Viking Therapeutics, Inc.

Previous wording

We are a clinical-stage company. Since our incorporation in September 2012, our operations have been limited to raising capital, building infrastructure, obtaining the worldwide rights to certain technology from Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, or Ligand, and planning, preparing and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials of our drug candidates, including VK2735 subcutaneous, which is in Phase 3 development; VK2735 oral, VK2809, VK5211 and VK0612, which are currently in Phase 2 clinical development; VK0214, for which we recently completed a Phase 1b clinical trial; as well as the dual amylin and calcitonin receptor agonist, or DACRA, diacylglycerol acyltransferase-1, or DGAT-1 and erythropoietin receptor, or EPOR, programs, which are each currently in preclinical development. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approval for any of our drug candidates or successfully overcome the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the biopharmaceutical industry. We also have not generated any revenue to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses. As of June 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $599.1 million. For the foreseeable future, we expect to continue to incur losses, which will increase significantly from historical levels as we expand our drug development activities, seek potential partnering opportunities and/or regulatory approvals for our drug candidates and begin to commercialize them if they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or comparable foreign authorities. Even if we succeed in partnering or developing and commercializing one or more drug candidates, we may never become profitable. If we fail to achieve or maintain profitability, it would adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Current wording

We are a clinical-stage company. Since our incorporation in September 2012, our operations have been limited to raising capital, building infrastructure, obtaining the worldwide rights to certain technology from Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, or Ligand, and planning, preparing and conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials of our drug candidates, including VK2735 subcutaneous, which is in Phase 3 development; VK2809, VK5211 and VK0612, which are currently in Phase 2 clinical development; VK2735 oral, for which we recently completed a Phase 2 clinical trial; VK0214, for which we completed a Phase 1b clinical trial; as well as the dual amylin and calcitonin receptor agonist, or DACRA, diacylglycerol acyltransferase-1, or DGAT-1 and erythropoietin receptor, or EPOR, programs, which are each currently in preclinical development. We have not yet demonstrated an ability to obtain marketing approval for any of our drug candidates or successfully overcome the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in the biopharmaceutical industry. We also have not generated any revenue to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $689.9 million. For the foreseeable future, we expect to continue to incur losses, which will increase significantly from historical levels as we expand our drug development activities, seek potential partnering opportunities and/or regulatory approvals for our drug candidates and begin to commercialize them if they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or comparable foreign authorities. Even if we succeed in partnering or developing and commercializing one or more drug candidates, we may never become profitable. If we fail to achieve or maintain profitability, it would adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Previous wording

In February 2024, we reported positive top-line results from the VENTURE Phase 2 clinical trial for VK2735 in patients with obesity, and in June 2025, we announced the initiation of our VANQUISH Phase 3 program for the subcutaneous formulation. In May 2023, we reported positive top-line results from the VOYAGE Phase 2b clinical trial for VK2809 and in June 2024, we announced positive 52-week histologic data from the VOYAGE study. In late 2017, we reported positive top-line results from a Phase 2 clinical trial for VK5211. In October 2024, we reported positive data from our Phase 1b clinical trial of VK0214 in patients with X-ALD. However, there is no guarantee that the results of our Phase 2 clinical trials for VK2735 subcutaneous or VK2809 or our Phase 1b clinical trial for VK0214 will be repeated for our other drug candidates or lead to other positive outcomes, including our VANQUISH Phase 3 program or any other clinical trials that we may initiate. As a company, we have conducted only a limited number of clinical trials and preclinical studies for our drug candidates. Therefore, we have limited experience in conducting clinical trials for our drug candidates. Since our experience with our drug candidates is limited, we will need to train our existing personnel and hire additional personnel in order to successfully administer and manage our clinical trials and other studies as planned, which may result in delays in completing such planned clinical trials and preclinical studies. Moreover, to date, our drug candidates have been tested in less than the number of patients that will likely need to be studied to obtain regulatory approval. The data collected from clinical trials with larger patient populations may not demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to support regulatory approval of these drug candidates.

Current wording

In February 2024, we reported positive top-line results from the VENTURE Phase 2 clinical trial for VK2735 in patients with obesity, in June 2025, we announced the initiation of our VANQUISH Phase 3 program for the subcutaneous formulation and in August 2025, we announced positive top-line results from our Phase 2 clinical trial of the oral tablet formulation of VK2735. In May 2023, we reported positive top-line results from the VOYAGE Phase 2b clinical trial for VK2809 and in June 2024, we announced positive 52-week histologic data from the VOYAGE study. In late 2017, we reported positive top-line results from a Phase 2 clinical trial for VK5211. In October 2024, we reported positive data from our Phase 1b clinical trial of VK0214 in patients with X-ALD. However, there is no guarantee that the results of our Phase 2 clinical trials for VK2735 subcutaneous, VK2735 oral or VK2809 or our Phase 1b clinical trial for VK0214 will be repeated for our other drug candidates or lead to other positive outcomes, including our VANQUISH

Previous wording

Since we will be unable to generate sufficient, if any, cash inflows to fund our operations for the foreseeable future, we may need to seek additional equity or debt financing to provide the capital required to maintain or expand our operations. As of June 30, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments totaling $807.7 million. There can be no assurance that we will be able to raise sufficient additional capital on acceptable terms or at all. If such additional financing is not available on satisfactory terms, or is not available in sufficient amounts, we may be required to delay, limit or eliminate the development of business opportunities and our ability to achieve our business objectives, our competitiveness, and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. In addition, we may be required to grant rights to develop and market drug candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Our inability to fund our business could lead to the loss of your investment. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Current wording

Since we will be unable to generate sufficient, if any, cash inflows to fund our operations for the foreseeable future, we may need to seek additional equity or debt financing to provide the capital required to maintain or expand our operations. As of September 30, 2025, we had cash, cash equivalents and investments totaling $714.6 million. There can be no assurance that we will be able to raise sufficient additional capital on acceptable terms or at all. If such additional financing is not available on satisfactory terms, or is not available in sufficient amounts, we may be required to delay, limit or eliminate the development of business opportunities and our ability to achieve our business objectives, our competitiveness, and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. In addition, we may be required to grant rights to develop and market drug candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves. Our inability to fund our business could lead to the loss of your investment. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to:

Previous wording

VK2735, if approved, will compete against therapies that are already approved and marketed for obesity, including Semaglutide (Wegovy®) and liraglutide (Saxenda®) from Novo Nordisk A/S, and tirzepatide (Zepbound™) from Eli Lilly and Company. We are also aware of several programs targeting obesity that are in the late development stage that will compete against VK2735, if approved, including CagriSema from Novo Nordisk A/S, orforglipron and retatrutide from Eli Lilly and Company, survodutide (BI 456906) from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, and MariTide from Amgen Inc. In addition, we are aware of active programs at Altimmune, Inc., Ascletis Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Biomed Industries, Inc., Corxel, D&D Pharmatech, Inc., ERX Pharmaceuticals Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Gubra, Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Huadong Medicine Co., Kailera Therapeutics, Kallyope Inc., Metsera, MetaVia, NodThera, QL Pharma Co., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Rivus Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sciwind Biosciences Co., Ltd., Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics Inc., Terns Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Veru Inc., and Zealand Pharma A/S.

Current wording

VK2735, if approved, will compete against therapies that are already approved and marketed for obesity, including Semaglutide (Wegovy®) and liraglutide (Saxenda®) from Novo Nordisk A/S, and tirzepatide (Zepbound™) from Eli Lilly and Company. We are also aware of several programs targeting obesity that are in the late development stage that will compete against VK2735, if approved, including CagriSema from Novo Nordisk A/S, orforglipron and retatrutide from Eli Lilly and Company, survodutide (BI 456906) from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, and MariTide from Amgen Inc. In addition, we are aware of active programs at Altimmune, Inc., Ascletis Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Biomed Industries, Inc., Corxel, D&D Pharmatech, Inc., ERX Pharmaceuticals Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gubra, Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Huadong Medicine Co., Kailera Therapeutics, Kallyope Inc., MetaVia, NodThera, Pfizer Inc., QL Pharma Co., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Rivus Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sciwind Biosciences Co., Ltd., Scholar Rock, Structure Therapeutics Inc., Terns Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Veru Inc., and Zealand Pharma A/S.

Previous wording

Resmetirom (Rezdiffra™), another agonist of the thyroid hormone receptor beta, or TRß, from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is the only therapy currently approved in the U.S. for the treatment of NASH/MASH. In addition, we are aware of numerous development-stage programs targeting this disease, including arachidyl amido cholanoic acid from Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., belapectin from Galectin Therapeutics Inc., lanifibranor from Inventiva S.A., semaglutide from Novo Nordisk A/S, firsocostat (GS-0976) and cilofexor (GS-9674) from Gilead Sciences, Inc., tirzepatide from Eli Lilly and Company, ervogastat (PF-06865571) and clesacostat (PF-05221304) from Pfizer Inc., efruxifermin (AKR-001) from Akero Therapeutics, Inc., pegozafermin (BIO89-100) from 89bio, Inc., denifanstat (TVB-2640) from Sagimet Biosciences Inc., efocipegtrutide (HM15211) from Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., survodutide (BI 456906) from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, ION224 and ION839 from Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rencofilstat (CRV431) from Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., HTD1801 from HighTide Therapeutics Inc., GSK4532990 (ARO-HSD) from GlaxoSmithKline plc., ALN-HSD from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc./ Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., efinopegdutide (MK-6024) from Merck & Co., Inc., and pemvidutide (ALT-801) from Altimmune, Inc. In addition, we are aware of active programs at Aligos Therapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ascletis Biopharmaceutical, AstraZeneca PLC, Boston Pharmaceuticals Inc., Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd., ChemomAb Ltd., CohBar, Inc., Corcept Therapeutics Inc., CytoDyn Inc., D&D Pharmatech, Inc., Durect Corporation, Enyo Pharma SA, Inc., Future Medicine Co., Ltd., Galecto, Inc., Gelesis Holdings Inc., Hepagene Therapeutics, Inc., Kowa Company, Ltd., MediciNova Inc., Seal Rock Therapeutics, Inc., Theratechnologies Inc., Yuhan Corporation, and Cadila Healthcare Limited (a.k.a. Zydus Cadila).

Current wording

Resmetirom (Rezdiffra™), another agonist of the thyroid hormone receptor beta, or TRß, from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is the only therapy currently approved in the U.S. for the treatment of NASH/MASH. In addition, we are aware of numerous development-stage programs targeting this disease, including arachidyl amido cholanoic acid from Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., belapectin from Galectin Therapeutics Inc., lanifibranor from Inventiva S.A., semaglutide from Novo Nordisk A/S, firsocostat (GS-0976) and cilofexor (GS-9674) from Gilead Sciences, Inc., tirzepatide from Eli Lilly and Company, ervogastat (PF-06865571) and clesacostat (PF-05221304) from Pfizer Inc., efruxifermin (AKR-001) from Akero Therapeutics, Inc., pegozafermin (BIO89-100) from 89bio, Inc., denifanstat (TVB-2640) from Sagimet Biosciences Inc., efocipegtrutide (HM15211) from Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., survodutide (BI 456906) from Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, ION839 from Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rencofilstat (CRV431) from Hepion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., HTD1801 from HighTide Therapeutics Inc., GSK4532990 (ARO-HSD) from GlaxoSmithKline plc., rapirosiran from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc./ Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., efinopegdutide (MK-6024) from Merck & Co., Inc., and pemvidutide (ALT-801) from Altimmune, Inc. In addition, we are aware of active programs at Aligos Therapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ascletis Biopharmaceutical, AstraZeneca PLC, Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd., ChemomAb Ltd., Corcept Therapeutics Inc., CytoDyn Inc., D&D Pharmatech, Inc., Durect Corporation, Enyo Pharma SA, Inc., Future Medicine Co., Ltd., Galecto, Inc., Gelesis Holdings Inc., Hepagene Therapeutics, Inc., Kowa Company, Ltd., MediciNova Inc., Seal Rock Therapeutics, Inc., Theratechnologies Inc., Yuhan Corporation, and Cadila Healthcare Limited (a.k.a. Zydus Cadila).

Previous wording

We, or any future collaborators, may not be able to obtain orphan drug designation or orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates.

Current wording

We, or any future collaborators, may not be able to obtain or maintain orphan drug designation or orphan drug exclusivity for our product candidates.

Previous wording

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of adopted and proposed legislative and regulatory changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-marketing activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any of our drug candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval.

Current wording

In the U.S. and some foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of adopted and proposed legislative and regulatory changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our drug candidates, restrict or regulate post-marketing activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any of our drug candidates for which we obtain regulatory approval.

Previous wording

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the PPACA, was enacted. The PPACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The PPACA increased manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate amount for both branded and generic drugs and revised the definition of “average manufacturer price,” or AMP, which may also increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates manufacturers are required to pay to states. The legislation also expanded Medicaid drug rebates and created an alternative rebate formula for certain new formulations of certain existing products that is intended to increase the rebates due on those drugs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, also has proposed to expand Medicaid rebates to the utilization that occurs in the territories of the U.S., such as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Further, beginning in 2011, the PPACA imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products and required manufacturers to provide a discount, equal to 70% off, effective as of 2019, the negotiated price of prescriptions filled by beneficiaries in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, referred to as the “donut hole.” Legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced at both the state and federal level to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. Furthermore, on July 4, 2025, legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, which reduces funding to federal healthcare programs and imposes additional requirements to be eligible for healthcare, which may result in decreased access to healthcare, particularly in Medicaid programs.

Current wording

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, collectively the PPACA, was enacted. The PPACA was intended to broaden access to health insurance, reduce or constrain the growth of healthcare spending, enhance remedies against healthcare fraud and abuse, add new transparency requirements for healthcare and health insurance industries, impose new taxes and fees on the health industry and impose additional health policy reforms. The PPACA increased manufacturers’ rebate liability under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program by increasing the minimum rebate amount for both branded and generic drugs and revised the definition of “average manufacturer price,” or AMP, which may also increase the amount of Medicaid drug rebates manufacturers are required to pay to states. The legislation also expanded Medicaid drug rebates and created an alternative rebate formula for certain new formulations of certain existing products that is intended to increase the rebates due on those drugs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, which administers the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, also has proposed to expand Medicaid rebates to the utilization that occurs in the territories of the U.S., such as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Further, beginning in 2011, the PPACA imposed a significant annual fee on companies that manufacture or import branded prescription drug products and required manufacturers to provide a discount, equal to 70% off, effective as of 2019, on the negotiated price of prescriptions filled by beneficiaries in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, referred to as the “donut hole.” Legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced at both the state and federal level to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products.

Previous wording

In addition, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was signed into law which, among other things, includes policies that are designed to have a direct impact on drug prices and reduce drug spending by the federal government, which took effect in 2023. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, Congress authorized Medicare beginning in 2026 to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars. This provision is limited in terms of the number of pharmaceuticals whose prices can be negotiated in any given year and it only applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years. Drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition are categorically excluded from price negotiation. Further, the new legislation provides that if pharmaceutical companies raise prices in Medicare faster than the rate of inflation, they must pay rebates back to the government for the difference. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $2,000 a year.

Current wording

Since the enactment of the PPACA, there have been judicial, congressional, and executive branch challenges to the act, which have resulted in delays in the implementation of, and action taken to repeal or replace, certain aspects of the PPACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued the PPACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the “individual mandate” was repealed by Congress. In addition, there have been a number of health reform initiatives that have impacted the PPACA. For example, on August 16, 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or the IRA, was signed into law which, among other things, included policies that were designed to have a direct impact on drug prices and reduce drug spending by the federal government, which took effect in 2023. Under the IRA, Congress authorized Medicare beginning in 2026 to negotiate lower prices for certain costly single-source drug and biologic products that do not have competing generics or biosimilars. This provision is limited in terms of the number of pharmaceuticals whose prices can be negotiated in any given year and it only applies to drug products that have been approved for at least 9 years and biologics that have been licensed for 13 years. Drugs and biologics that have been approved for a single rare disease or condition are categorically excluded from price negotiation. Further, the new legislation provides that if pharmaceutical companies raise prices in Medicare faster than the rate of inflation, they must pay rebates back to the government for the difference. The new law also caps Medicare out-of-pocket drug costs at an estimated $2,000 a year. The IRA permits the Department of Health & Human Services, or HHS, to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. These provisions took effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the agreed-upon reimbursement prices of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations. The prices of these ten drugs are scheduled to become effective January 1, 2026. On January 17, 2025, HHS announced its selection of 15 additional drugs covered by Part D for the second cycle of negotiations by February 1, 2025. The second cycle of negotiations with participating drug companies will occur during 2025, and any negotiated prices for this second set of drugs will be effective starting January 1, 2027. Each year thereafter more Part B and Part D products will become subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. On December 8, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published for comment a Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of march-in rights, which for the first time includes the price of a product as one factor an agency can use when deciding to exercise march-in rights. While march-in rights have not previously been exercised, it is uncerta…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. We also expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates, if approved for commercialization.

Current wording

Additionally, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. We also expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our drug candidates, if approved for commercialization.

Previous wording

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products, to provide feedback on clinical trials and development programs, to meet with sponsors and to otherwise review regulatory submissions can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, reductions in workforce, ability to hire and retain key personnel, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. In addition, there may be delays in necessary interactions with regulators, ethics committees and other important agencies and contractors due to limitations in employee resources or forced furlough of government or contractor personnel. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. In addition, government shutdowns, if prolonged, could significantly impact the ability of government agencies upon which rely, such as the FDA and SEC, to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Current wording

Recently, beginning on October 1, 2025, the U.S. government shut down and remains shut down as of the date of this filing, during which time certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have furloughed critical employees and stopped critical activities. Additionally, on October 10, 2025, the U.S. government implemented substantial layoffs and workforce reductions in connection with the ongoing federal government shutdown, which has resulted in the suspension or delay of various government-funded programs. While we continue to monitor developments, there is no assurance that affected government employees or contractors will be reinstated and that government-funded programs will resume. The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products, to provide feedback on clinical trials and development programs, to meet with sponsors and to otherwise review regulatory submissions can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, reductions in workforce, ability to hire and retain key personnel, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. In addition, there may be delays in necessary interactions with regulators, ethics committees and other important agencies and contractors due to limitations in employee resources or forced furlough of government or contractor personnel. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Government shutdowns, if prolonged, can significantly impact the ability of government agencies upon which rely, such as the FDA and SEC, to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Previous wording

In December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law. This legislation is designed to advance medical innovation and empower the FDA with the authority to directly hire positions related to drug and device development and review. However, government proposals to reduce or eliminate budgetary deficits may include reduced allocations to the FDA and other related government agencies. These budgetary pressures may result in a reduced ability by the FDA to perform its roles, including the related impact to academic institutions and research laboratories whose funding is fully or partially dependent on both the level and timing of funding from government sources.

Current wording

In December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law. This legislation was designed to advance medical innovation and empower the FDA with the authority to directly hire positions related to drug and device development and review. However, government proposals to reduce or eliminate budgetary deficits may include reduced allocations to the FDA and other related government agencies. These budgetary pressures may result in a reduced ability by the FDA to perform its roles, including the related impact to academic institutions and research laboratories whose funding is fully or partially dependent on both the level and timing of funding from government sources.

Previous wording

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for our product candidates to be reviewed or approved by necessary government agencies, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, over the past decade, the U.S. government has shut down several times, and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA and the SEC, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Further, future government shutdowns could impact our ability to access the public markets and obtain necessary capital in order to properly capitalize and continue to fund our operations.

Current wording

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for our product candidates to be reviewed or approved by necessary government agencies, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, the current U.S. administration has discussed several changes to the reach and oversight of the FDA, which could affect its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, transparency in decision making and ultimately the cost and availability of prescription drugs. Additionally, over the past decade, the U.S. government has shut down several times, and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical employees and stop critical activities. The current U.S. administration also recently announced plans to reduce the number of federal employees by establishing voluntary termination programs, by position eliminations or by involuntary terminations. If funding for the FDA is reduced, if the FDA workforce is reduced, or if the current government shutdown continues, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Previous wording

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, or the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or the EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, which includes the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal data and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to 4% of global revenues or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own additional laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

Current wording

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, sharing, transfer and other processing of information worldwide is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, or the EU, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, or the GDPR, which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area, or the EEA, in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to processing health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. The GDPR increases our obligations with respect to clinical trials conducted in the EEA by expanding the definition of personal data to include coded data and requiring changes to informed consent practices and more detailed notices for clinical trial subjects and investigators. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the EU, which includes the United States and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to 4% of global revenues or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own additional laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data. In addition to the GDPR, other EU and member state laws and regulations may impose further obligations or our restrictions on process health information in the EEA, such as the European Health Data Space Regulation.

Previous wording

Further, Brexit has led and could also lead to legislative and regulatory changes that may increase our compliance costs. As of January 1, 2021 and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the UK and the EU, data processing in the UK is governed by a UK version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted an Adequacy Decision for the UK, allowing for the relatively free exchange of personal data between the EU and the UK (as the UK correspondingly allows transfers back to the EU), which was recently extended through December 27, 2025. However, the European Commission may suspend the Adequacy Decision if it considers that the UK no longer provides for an adequate level of data protection. In addition, on June 19, 2025, the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, or the DUAA, was granted Royal Assent, implementing various measures concerning data usage in the UK and reforming data protection laws. The provisions within the DUAA will come into force through 2026, and it remains too soon to tell how the DUAA will be implemented and what impact it will have on our international activities.

Current wording

Further, Brexit has led and could also lead to legislative and regulatory changes that may increase our compliance costs. As of January 1, 2021 and the expiry of transitional arrangements agreed to between the UK and the EU, data processing in the UK is governed by a UK version of the GDPR (combining the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), exposing us to two parallel regimes, each of which authorizes similar fines and other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations. On June 28, 2021, the European Commission adopted an Adequacy Decision for the UK, allowing for the relatively free exchange of personal data between the EU and the UK (as the UK correspondingly allows transfers back to the EU), which has been extended through December 27, 2025. However, the European Commission may suspend the Adequacy Decision if it considers that the UK no longer provides for an adequate level of data protection. In addition, on June 19, 2025, the UK’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, or the DUAA, was granted Royal Assent, implementing various measures concerning data usage in the UK and reforming data protection laws. The provisions within the DUAA will come into force through 2026, and it remains too soon to tell how the DUAA will be implemented and what impact it will have on our international activities. Other jurisdictions outside the European Union are similarly introducing or enhancing privacy and data security laws, rules and regulations.

Previous wording

Additionally, new laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels and several states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, is creating similar risks and obligations as those created by the GDPR, though the CCPA does exempt certain clinical trial data. The California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, amended and expanded the CCPA, and also created a new state agency that is vested with authority to implement and enforce the CCPA and the CRPA. The CCPA and the CRPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, and we cannot yet predict the impact of the CCPA or the CRPA on our business. Similar laws passed in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah took effect in 2023 while laws in Oregon, Montana and Texas went into effect in 2024. Additionally, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Tennessee have adopted privacy laws, which took or will take effect from January 1, 2025 through 2026. Some state laws also minimize what data can be collected from consumers and how businesses may use and disclose it. These state privacy laws also require businesses to make disclosures to consumers about data collection, use and sharing practices. In addition, some of these laws (including the CPRA), along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data, such as the Washington My Health My Data Act, which became effective in 2023 and 2024, Nevada’s Consumer Health Data Privacy Law, which became effective in 2024, and Connecticut’s amendments to its privacy law to address health data, which became effective in 2023. Additionally, a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with federal and state laws (both those currently in effect and future legislation) regarding privacy and security of personal data could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data.

Current wording

Similar actions are either in place or under way in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection and breach notification laws that are applicable to our activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws also are being considered at both the state and federal levels and several states have passed comprehensive privacy laws. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, creates similar risks and obligations as those created by the GDPR, though the CCPA does exempt certain information collected as part of a clinical trial data. The CCPA and the CRPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability, and we cannot yet predict the impact of the CCPA or the CRPA on our business. Similar laws passed in Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut and Utah took effect in 2023 while laws in Oregon, Montana and Texas went into effect in 2024. Additionally, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Tennessee have adopted privacy laws, which took or will take effect from January 1, 2025 through 2026. Some state laws also minimize what data can be collected from consumers and how businesses may use and disclose it. These state privacy laws also require businesses to make disclosures to consumers about data collection, use and sharing practices. In addition, some of these laws (including the CPRA), along with other standalone health privacy laws, subject health-related information to additional safeguards and disclosures and some specifically regulate consumer health data, such as the Washington My Health My Data Act, which became effective in 2023 and 2024, Nevada’s Consumer Health Data Privacy Law, which became effective in 2024, and Connecticut’s amendments to its privacy law to address health data, which became effective in 2023. Additionally, a broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level, including continued actions by the Federal Trade Commission, or the FTC, to enforce the Federal Trade Commission Act and violations of the Health Breach Notification Rule. Additionally, in 2024, the FTC finalized updates to the Health Breach Notification Rule that, among other things, clarified its applicability to health apps and other similar technologies and expanded the information the breach notification requirements for entities subject to the rule which may add additional complexity to compliance obligations going forward. We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with these requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, CROs, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the EU. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal data from our clinical trials, and access to certain data such as the European Health Data Space Regulation, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws regarding privacy and security of personal data could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

Current wording

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with these requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, CROs, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the EU. The GDPR, new state privacy laws and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal data from our clinical trials, and access to certain data such as the European Health Data Space Regulation, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws regarding privacy and security of personal data could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

Previous wording

Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel. As of June 30, 2025, we had forty-eight full-time employees, one part-time employee and a small number of consultants, which may make us more reliant on our individual employees than companies with a greater number of employees. The loss of any of our key personnel could delay or prevent the development of our drug candidates. These personnel are “at-will” employees and may terminate their employment with us at any time; however, each of our current chief executive officer and current chief financial officer has agreed to provide us with at least 60 days’ advance notice of his respective resignation pursuant to his employment agreement with us. The replacement of key personnel likely would involve significant time and costs, and may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives. We do not maintain “key person” insurance on any of our employees.

Current wording

Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel. As of September 30, 2025, we had fifty full-time employees, one part-time employee and a small number of consultants, which may make us more reliant on our individual employees than companies with a greater number of employees. The loss of any of our key personnel could delay or prevent the development of our drug candidates. These personnel are “at-will” employees and may terminate their employment with us at any time; however, each of our current chief executive officer and current chief financial officer has agreed to provide us with at least 60 days’ advance notice of his respective resignation pursuant to his employment agreement with us. The replacement of key personnel likely would involve significant time and costs, and may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives. We do not maintain “key person” insurance on any of our employees.

Previous wording

The short and long-term implications of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war and the conflict between Israel and Iran are difficult to predict at this time. We continue to monitor any adverse impact that the outbreak of war in Ukraine, the subsequent institution of sanctions against Russia by the United States and several European and Asian countries, the Israel-Hamas war, the conflict between Israel and Iran and other geopolitical conflicts may have on the global economy in general, on our business and operations and on the businesses and operations of our suppliers and other third parties with which we conduct business. For example, a prolonged conflict in Ukraine, Israel or Iran may result in increased inflation, escalating energy prices and constrained availability, and thus increasing costs, of raw materials. We will continue to monitor this fluid situation and develop contingency plans as necessary to address any disruptions to our business operations as they develop. To the extent the wars in Ukraine, Israel or Iran may adversely affect our business as discussed above, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described herein. Such risks include, but are not limited to, adverse effects on macroeconomic conditions, including inflation; disruptions to our global technology infrastructure, including through cyberattack, ransom attack, or cyber-intrusion; adverse changes in international trade policies and relations; disruptions in global supply chains; and constraints, volatility, or disruption in the capital markets, any of which could negatively affect our business and financial condition.

Current wording

Israel-Hamas war, the conflict between Israel and Iran and other geopolitical conflicts may have on the global economy in general, on our business and operations and on the businesses and operations of our suppliers and other third parties with which we conduct business. For example, a prolonged conflict in Ukraine, Israel or Iran may result in increased inflation, escalating energy prices and constrained availability, and thus increasing costs, of raw materials. We will continue to monitor this fluid situation and develop contingency plans as necessary to address any disruptions to our business operations as they develop. To the extent the wars in Ukraine, Israel or Iran may adversely affect our business as discussed above, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described herein. Such risks include, but are not limited to, adverse effects on macroeconomic conditions, including inflation; disruptions to our global technology infrastructure, including through cyberattack, ransom attack, or cyber-intrusion; adverse changes in international trade policies and relations; disruptions in global supply chains; and constraints, volatility, or disruption in the capital markets, any of which could negatively affect our business and financial condition.

Previous wording

We currently have intellectual property rights to develop our drug candidates through a license from Ligand. As of June 30, 2025, we owned or co-owned 182 patent applications and 44 patents. Because our programs require the use of proprietary rights held by Ligand, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to maintain and exploit these proprietary rights. In addition, we may need to acquire or in-license additional intellectual property in the future. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our drug candidates. We face competition with regard to acquiring and in-licensing third-party intellectual property rights, including from a number of more established companies. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license intellectual property rights to us. We also may be unable to acquire or in-license third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

Current wording

We currently have intellectual property rights to develop our drug candidates through a license from Ligand. As of September 30, 2025, we owned or co-owned 207 patent applications and 47 patents. Because our programs require the use of proprietary rights held by Ligand, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to maintain and exploit these proprietary rights. In addition, we may need to acquire or in-license additional intellectual property in the future. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our drug candidates. We face competition with regard to acquiring and in-licensing third-party intellectual property rights, including from a number of more established companies. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license intellectual property rights to us. We also may be unable to acquire or in-license third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

Previous wording

Our intellectual property includes licenses covering issued patents and pending patent applications for composition of matter, method of use and method of manufacture. As of June 30, 2025, for each of VK2809 and VK0214, we in-licensed two patents in the U.S. and additional patents in certain foreign jurisdictions, and owned or co-owned and in-licensed three U.S. patents, four U.S. patent applications, and additional patents and patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions. We also in-licensed one additional U.S. patent and one Japanese patent directed to VK0214, and owned three additional U.S. patents, two U.S. patent applications, one PCT application, and several patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions directed to VK2809 as of June 30, 2025. For VK5211, as of June 30, 2025, we in-licensed nine patents in the U.S. and several other patents and patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions. As of June 30, 2025, for our GLP-1 program, we own two U.S. patents, additional patents in certain foreign jurisdictions, two PCT applications, and several patent applications in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions. With respect to our other current drug candidates, we have a license covering several issued patents both in the U.S. and in certain foreign jurisdictions.

Current wording

Our intellectual property includes licenses covering issued patents and pending patent applications for composition of matter, method of use and method of manufacture. As of September 30, 2025, for each of VK2809 and VK0214, we in-licensed two patents in the U.S. and additional patents in certain foreign jurisdictions, and owned or co-owned and in-licensed three U.S. patents, four U.S. patent applications, and additional patents and patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions. We also in-licensed one additional U.S. patent and one Japanese patent directed to VK0214, and owned three additional U.S. patents, two U.S. patent applications, one PCT application, and several patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions directed to VK2809 as of September 30, 2025. For VK5211, as of September 30, 2025, we in-licensed nine patents in the U.S. and several other patents and patent applications in certain foreign jurisdictions. As of September 30, 2025, for our GLP-1 program, we own three U.S. patents, additional patents in certain foreign jurisdictions, three PCT applications, and several patent applications in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions. For our DACRA program, as of September 30, 2025, we own one PCT application and additional applications in the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions. With respect to our other current drug candidates, we have a license covering several issued patents both in the U.S. and in certain foreign jurisdictions.

Previous wording

We may be required to initiate litigation to enforce or defend our licensed and owned intellectual property. For example, we were previously aware of at least two third-party companies that were selling products in the U.S. bearing the name “LGD-4033,” which is the name previously used by Ligand to refer to VK5211, without authority from either us or Ligand, and we may experience other potential intellectual property infringement in the future. In addition, in December 2022, we filed suit against Ascletis Bioscience Co., Ltd., Gannex Pharma Co., Ltd., Ascletis Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Ascletis Pharma Inc., and Jinzi Jason Wu, or the Ascletis Defendants, in the Southern District of California, San Diego division, alleging, among other things: (1) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act; (2) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) tortious interference with contract. In a related action, we also filed suit against the same Ascletis Defendants in the International Trade Commission, or the ITC, for unlawful and unfair methods of competition. On October 3, 2024, the ITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of his determination that the Ascletis Defendants misappropriated our trade secrets and engaged in discovery misconduct, warranting monetary and non-monetary sanctions. On May 29, 2025, the full ITC Commission affirmed the substantial majority of the ITC Chief Administrative Law Judge’s determinations in favor of us, including monetary and non-monetary sanctions. Lawsuits to protect our intellectual property rights can be time consuming and costly. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical industry generally. Such litigation or proceedings could increase our operating expenses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

Current wording

We may be required to initiate litigation to enforce or defend our licensed and owned intellectual property. For example, we were previously aware of at least two third-party companies that were selling products in the U.S. bearing the name “LGD-4033,” which is the name previously used by Ligand to refer to VK5211, without authority from either us or Ligand, and we may experience other potential intellectual property infringement in the future. In addition, in December 2022, we filed suit against Ascletis Bioscience Co., Ltd., Gannex Pharma Co., Ltd., Ascletis Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Ascletis Pharma Inc., and Jinzi Jason Wu, or the Ascletis Defendants, in the Southern District of California, San Diego division, alleging, among other things: (1) violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act; (2) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) tortious interference with contract. In a related action, we also filed suit against the same Ascletis Defendants in the International Trade Commission, or the ITC, for unlawful and unfair methods of competition. On October 3, 2024, the ITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of his determination that the Ascletis Defendants misappropriated our trade secrets and engaged in discovery misconduct, warranting monetary and non-monetary sanctions. On May 29, 2025, the full ITC Commission affirmed the substantial majority of the ITC Chief Administrative Law Judge’s determinations in favor of us, including monetary and non-monetary sanctions. On September 26, 2025, the Ascletis Defendants filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the ITC Commission’s affirmance. That same day, we also filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging a narrow portion of the ITC Commission’s decision disagreeing with the determination of the ITC Chief Administrative Law Judge. Lawsuits to protect our intellectual property rights can be time consuming and costly. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biopharmaceutical industry generally. Such litigation or proceedings could increase our operating expenses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities.

Previous wording

Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and that may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application is typically entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings, including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

Current wording

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act included a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and that may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application is typically entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings, including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position.

Previous wording

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, in June 2023, a new unitary patent system was introduced, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of the system. Under the unitary patent system, after a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor can request unitary effect, thereby getting a European patent with unitary Effect, or a Unitary Patent. Each Unitary Patent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court, or the UPC. As the UPC is a new court system, there is no precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC may be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of the new unitary patent system.

Current wording

Similarly, changes in patent law and regulations in other countries or jurisdictions or changes in the governmental bodies that enforce them or changes in how the relevant governmental authority enforces patent laws or regulations may weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce patents that we have licensed or that we may obtain in the future. For example, the complexity and uncertainty of European patent laws have also increased in recent years. In Europe, in June 2023, a new unitary patent system was introduced, which will significantly impact European patents, including those granted before the introduction of the system. Under the unitary patent system, after a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor can request unitary effect, thereby getting a European patent with unitary Effect, or a Unitary Patent. Each Unitary Patent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitary Patent Court, or the UPC. As the UPC is a relatively new court system, there is little precedent for the court, increasing the uncertainty of any litigation. Patents granted before the implementation of the UPC will have the option of opting out of the jurisdiction of the UPC and remaining as national patents in the UPC countries. Patents that remain under the jurisdiction of the UPC may be potentially vulnerable to a single UPC-based revocation challenge that, if successful, could invalidate the patent in all countries who are signatories to the UPC. We cannot predict with certainty the long-term effects of the unitary patent system.

Previous wording

As of June 30, 2025, our executive officers, directors and 5% or greater stockholders beneficially owned 23.3% of our common stock. Therefore, our executive officers, directors and 5% or greater stockholders have the ability to influence us through this ownership position.

Current wording

As of September 30, 2025, our executive officers, directors and 5% or greater stockholders beneficially owned 22.2% of our common stock. Therefore, our executive officers, directors and 5% or greater stockholders have the ability to influence us through this ownership position.