increase our future funding requirements. These uncertainties raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern for a period of one year following the date that the accompanying consolidated financial statements were issued.

Our forecast of the period of time through which our financial resources will be adequate to support our operations is a forward-looking statement that involves risks and uncertainties, and actual results could vary materially. Our future capital requirements are difficult to forecast and will depend on many factors, including:

Until we can generate substantial product revenues, if ever, we expect to finance our cash needs through a combination of equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations, and licensing arrangements. There can be no assurance that additional funds will be available when needed from any source or, if available, will be available on terms that are acceptable to us. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and actions taken to slow its spread, as well as actual or anticipated changes in interest rates and economic inflation, the global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions, including diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. If the equity and credit markets deteriorate, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly and more dilutive. Even if we raise additional capital, we may also be required to modify, delay or abandon some of our plans or programs which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and financial condition and our ability to achieve our intended business objectives. Any of these actions could materially harm our business, results of operations and future prospects.

Not applicable.

80

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Stockholders and the Board of Directors of

TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2021, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company at December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2021, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

The Company’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has stated that substantial doubt exists about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s evaluation of the events and conditions and management’s plans regarding these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matter

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective or complex judgments. The communication of the critical audit matter does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

81

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2011.

San Diego, California

March 15, 2022

82

TRACON Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands, except share and per share data)