Viking Therapeutics, Inc.

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may be party to lawsuits in the ordinary course of business. We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings, the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would individually or in the aggregate be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results or financial condition.

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. These legal proceedings arise at least in part from the misappropriation of our trade secrets.

On October 3, 2024, the ITC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a Notice of his determination in favor of Viking. The ruling states that Ascletis Defendants misappropriated our trade secrets while under a Confidential Disclosure Agreement and engaged in discovery misconduct, warranting monetary and non-monetary sanctions. On May 29, 2025, the full ITC affirmed the substantial majority of the ITC Chief Administrative Law Judge’s determinations in favor of Viking, 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’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’s decision disagreeing with the determination of the ITC Chief Administrative Law Judge. We plan to continue to vigorously pursue, as necessary, all of our legal remedies in these litigations, but there is no guarantee that we will be successful in these efforts.