INCYTE CORP

Previous wording

Present and potential competitors for JAKAFI include major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as specialty pharmaceutical firms. In addition, JAKAFI could face competition from generic products. As a result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, in the United States, generic manufacturers may seek approval of a generic version of an innovative pharmaceutical by filing with the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides significant incentives to generic manufacturers to challenge U.S. patents on successful innovative pharmaceutical products. In February 2016, we received a notice letter from Apotex, Inc. regarding its filing of an ANDA that requested approval to market a generic version of JAKAFI and purported to challenge patents covering ruxolitinib phosphate and its use that expire (with pediatric extension) in December 2028. The notice letter does not challenge the ruxolitinib composition of matter patent, which expires (with pediatric extension) in June 2028. Subsequently, we received a notice letter in February 2024 from Apotex challenging the patent covering ruxolitinib composition of matter and its use, which expires (with pediatric extension) in June 2028. In response, in March 2024, we initiated a patent infringement action against Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book listed patents. That action remains pending. In January 2025, we received a notice letter from Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. regarding its filing of an ANDA that requested approval to market a generic version of JAKAFI and purported to challenge patents covering ruxolitinib phosphate and its use that expire (with pediatric extension) in December 2028 and patents covering ruxolitinib composition of matter and its use that expire (with pediatric extension) in June 2028. In response, in March 2025, we initiated a patent infringement action against Hikma in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange Book listed patents. That action remains pending.

Current wording

Present and potential competitors for JAKAFI include major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as specialty pharmaceutical firms. In addition, JAKAFI could face competition from generic products. As a result of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, in the United States, generic manufacturers may seek approval of a generic or other version of an innovative pharmaceutical by filing with the FDA an Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, or an New Drug Application, or NDA, pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act provides significant incentives to generic manufacturers to challenge U.S. patents on successful innovative pharmaceutical products. We have received a notice letter from each of Apotex, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. and Granules India Ltd. notifying us that it has filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval to market a generic version of JAKAFI and purporting to challenge one or more patents covering ruxolitinib composition of matter and its use that expire (with pediatric extension) in June 2028 and patents covering ruxolitinib phosphate and its use that expire (with pediatric extension) in December 2028. We have also received a separate notice letter from Apotex regarding its filing of a NDA pursuant to section 505(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that requested to rely, in part, on the FDA’s previously published findings of safety and efficacy for JAKAFI and purported to challenge patents covering ruxolitinib composition of matter and its use that expire (with pediatric extension) in June 2028 and patents covering ruxolitinib phosphate and its use that expire (with pediatric extension) in December 2028. In response, we have filed patent infringement actions against Apotex (with respect to both its ANDA and 505(b)(2) NDA), Hikma, Sun, and Granules in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting certain FDA Orange-Book-listed patents for JAKAFI. Those actions remain pending.

Previous wording

In July 2024, the FDA approved a deuterated ruxolitinib product owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., collectively referred to as Sun, for the treatment of severe alopecia areata to be commercialized as “Leqselvi (deuruxolitinib)”. Prior to the regulatory approval of Leqselvi, we sued Sun for infringement of our patent covering deuterated ruxolitinib analogs in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and sought a preliminary injunction to bar Sun’s launch of Leqselvi during the pendency of the litigation. On November 1, 2024, the court entered an order granting our preliminary injunction request. Sun appealed the court’s preliminary injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction order that had enjoined Leqselvi's launch. Our underlying patent infringement action against Sun in the District of New Jersey remains pending.

Current wording

In July 2024, the FDA approved a deuterated ruxolitinib product owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., collectively referred to as Sun, for the treatment of severe alopecia areata to be commercialized as “Leqselvi (deuruxolitinib)”. Prior to the regulatory approval of Leqselvi, we sued Sun for infringement of our patent covering deuterated ruxolitinib analogs in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and sought a preliminary injunction to bar Sun’s launch of Leqselvi during the pendency of the litigation. On November 1, 2024, the court entered an order granting our preliminary injunction request. Sun appealed the court’s preliminary injunction order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction order that had enjoined Leqselvi's launch. In July 2025, we entered into a settlement and license agreement with Sun Pharmaceuticals, Inc., resolving this patent infringement litigation related to Leqselvi (deuruxolitinib).

Previous wording

In addition to establishing collaborative or license arrangements under which other parties license our drug candidates for development and commercialization or under which we study our drug candidates in combination with such parties’ compounds or biologics, we may explore opportunities to develop our clinical pipeline by in-licensing drug candidates or therapeutics targets that fit within our focus on oncology, such as our collaborations with Agenus, MacroGenics, Merus and Syndax Pharmaceuticals, or explore additional opportunities to further develop and commercialize existing drug candidates in specific jurisdictions, such as our June 2016 acquisition of the development and commercialization rights to ICLUSIG in certain countries. We may be unable to enter into any additional in-licensing agreements because suitable drug candidates that are within our expertise may not be available to us on terms that are acceptable to us or because competitors with greater resources seek to in-license the same drug candidates. Drug candidates that we would like to develop or commercialize may not be available to us because they are controlled by competitors who are unwilling to license the rights to the drug candidate to us. In addition, we may enter into license agreements that are unsuccessful and our business and operations might be adversely affected if we are unable to realize the expected economic benefits of a collaboration or other licensing arrangement, by the termination of a drug candidate and termination and winding down of the related license agreement, or due to other business or regulatory issues, including financial difficulties, that may adversely affect a licensor’s ability to continue to perform its obligations under an in-license agreement. For example, in January 2022, we decided to opt-out of the continued development with Merus of MCLA-145, which was the most advanced compound under our collaboration with Merus, and in 2022 and 2023, we decided to terminate our collaborations with Calithera Biosciences and Syros Pharmaceuticals. If we make or incur contractual obligations to make significant upfront payments in connection with licenses for late-stage drug candidates, and if any of those drug candidates do not receive marketing approval or commercial sales as anticipated or we have to fund additional clinical trials before marketing approval can be obtained, we will have expended significant funds that might otherwise be applied for other uses or have to expend funds that were not otherwise budgeted or anticipated in connection with the collaboration, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our stock price and our ability to pursue other transactions. As discussed above under “We depend on our collaborators and licensees for the future development and commercialization of some of our drug candidates. Conflicts may arise between our collaborators and licensees and us, or our collaborators and licensees may choose to …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

In addition to establishing collaborative or license arrangements under which other parties license our drug candidates for development and commercialization or under which we study our drug candidates in combination with such parties’ compounds or biologics, we may explore opportunities to develop our clinical pipeline by in-licensing drug candidates or therapeutics targets that fit within our focus on oncology, such as our collaborations with MacroGenics, Merus and Syndax Pharmaceuticals, or explore additional opportunities to further develop and commercialize existing drug candidates in specific jurisdictions, such as our June 2016 acquisition of the development and commercialization rights to ICLUSIG in certain countries. We may be unable to enter into any additional in-licensing agreements because suitable drug candidates that are within our expertise may not be available to us on terms that are acceptable to us or because competitors with greater resources seek to in-license the same drug candidates. Drug candidates that we would like to develop or commercialize may not be available to us because they are controlled by competitors who are unwilling to license the rights to the drug candidate to us. In addition, we may enter into license agreements that are unsuccessful and our business and operations might be adversely affected if we are unable to realize the expected economic benefits of a collaboration or other licensing arrangement, by the termination of a drug candidate and termination and winding down of the related license agreement, or due to other business or regulatory issues, including financial difficulties, that may adversely affect a licensor’s ability to continue to perform its obligations under an in-license agreement. For example, in January 2022, we decided to opt-out of the continued development with Merus of MCLA-145, which was the most advanced compound under our collaboration with Merus, and in 2022 and 2023, we decided to terminate our collaborations with Calithera Biosciences and Syros Pharmaceuticals. If we make or incur contractual obligations to make significant upfront payments in connection with licenses for late-stage drug candidates, and if any of those drug candidates do not receive marketing approval or commercial sales as anticipated or we have to fund additional clinical trials before marketing approval can be obtained, we will have expended significant funds that might otherwise be applied for other uses or have to expend funds that were not otherwise budgeted or anticipated in connection with the collaboration, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our stock price and our ability to pursue other transactions. As discussed above under “We depend on our collaborators and licensees for the future development and commercialization of some of our drug candidates. Conflicts may arise between our collaborators and licensees and us, or our collaborators and licensees may choose to terminat…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

New tax laws or regulations could be enacted at any time, and existing tax laws or regulations could be interpreted, modified or applied in a manner that is adverse to us or our customers, which could adversely affect our results of operations, business and financial condition. For example, beginning in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the option to deduct research and development expenditures for tax purposes in the year incurred and instead requires taxpayers to capitalize and subsequently amortize such expenditures over five years for research activities conducted in the United States and over 15 years for research activities conducted outside the United States. If the requirement to amortize research and development expenditures is not repealed or otherwise modified, it will continue to have an adverse effect on our tax liability, and the amount of that effect could be material. As another example, in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was enacted, which, among other things, includes a new 15% alternative minimum tax on the adjusted financial statement income of certain large corporations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. Furthermore, the enactment of some or all of the recommendations set forth or that may be forthcoming in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, or OECD, project on “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting,” commonly known as BEPS 2.0, by tax authorities and economic blocs in the countries in which we operate, could unfavorably impact our effective tax rate. Broadly speaking, BEPS 2.0 would make fundamental changes to the international tax system, including with respect to the entitlement to tax global corporate profits and minimum global tax rates. For example, in December 2022, the European Union member states agreed to implement in their domestic tax laws a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of large multinational enterprises with a target effective date for fiscal years beginning on or after December 31, 2023. Although we continue to evaluate and monitor the potential impact of BEPS 2.0 on us, and the OECD minimum tax rules do not currently have a material impact on us, these minimum tax rules could in the future result in tax increases in both the United States and many foreign jurisdictions where we operate or have a presence. On January 15, 2025, the OECD released new guidance addressing implementation of the Pillar Two global minimum tax rules, which were effective for us in tax year 2024. As part of the guidance, the OECD placed limitations on transactions that produce deferred tax assets entered into during the transition period that runs from November 2021 through an entity’s adoption of Pillar Two. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order effectively cancelling the United States’ commitments to the global minimum tax rules, stating that those commitments cannot have any effect in the United States without an act of approval of th…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Furthermore, the enactment of some or all of the recommendations set forth or that may be forthcoming in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, or OECD, project on “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting,” commonly known as BEPS 2.0, by tax authorities and economic blocs in the countries in which we operate, could unfavorably impact our effective tax rate. Broadly speaking, BEPS 2.0 would make fundamental changes to the international tax system, including with respect to the entitlement to tax global corporate profits and minimum global tax rates. For example, in December 2022, the European Union member states agreed to implement in their domestic tax laws a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of large multinational enterprises with a target effective date for fiscal years beginning on or after December 31, 2023. Although we continue to evaluate and monitor the potential impact of BEPS 2.0 on us, and the OECD minimum tax rules do not currently have a material impact on us, these minimum tax rules could in the future result in tax increases in both the United States and many foreign jurisdictions where we operate or have a presence. On January 15, 2025, the OECD released new guidance addressing implementation of the Pillar Two global minimum tax rules, which were effective for us in tax year 2024. As part of the guidance, the OECD placed limitations on transactions that produce deferred tax assets entered into during the transition period that runs from November 2021 through an entity’s adoption of Pillar Two. However, n January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order effectively cancelling the United States’ commitments to the global minimum tax rules, stating that those commitments cannot have any effect in the United States without an act of approval of the U.S. Congress and, on June 28, 2025, the G7 released a joint statement that it had reached an understanding with the United States for a proposed side-by-side system based on certain accepted principles, including that U.S.-parented groups, such as ours, would be exempt from certain provisions of Pillar Two. Any new tax legislation or initiatives could not only significantly increase our tax provision, cash tax liabilities, and effective tax rate, but could also significantly increase tax uncertainty due to differing interpretations and increased audit scrutiny.

Previous wording

We derive a substantial portion of our total revenues from product royalties and milestone payments under our collaboration agreements, with royalties on JAKAVI and OLUMIANT representing most of our product royalty, milestone and contract revenues for each of the three years ended December 31, 2024 and the three months ended March 31, 2025. Future revenues from research and development collaborations depend upon continuation of the collaborations, the achievement of milestones and royalties we earn from any future products developed from our research. If we are unable to successfully achieve milestones or our collaborators fail to develop successful products, we will not earn the future revenues contemplated under our collaborative agreements. For example, delays in or other limitations with respect to the approval of baricitinib in the United States for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, or the failure to obtain such approval as a first line therapy, as discussed under “—We depend on our collaborators and licensees for the future development and commercialization of some of our drug candidates. Conflicts may arise between our collaborators and licensees and us, or our collaborators and licensees may choose to terminate their agreements with us, which may adversely affect our business.” could affect potential future royalty and milestone and contract revenue.

Current wording

We derive a substantial portion of our total revenues from product royalties and milestone payments under our collaboration agreements, with royalties on JAKAVI and OLUMIANT representing most of our product royalty, milestone and contract revenues for each of the three years ended December 31, 2024 and the three and six months ended June 30, 2025. Future revenues from research and development collaborations depend upon continuation of the collaborations, the achievement of milestones and royalties we earn from any future products developed from our research. If we are unable to successfully achieve milestones or our collaborators fail to develop successful products, we will not earn the future revenues contemplated under our collaborative agreements. For example, delays in or other limitations with respect to the approval of baricitinib in the United States for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, or the failure to obtain such approval as a first line therapy, as discussed under “—We depend on our collaborators and licensees for the future development and commercialization of some of our drug candidates. Conflicts may arise between our collaborators and licensees and us, or our collaborators and licensees may choose to terminate their agreements with us, which may adversely affect our business.” could affect potential future royalty and milestone and contract revenue.