ARS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Previous wording

We are highly dependent on the successful commercialization of neffy in the United States and in the EU for its currently approved indications in those jurisdictions. To the extent neffy is not commercially successful, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected, and the price of our common stock would likely decline.

Current wording

We are highly dependent on the successful commercialization of neffy. To the extent neffy and EURneffy are not commercially successful, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected, and the price of our common stock would likely decline.*

Previous wording

neffy is our only product that has been approved for sale and it has only been approved in the United States for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in patients who are four years of age and older and weigh 15 kg to less than 30 kg (in the case ofneffy 1 mg), and in adults and children who weigh 30 kg or greater (in the case ofneffy 2 mg), and in the EU (under the trade name EURneffy, and only in the 2 mg form) for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) due to insect stings or bites, foods, medicinal products and other allergens as well as idiopathic or exercise induced anaphylaxis, for adults and children with a body weight 30 kg or greater. We are focusing a significant portion of our activities and resources onneffy, and we believe our near-term revenues are highly dependent on, and a meaningful portion of the value of our company relates to, our ability to successfully commercialize neffy in the United States and the EU (under the trade name EURneffy). Successful commercialization ofneffyis subject to many risks. Prior toneffy, we have not, as an organization, commercialized any product, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so successfully with neffy. There are numerous examples of unsuccessful product launches and failures to meet high expectations of market potential, including by pharmaceutical companies with more experience and resources than we have. The commercial success ofneffy depends on the extent to which patients and physicians accept and adopt neffy as a treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and we do not know whether our or others’ estimates in this regard will be accurate. For example, if the population of patients who may suffer a Type I allergic reaction is smaller than we estimate or if physicians are unwilling to prescribe or patients are unwilling to useneffyfor any reason, the commercial potential ofneffy will be limited. It is too soon to tell how physicians, patients and payors will respond to the pricing ofneffy. Physicians may not prescribe neffyand patients may be unwilling to useneffy if coverage is not provided or reimbursement is inadequate to cover a significant portion of the cost. Additionally, any negative development forneffy in post-approval trials or potential additional indications, including urticaria, or in regulatory processes in other jurisdictions, may adversely impact the commercial results and potential ofneffy. Thus, significant uncertainty remains regarding the commercial potential ofneffy. If the commercialization ofneffy is unsuccessful or perceived as disappointing, our stock price could decline significantly and the long-term success of the product and our company could be harmed.

Current wording

neffy is our only product that has been approved for sale. Currently, neffy has been approved for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) in the United States, EU, United Kingdom, Japan and Australia (in the case ofneffy 2 mg and 1 mg), and China and Canada (in the case ofneffy 2 mg). We are focusing a significant portion of our activities and resources onneffy, and we believe our near-term revenues are highly dependent on, and a meaningful portion of the value of our company relates to, our ability to successfully commercialize neffy in the United States and abroad through our collaboration partners. Successful commercialization ofneffyis subject to many risks. Prior toneffy, we have not, as an organization, commercialized any product, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so successfully with neffy. There are numerous examples of unsuccessful product launches and failures to meet high expectations of market potential, including by pharmaceutical companies with more experience and resources than we have. The commercial success ofneffy depends on the extent to which patients and physicians accept and adopt neffy as a treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and we do not know whether our or others’ estimates in this regard will be accurate. For example, if the population of patients who may suffer a Type I allergic reaction is smaller than we estimate or if physicians are unwilling to prescribe or patients are unwilling to useneffyfor any reason, the commercial potential ofneffy will be limited. It is too soon to tell how physicians, patients and payors will respond to the pricing ofneffy. Physicians may not prescribe neffyand patients may be unwilling to useneffy if coverage is not provided or reimbursement is inadequate to cover a significant portion of the cost. Additionally, any negative development forneffy in post-approval trials or potential additional indications, including urticaria, or in regulatory processes in other jurisdictions, may adversely impact the commercial results and potential ofneffy. Thus, significant uncertainty remains regarding the commercial potential ofneffy. If the commercialization ofneffy is unsuccessful or perceived as disappointing, our stock price could decline significantly and the long-term success of the product and our company could be harmed.

Previous wording

We have entered into the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement with ALK U.S. for the co-promotion ofneffy to up to 9,000 specified pediatricians and other prescribers in the U.S. The commercial success ofneffyin the United States, will be influenced in part by the efforts and allocation of resources by ALK U.S. Currently, ALK U.S. has limited experience promoting neffy, and while we will continue to work with ALK U.S. to optimize their commercialization activities, we cannot guarantee that such efforts will be successful. We also depend on ALK U.S. to comply with all applicable laws relative to the promotion ofneffy. Because we do not control the individual efforts of ALK U.S., they may take actions or fail to take actions in a manner that is inconsistent with our interests. As a result, we may not realize the full potential benefits from the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, and such actions or inactions could result in more limited or reduced sales, reputational harm, or regulatory or other adverse legal implications, any of which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Current wording

We have entered into the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement with ALK U.S. for the co-promotion ofneffy to over 10,000 specified pediatricians and other prescribers in the U.S. The commercial success ofneffyin the United States, will be influenced in part by the efforts and allocation of resources by ALK U.S. Currently, ALK U.S. has limited experience promoting neffy, and while we will continue to work with ALK U.S. to optimize their commercialization activities, we cannot guarantee that such efforts will be successful. We also depend on ALK U.S. to comply with all applicable laws relative to the promotion ofneffy. Because we do not control the individual efforts of ALK U.S., they may take actions or fail to take actions in a manner that is inconsistent with our interests. As a result, we may not realize the full potential benefits from the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, and such actions or inactions could result in more limited or reduced sales, reputational harm, or regulatory or other adverse legal implications, any of which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Previous wording

We entered into exclusive licensing and collaboration agreements for the development and commercialization ofneffy with Alfresa Pharma Corporation in Japan; Pediatrix Therapeutics, Inc. in China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan; CSL Seqirus in Australia and New Zealand; and ALK in all other unpartnered geographies outside the United States. If these third parties do not effectively engage or maintain their sales force forneffy if approved in the applicable territories, our ability to recognize milestone payments and royalties from the sales in such territories will be adversely affected.

Current wording

We entered into exclusive licensing and collaboration agreements for the development and commercialization ofneffy with Alfresa Pharma Corporation in Japan; Pediatrix Therapeutics, Inc. in China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan; Seqirus in Australia and New Zealand; and ALK in all other unpartnered geographies outside the United States. If these third parties do not effectively engage or maintain their sales force forneffy if approved in the applicable territories, our ability to recognize milestone payments and royalties from the sales in such territories will be adversely affected.

Previous wording

Third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. The current environment is putting pressure on companies to price products below what they may feel is appropriate. Selling neffyat less than an optimized price could impact our revenues and overall success as a company. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement forneffymay differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use ofneffyto each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage will be obtained, or that payment levels will be adequate forneffyor any other products we may market. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained forneffy or more products for which we receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. In addition, physicians may limit how much or under what circumstances they will prescribe or administer neffy, or any other products we may market, and patients may decline to purchase them. This in turn could affect our ability to successfully commercialize neffy, or any other products we may market, and thereby adversely impact our profitability, results of operations, financial condition and future success.

Current wording

Third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven (7) years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize neffyand any product candidates for which we receive approval, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition. The current environment is putting pressure on companies to price products below what they may feel is appropriate. Selling neffyat less than an optimized price could impact our revenues and overall success as a company. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement forneffymay differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use ofneffyto each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage will be obtained, or that payment levels will be adequate forneffyor any other products we may market. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained forneffy or more products for which we receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. In addition, physicians may limit how much or under what circumstances they will prescribe or administer neffy, or any other products we may market, and patients may decline to purchase them. This in turn could affect our ability to successfully commercialize neffy, or any other products we may market, and thereby adversely impact our profitability, results of operations, financial condition and future success.

Previous wording

The clinical and commercial landscape for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions is highly competitive and subject to significant technological change. We face competition with respect to our current indications for our intranasal epinephrine technology, including neffy, and will face competition with respect to any future indications of our intranasal epinephrine technology or other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions. Based on the initially approved indications forneffy, we anticipate that neffy will compete primarily against epinephrine intra-muscular injectable products, for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions including EpiPen and its generics, which is marketed by Viatris, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Adrenaclick, which is marketed by Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Auvi-Q, which is marketed by Kaleo, Inc.; and Symjepi, which is marketed by Sandoz, Inc., a Novartis division. Several other companies are also clinically developing larger dose intranasal epinephrine product candidates that may compete with neffy, including Bryn Pharma, Nasus Pharma, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (previously INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.), Orexo AB and Belhaven BioPharma. Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a sublingual candidate based on a prodrug of epinephrine. If our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates are approved for other indications, they would also compete with a range of other therapeutic treatments that are well established such as antihistamines or in development.

Current wording

The clinical and commercial landscape for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions is highly competitive and subject to significant technological change. Existing products have name recognition, are marketed by companies with established commercial infrastructures, and are marketed with greater financial, technical and personnel resources than we have. We also face competition with respect to our current indications for our intranasal epinephrine technology, including neffy, and will face competition with respect to any future indications of our intranasal epinephrine technology or other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions. Based on the initially approved indications forneffy, we anticipate that neffy will compete primarily against epinephrine intra-muscular injectable products, for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions including EpiPen and its generics, which is marketed by Viatris, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Adrenaclick, which is marketed by Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Auvi-Q, which is marketed by Kaleo, Inc.; and Symjepi, which is marketed by Sandoz, Inc., a Novartis division. Several other companies are also clinically developing larger dose intranasal epinephrine product candidates that may compete with neffy, including Bryn Pharma, Nasus Pharma, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (previously INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.), Orexo AB and Belhaven BioPharma. Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a sublingual candidate based on a prodrug of epinephrine (Anaphylm), but received a Complete Response Letter in January 2026 regarding its new drug application for Anaphylm due to concerns with their application. If our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates are approved for other indications, they would also compete with a range of other therapeutic treatments that are well established such as antihistamines or in development.

Previous wording

In the United States, once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “reference listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or the Orange Book. The FDA may not finally approve an ANDA for a generic product or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA of a competitor until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity and patent exclusivity for the reference listed drug in the Orange Book has expired. We have not received U.S. non-patent marketing exclusivity forneffy, which was approved by the FDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. We have 8 patents with claims covering neffy listed in the Orange Book. Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version ofneffyor an NDA submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy must make one of the following certifications to the FDA concerning the patents listed in the Orange Book forneffy: (a) the patents that are listed have expired; (b) the date on which such patents will expire; or (c) such patents are invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic equivalent version ofneffyor the drug product submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to us for each patent to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. Following receipt of a paragraph IV notice, we may bring a lawsuit for patent infringement against the paragraph IV filer, and we may be entitled to a statutory 30-month stay of approval of the proposed product of the paragraph IV filer. We received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Lupin in August 2025, providing notification to us that Lupin submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version ofneffy 2 mg. See Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for additional discussion. In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration, and adequate labeling as the reference listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, meaning, in part, that it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Moreover, third-party insurers require, and many states allow or require, substitution of therapeutically equivalent generic drugs at the pharmacy level even if the branded drug is prescribed. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug …

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

In the United States, once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “reference listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or the Orange Book. The FDA may not finally approve an ANDA for a generic product or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA of a competitor until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity and patent exclusivity for the reference listed drug in the Orange Book has expired. We have not received U.S. non-patent marketing exclusivity forneffy, which was approved by the FDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. We have 8 patents with claims covering neffy listed in the Orange Book. Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version ofneffyor an NDA submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy must make one of the following certifications to the FDA concerning the patents listed in the Orange Book forneffy: (a) the patents that are listed have expired; (b) the date on which such patents will expire; or (c) such patents are invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic equivalent version ofneffyor the drug product submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to us for each patent to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. Following receipt of a paragraph IV notice, we may bring a lawsuit for patent infringement against the paragraph IV filer, and we may be entitled to a statutory 30-month stay of approval of the proposed product of the paragraph IV filer. We received paragraph IV certification notice letters from Lupin in August 2025 and February 2026, providing notification to us that Lupin submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version ofneffy 2 mg and 1 mg, respectively. In August 2025 and in February 2026, we separately filed lawsuits against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of certain of our patents and seeking a permanent injunction preventing market entry of a generic product from Lupin prior to the expiry of such patents. We also received a paragraph IV certification notice letter from Cipla in March 2026, providing notification to us that Cipla submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version ofneffy 1 mg and 2 mg. In April 2026, we filed a lawsuit against Cipla in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of certain of our patents and seeking a permanent injunction preventing market entry of a generic product from Cipla prior to the expiry of such patents. See Note 9 – Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for additional discussion. There is no guarantee that we wi…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Upon receiving a marketing authorization in the EU from the European Commission, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Comparable regimes to those in the US and EU exist in some other major markets, including the United Kingdom.

Current wording

Upon receiving a marketing authorization in the EU from the European Commission, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Comparable regimes to those in the U.S. and EU exist in some other major markets, including the United Kingdom.

Previous wording

Even though we have obtained regulatory approval ofneffyin the United States and the EU, there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain these regulatory approvals or obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. A failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even though the FDA and European Commission have granted marketing approval ofneffy, comparable regulatory authorities in other foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion ofneffy before it can be marketed in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States or the EU including additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States including certain jurisdictions in the EU, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Current wording

Even though we have obtained regulatory approval ofneffyin the United States, the EU, and other foreign jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United Kingdom, China, Japan, Australia, and Canada, there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain these regulatory approvals or obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. A failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even though the FDA and European Commission have granted marketing approval ofneffy, comparable regulatory authorities in other foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion ofneffy before it can be marketed in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States or the EU including additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States including certain jurisdictions in the EU, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

Previous wording

we may not reach an agreement on acceptable terms with prospective contract research organizations (“CROs”) and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

Current wording

we may not reach an agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;

Previous wording

Although neffyis approved in the United States for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in patients who are four years of age and older and weigh 15 kg to less than 30 kg (in the case ofneffy 1 mg), and in adults and children who weigh 30 kg or greater (in the case ofneffy 2 mg), and in the EU (under the trade name EURneffy, and only in the 2 mg form) for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) due to insect stings or bites, foods, medicinal products and other allergens as well as idiopathic or exercise induced anaphylaxis, for adults and children with a body weight 30 kg or greater, as part of our longer-term growth strategy, we are evaluating and plan to continue to evaluate our intranasal epinephrine technology, including neffy, for use in other potential indications. We may evaluate opportunities to in-license or acquire other development programs, product candidates, as well as commercial products, including for the treatment of other indications like Type I allergic reactions. Other than our intranasal epinephrine technology, we do not currently have any other programs in development. Our development of our intranasal epinephrine technology for other indications remains at an early clinical development stage and will require significant further investment and regulatory approvals prior to commercialization in such indications. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we are focused on specific indications for our intranasal epinephrine technology. As a result, we may fail to generate additional clinical development opportunities for our intranasal epinephrine technology for a number of reasons, including, that our intranasal epinephrine technology may in certain indications, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects, limited to no efficacy or other characteristics that suggest it is unlikely to receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance in such additional indications. In addition, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other indications that could have had greater commercial potential or likelihood of success. We may not be able to develop our intranasal epinephrine technology for any additional indications based on resource allocation decisions and other reasons. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development activities for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

Current wording

Although neffyis approved for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) in the United States, EU, United Kingdom, Japan and Australia (in the case ofneffy 2 mg and 1 mg), and China and Canada (in the case ofneffy 2 mg), as part of our longer-term growth strategy, we are evaluating and plan to continue to evaluate our intranasal epinephrine technology, including neffy, for use in other potential indications. We may evaluate opportunities to in-license or acquire other development programs, product candidates, as well as commercial products, including for the treatment of other indications like Type I allergic reactions. Other than our intranasal epinephrine technology, we do not currently have any other programs in development. Our development of our intranasal epinephrine technology for other indications remains at an early clinical development stage and will require significant further investment and regulatory approvals prior to commercialization in such indications. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we are focused on specific indications for our intranasal epinephrine technology. As a result, we may fail to generate additional clinical development opportunities for our intranasal epinephrine technology for a number of reasons, including, that our intranasal epinephrine technology may in certain indications, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects, limited to no efficacy or other characteristics that suggest it is unlikely to receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance in such additional indications. In addition, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other indications that could have had greater commercial potential or likelihood of success. We may not be able to develop our intranasal epinephrine technology for any additional indications based on resource allocation decisions and other reasons. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development activities for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products.

Previous wording

In addition, our reliance on third-party service providers could introduce new cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, including supply-chain attacks, and other threats to our business operations. We rely on third-party service providers and technologies to operate critical business systems to process sensitive data in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, cloud-based infrastructure, data center facilities, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, content delivery to customers, and other functions. We also rely on our licensing and collaboration partners, our CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors and other contractors and consultants to utilize information technology systems and networks to process, transmit and store electronic information in connection with our business activities, including in connection with our clinical trials.

Current wording

In addition, our reliance on third-party service providers could introduce new or heightened cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities, including supply-chain attacks, and other threats to our business operations. We rely on third-party service providers and technologies to operate critical business systems to process sensitive data in a variety of contexts, including, without limitation, cloud-based infrastructure, data center facilities, encryption and authentication technology, employee email, content delivery to customers, and other functions. We also rely on our licensing and collaboration partners, our CROs, third-party logistics providers, distributors and other contractors and consultants to utilize information technology systems and networks to process, transmit and store electronic information in connection with our business activities, including in connection with our clinical trials.

Previous wording

Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If our third-party service providers experience a security incident or other interruption, we could, and in certain cases have, experienced adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if our third-party service providers fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. In addition, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or that of the third parties with whom we work have not been compromised.

Current wording

Our ability to monitor these third parties’ information security practices is limited, and these third parties may not have adequate information security measures in place. If the third-parties with whom we work experience a security incident or other interruption, we could, and in certain cases have, experienced adverse consequences. While we may be entitled to damages if the third-parties with whom we work fail to satisfy their privacy or security-related obligations to us, any award may be insufficient to cover our damages, or we may be unable to recover such award. In addition, supply-chain attacks have increased in frequency and severity, and we cannot guarantee that third parties’ infrastructure in our supply chain or that of the third parties with whom we work have not been compromised.

Previous wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have one product approved for commercial sale and have generated only limited revenue from product sales to date, and we will continue to incur significant expenses related to our commercialization activities, clinical development and ongoing operations. As a result, we have incurred significant losses in most periods since our inception. Since our inception, we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, performing research and development activities, pre-commercialization activities, the commercial launch ofneffyand providing general and administrative support for these operations. Our financial condition and operating results, including net losses, may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance. Additionally, net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Our net income was $8.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2024 and our net loss was $54.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. Our net loss was $130.0 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2025. As of September 30, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of $253.3 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

Current wording

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have one product approved for commercial sale and remain in the early stages of our commercialization efforts, and we will continue to incur significant expenses related to our commercialization activities, clinical development and ongoing operations. As a result, we have incurred significant losses in most periods since our inception. Since our inception, we have devoted substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, performing research and development activities, pre-commercialization activities, the commercial launch ofneffyand providing general and administrative support for these operations. Our financial condition and operating results, including net losses, may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year. Accordingly, you should not rely upon the results of any quarterly or annual periods as indications of future operating performance. Additionally, net losses and negative cash flows have had, and will continue to have, an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. Our net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2026 was $60.6 million. As of March 31, 2026, we had an accumulated deficit of $355.2 million. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

Previous wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, on July 4, 2025, the annual reconciliation bill, the OBBBA, was signed into law which is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. OBBBA also narrows access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declines to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits, set to expire at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. Additional changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to two percent per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken.

Current wording

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, additional changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to two percent per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken.

Previous wording

Recently there has also been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Presidential executive orders, congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. At the federal level, the IRA, among other things, (i) directs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) to negotiate the price of certain high-expenditure, single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least 7 years covered under Medicare (the “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program”), and subject drug manufacturers to civil monetary penalties and a potential excise tax by offering a price that is not equal to or less than the negotiated “maximum fair price” for such drugs under the law, and (ii) imposes rebates with respect to certain drugs covered under Medicare Part B or Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation. The IRA permits HHS to implement many of these provisions through guidance, as opposed to regulation, for the initial years. HHS has and will continue to issue and update guidance as these programs as implemented. These provisions took effect progressively starting in fiscal year 2023. On August 15, 2024, HHS announced the price of the first ten drugs that were subject to price negotiations, although the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is currently subject to legal challenges. On January 17, 2025, HHS selected fifteen additional products covered under Part D for price negotiation in 2025. 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 uncertain if that will continue under the new framework.

Current wording

Recently there has also been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Presidential executive orders, congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products.

Previous wording

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. These actions include, for example: (1) directives to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) rescinding a Biden administration executive order tasking the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to consider new payment and healthcare models to limit drug spending; (3) eliminating the Biden administration’s executive order that directed HHS to establishing an AI task force and developing a strategic plan; (4) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing “Most-Favored-Nation” pricing for pharmaceutical products; (5) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical product; (6) directing certain federal agencies to enforce existing law regarding hospital and price plan transparency and by standardizing prices across hospitals and health plans; and (7) as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. If implemented, a “Most-Favored-Nation” pricing policy that is determined to apply to us andneffy based on a reference to the lowest ex-U.S. list price for our intranasal epinephrine product could significantly reduce the U.S. list price forneffyand likewise reduce our annual market opportunity forneffy in the United States. Additionally, in its June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the longstanding Chevron doctrine, under which courts were required to give deference to regulatory agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. The Loper Bright decision could result in additional legal challenges to current regulations and guidance issued by federal agencies applicable to our operations, including those issued by the FDA. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could, among others, impact the drug approval process, modify the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, expand the orphan drug exclusion in the IRA, and reduce Medicaid enrollment and funding.

Current wording

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government including at HHS, the FDA, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored-Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions include, for example: (1) directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing “Most-Favored-Nation” pricing for pharmaceutical products; (3) imposing tariffs on certain imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s recent Strategy Report, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. If implemented, a “Most-Favored-Nation” pricing policy that is determined to apply to us and neffy based on a reference to the lowest ex-U.S. list price for our intranasal epinephrine product could significantly reduce the U.S. list price for neffy and likewise reduce our annual market opportunity for neffy in the United States. In June 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could increase successful legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass healthcare related legislation that could, among others, impact the drug approval process, modify the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, expand orphan drug exclusions, and reduce Medicaid enrollment and funding.

Previous wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. As an example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the clinical trial approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresaw a three-year transition period which ended on January 31, 2025. Since this date, all new or ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans.

Current wording

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. As an example, the regulatory landscape related to clinical trials in the EU has evolved. The EU Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”), which was adopted in April 2014 and repeals the EU Clinical Trials Directive, became applicable on January 31, 2022. The CTR allows sponsors to make a single submission to both the competent authority and an ethics committee in each EU Member State, leading to a single decision for each EU Member State. The assessment procedure for the authorization of clinical trials has been harmonized as well, including a joint assessment by all EU Member States concerned, and a separate assessment by each EU Member State with respect to specific requirements related to its own territory, including ethics rules. Each EU Member State’s decision is communicated to the sponsor via the centralized EU portal. Once the clinical trial is approved, clinical study development may proceed. The CTR foresaw a three-year transition period which ended on January 31, 2025. Since this date, all new or ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR Compliance with the CTR requirements by us and our third-party service providers, such as CROs, may impact our developments plans.

Previous wording

These laws and the regulations and policies implementing them, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, particularly in light of any U.S. presidential and Congressional election, may have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize neffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates.

Current wording

These laws and the regulations and policies implementing them, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and on our ability to successfully develop and commercialize neffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates.

Previous wording

Healthcare professionals and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription ofneffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with customers, healthcare professionals and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct research, market, sell and distribute neffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following, among others:

Current wording

Healthcare professionals and third-party payors play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of products for which receive marketing approval, including neffy, and will play a similar role for any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval in the future. Our current and future arrangements with customers, healthcare professionals and third-party payors may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct research, market, sell and distribute neffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval. Restrictions under applicable federal and state healthcare laws and regulations include the following, among others:

Previous wording

the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations, which impose obligations on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective “business associates” and their covered subcontractors that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

Current wording

the HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”), and their respective implementing regulations, which impose obligations on “covered entities,” including certain healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses, as well as their respective “business associates” and their covered subcontractors that create, receive, maintain or transmit individually identifiable health information for or on behalf of a covered entity, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information;

Previous wording

analogous state and foreign laws and regulations of each of the laws described above, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; laws that require biotechnology companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; laws that require biotechnology companies to report information on the pricing of certain drug products; and laws require the registration or pharmaceutical sales representatives. For example, in the EU, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct both at EU level and in the individual EU Member States.

Current wording

analogous state and foreign laws and regulations of each of the laws described above, such as anti-kickback and false claims laws, that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require certain regulatory licenses to manufacture or distribute products commercially and/or the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives in the jurisdiction; laws that require biotechnology companies to comply with the industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the government and may require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; and laws that require biotechnology companies to report information on the pricing of certain drug products. For example, in the EU, interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations are also governed by strict laws, regulations, industry self-regulation codes of conduct and physicians’ codes of professional conduct both at EU level and in the individual EU Member States.

Previous wording

Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide any product that receives regulatory approval. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), applies to personal information of consumers, business representatives, and employees, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of California residents to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for civil penalties and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although the CCPA exempts some data processed in the context of clinical trials, the CCPA increases compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal data we maintain about California residents. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future.

Current wording

Numerous U.S. states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws that impose certain obligations on covered businesses, including providing specific disclosures in privacy notices and affording residents with certain rights concerning their personal data. As applicable, such rights may include the right to access, correct, or delete certain personal data, and to opt-out of certain data processing activities, such as targeted advertising, profiling, and automated decision-making. The exercise of these rights may impact our business and ability to provide any product that receives regulatory approval. Certain states also impose stricter requirements for processing certain personal data, including sensitive information, such as conducting data privacy impact assessments. These state laws allow for statutory fines for noncompliance. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) applies to personal information of consumers, business representatives, and employees who are California residents, and requires businesses to provide specific disclosures in privacy notices and honor requests of such individuals to exercise certain privacy rights. The CCPA provides for fines and allows private litigants affected by certain data breaches to recover significant statutory damages. Although the CCPA and other comprehensive U.S. state privacy laws exempt some data processed in the context of clinical trials, these developments may further complicate compliance efforts and increase compliance costs and potential liability for us and the third parties with whom we work. Similar laws are being considered in several other states, as well as at the federal and local levels, and we expect more states to pass similar laws in the future.

Previous wording

In addition, we may be unable to transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries due to data localization requirements or limitations on cross-border data flows. Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt similarly stringent interpretations of their data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA and UK’s standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers for relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activities groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involving countries of concern (e.g., China, Russia, Iran) and covered individuals (i.e., individuals and entities located in or controlled by individuals or entities located in those jurisdictions) that may impact certain business activities such as vendor engagements, sale o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

In the ordinary course of business, we transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries. However, evolving privacy and security laws and regulations may impact our ability to transfer personal data from Europe and other jurisdictions to the United States or other countries, or may require us to take additional actions in order to continue or resume such cross-border data flows (such as implementing new processes or additional safeguards). Europe and other jurisdictions have enacted laws requiring data to be localized or limiting the transfer of personal data to other countries. In particular, the EEA and the UK have significantly restricted the transfer of personal data to the United States and other countries whose privacy laws it believes are inadequate. Other jurisdictions may adopt or have already adopted similarly stringent data localization and cross-border data transfer laws. Although there are currently various mechanisms that may be used to transfer personal data from the EEA and UK to the United States in compliance with law, such as the EEA standard contractual clauses, the UK’s International Data Transfer Agreement / Addendum, and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework and the UK extension thereto (which allows for transfers for relevant U.S.-based organizations who self-certify compliance and participate in the Framework), these mechanisms are subject to legal challenges, and there is no assurance that we can satisfy or rely on these measures to lawfully transfer personal data to the United States. If there is no lawful manner for us to transfer personal data from the EEA, the UK, or other jurisdictions to the United States, or if the requirements for a legally-compliant transfer are too onerous, we could face significant adverse consequences, including the interruption or degradation of our operations, the need to relocate part of or all of our business or data processing activities to other jurisdictions at significant expense, increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and penalties, the inability to transfer data and work with partners, vendors and other third parties, and injunctions against our processing or transferring of personal data necessary to operate our business. Additionally, companies that transfer personal data out of the EEA and UK to other jurisdictions, particularly to the United States, are subject to increased scrutiny from regulators, individual litigants, and activities groups. Some European regulators have ordered certain companies to suspend or permanently cease certain transfers of personal data out of Europe for allegedly violating the GDPR’s cross-border data transfer limitations. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a rule entitled the Preventing Access to U.S. Sensitive Personal Data and Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern or Covered Persons, which places additional restriction on certain data transactions involvi…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Further, our personnel, and those of any third parties involved in our operations, including vendors, service providers, collaborators, contractors, and consultants, may develop and use artificial intelligence technologies in the course of performing work for us, including generative artificial intelligence technologies (“GenAI”) that have the ability to output new content and information based on user inputs. GenAI has the potential to benefit our business and operations, including by potentially creating efficiencies and enabling powerful research and development that may otherwise not be possible, and we may be at a competitive disadvantage if we do not or are unable to use GenAI, or only use it for limited purposes. However, use of GenAI in connection with our confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information, including personal data, may result in leaks, disclosure, or otherwise unauthorized or unintended access to or use or other processing of such information, including incorporation of such information into the applicable GenAI system or use of such information to further refine and train the GenAI models. Any such access or use, or any improper or inappropriate use, of GenAI could, for example, reveal trade secrets or other confidential information that may enable third parties to replicate or improve upon our technologies and programs, advance their technologies or programs more rapidly than we do, or otherwise negatively impact the value of, or our ability to obtain or maintain, intellectual property rights. Access to and use and other processing of personal data may subject us to risks and potential liability and obligations under applicable data privacy laws. Further, we may use the output of GenAI in our technologies, programs, and other aspects of our business, and such output could incorporate third-party intellectual property, or we may otherwise be unable to own, protect, further develop, or ultimately use such output, which could significantly harm our business to the extent such technologies, programs, or other aspects of our business rely upon such output. Such output may also be false, non-sensical, biased, or otherwise harmful to our operations and business if incorporated therein. Further, our ability to use GenAI or further develop or use its output may depend on access to specific third-party software and infrastructure, such as processing hardware or third-party artificial intelligence models, and we cannot control the availability or pricing of such software and infrastructure, especially in a highly competitive environment. We may also face novel and urgent cybersecurity risks and emerging ethical risks relating to the use of GenAI, which could adversely affect our operations, assets, including intellectual property and data, and reputation, as well as those of any third parties involved in our operations. Use of artificial intelligence technologies in general, and GenAI in particular, in our business coul…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

However, use of AI technologies in connection with our confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information, including personal data, may result in leaks, disclosure, or otherwise unauthorized or unintended access to or use or other processing of such information, including incorporation of such information into the applicable AI technology system or use of such information to further refine and train the AI technology models. Any such access or use, or any improper or inappropriate use, of AI technologies could, for example, reveal trade secrets or other confidential information that may enable third parties to replicate or improve upon our technologies and programs, advance their technologies or programs more rapidly than we do, or otherwise negatively impact the value of, or our ability to obtain or maintain, intellectual property rights. Access to and use and other processing of personal data may subject us to risks and potential liability and obligations under applicable data privacy laws. Further, we may use the output of AI technologies in our technologies, programs, and other aspects of our business, and such output could incorporate third-party intellectual property, or we may otherwise be unable to own, protect, further develop, or ultimately use such output, which could significantly harm our business to the extent such technologies, programs, or other aspects of our business rely upon such output. Such output may also be false, non-sensical, biased, or otherwise harmful to our operations and business if incorporated therein. Further, our ability to use AI technologies or further develop or use its output may depend on access to specific third-party software and infrastructure, such as processing hardware or third-party artificial intelligence models, and we cannot control the availability or pricing of such software and infrastructure, especially in a highly competitive environment. We may also face novel and urgent cybersecurity risks and emerging ethical risks relating to the use of AI technologies, which could adversely affect our operations, assets, including intellectual property and data, and reputation, as well as those of any third parties involved in our operations. Use of AI technologies in general, and generative AI in particular, in our business could subject us to additional costs and expenses, litigation, regulatory actions and investigations, and other negative consequences. There is significant uncertainty with respect to the nature of the laws and regulations that have been and may in the future be adopted, including how such laws and regulations will be interpreted and applied, both within and outside of the U.S., with respect to the use of AI technologies in general, and generative AI in particular, including the ownership of or right to use the output of generative AI. We may need to expend significant resources to modify and maintain our business practices to comply with such laws and regulations and to o…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Obligations related to data privacy and security are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources, which may necessitate changes to our services, information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal or sensitive data on our behalf. In addition, these obligations may require us to change elements of our business model. We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties with whom we work may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or the third parties with whom we work fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations.

Current wording

Obligations related to data privacy and security (and consumers’ data privacy expectations) are quickly changing, becoming increasingly stringent, and creating uncertainty. Additionally, these obligations may be subject to differing applications and interpretations, which may be inconsistent or conflict among jurisdictions. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources, which may necessitate changes to our services, information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal or sensitive data on our behalf. In addition, these obligations may require us to change elements of our business model. We may at times fail (or be perceived to have failed) in our efforts to comply with our data privacy and security obligations. Moreover, despite our efforts, our personnel or third parties with whom we work may fail to comply with such obligations, which could negatively impact our business operations. If we or the third parties with whom we work fail, or are perceived to have failed, to address or comply with applicable data privacy and security obligations, we could face significant consequences, including but not limited to: government enforcement actions (e.g., investigations, fines, penalties, audits, inspections, and similar); litigation (including class-action claims) and mass arbitration demands; additional reporting requirements and/or oversight; bans or restrictions on processing personal data; orders to destroy or not use personal data; and imprisonment of company officials. In particular, plaintiffs have become increasingly more active in bringing privacy-related claims against companies, including class claims and mass arbitration demands. Some of these claims allow for the recovery of statutory damages on a per violation basis, and, if viable, carry the potential for monumental statutory damages, depending on the volume of data and the number of violations.

Previous wording

In particular, we rely on third parties for the supply of our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates unit dose nasal spray devices and glass microvials. We have entered into a manufacturing agreement with Renaissance Lakewood, LLC (“Renaissance”), which has been actively involved in supporting the manufacture of our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates in our clinical development, and we will continue to rely on Renaissance as the primary source for drug product manufacturing and final packaging. We have also entered into a supply agreement with Nuova Ompi S.r.l. (“Ompi”) pursuant to which Ompi has agreed to supply glass microvials to support the Company’s manufacture and commercialization ofneffy. We will rely on Ompi as the primary source of glass microvials. Unless and until we can secure alternative sources for microvials, drug product manufacturing and final packaging, our dependence on Renaissance and Ompi will subject us to the possible risks of shortages, interruptions, and price fluctuations.

Current wording

In particular, we rely on third parties for the supply of our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates unit dose nasal spray devices and glass microvials. We have entered into a manufacturing agreement with Renaissance Lakewood, LLC (“Renaissance”), which has been actively involved in supporting the manufacture of our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates in our clinical development, and we will continue to rely on Renaissance as the primary source for drug product manufacturing and final packaging. Unless and until we can secure alternative sources, drug product manufacturing and final packaging, our dependence on Renaissance will subject us to the possible risks of shortages, interruptions, and price fluctuations.

Previous wording

The failure of our licensing and collaboration partners to devote sufficient time and effort to the development and commercialization ofneffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates; to meet their obligations to us, including for future royalty and milestone payments; to adequately deploy business continuity plans in the event of a crisis; to adequately respond to the adverse impact of military action, sanctions and market disruptions; and/or to satisfactorily resolve significant disagreements with us or address other factors could have an adverse impact on our financial results and operations. In addition, if these third parties violate, or are alleged to have violated, any laws or regulations during the performance of their obligations for us, including with respect to safety, patient and data privacy, antitrust, and bribery and corruption, it is possible that we could suffer financial and reputational harm or other negative outcomes, including possible legal consequences and liabilities. We may not be successful in enforcing the terms and conditions of our licensing and collaboration agreements in court or via agreed upon dispute resolution mechanisms, and even if we were to prevail in any such dispute, the remedies may not be adequate to compensate us for the losses. Any termination, breach or expiration of any of these licensing or collaboration agreements could have a material adverse effect on our financial position by reducing or eliminating the potential for us to receive license fees, milestones and royalties. In such an event, we may be required to devote additional efforts and to incur additional costs associated with pursuing regulatory approval and commercialization ofneffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates. Alternatively, we may attempt to identify and transact with a new assignee or licensee, but there can be no assurance that we would be able to identify a suitable partner or transact on terms that are favorable to us. For example, in February 2023, we terminated the Recordati License and Supply Agreement, which eliminated the potential for us to receive milestone and royalty payments from Recordati under the Recordati License and Supply Agreement. Although we found a partner for the regions previously licensed to Recordati, under the Recordati Termination Agreement, we are obligated to pay certain milestone and royalty payments to Recordati.

Current wording

The failure of our licensing and collaboration partners to devote sufficient time and effort to the development and commercialization ofneffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates; to meet their obligations to us, including for future royalty and milestone payments; to adequately deploy business continuity plans in the event of a crisis; to adequately respond to the adverse impact of military action, sanctions and market disruptions; and/or to satisfactorily resolve significant disagreements with us or address other factors could have an adverse impact on our financial results and operations. In addition, if these third parties violate, or are alleged to have violated, any laws or regulations during the performance of their obligations for us, including with respect to safety, patient and data privacy, antitrust, and bribery and corruption, it is possible that we could suffer financial and reputational harm or other negative outcomes, including possible legal consequences and liabilities. We may not be successful in enforcing the terms and conditions of our licensing and collaboration agreements in court or via agreed upon dispute resolution mechanisms, and even if we were to prevail in any such dispute, the remedies may not be adequate to compensate us for the losses. Any termination, breach or expiration of some of these licensing or collaboration agreements could have a material adverse effect on our financial position by reducing or eliminating the potential for us to receive license fees, milestones and royalties. In such an event, we may be required to devote additional efforts and to incur additional costs associated with pursuing regulatory approval and commercialization ofneffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates. Alternatively, we may attempt to identify and transact with a new assignee or licensee, but there can be no assurance that we would be able to identify a suitable partner or transact on terms that are favorable to us.

Previous wording

There is no guarantee that any of our CROs, investigators or other third parties will devote adequate time and resources to such trials or studies or perform as contractually required. If any of these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, adhere to our clinical protocols or meet regulatory requirements, or otherwise performs in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated. In addition, many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other development activities that could harm our competitive position. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials are expected to serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the study, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection by the FDA of any NDA we submit or of comparable applicable submitted to foreign regulatory authorities. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing neffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates for potential additional indications, including urticaria.

Current wording

There is no guarantee that any of our CROs, investigators or other third parties will devote adequate time and resources to such trials or studies or perform as contractually required. If any of these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, adhere to our clinical protocols or meet regulatory requirements, or otherwise perform in a substandard manner, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated. In addition, many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other development activities that could harm our competitive position. In addition, principal investigators for our clinical trials are expected to serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the study, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection by the FDA of any NDA we submit or of comparable applicable submitted to foreign regulatory authorities. Any such delay or rejection could prevent us from commercializing neffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates for potential additional indications, including urticaria.

Previous wording

Patents are of national or regional effect. Although as of July 11, 2025 we co-own or exclusively license eight issued U.S. patents, granted patents in each of Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and over thirty member states of the European Patent Organization, including the United Kingdom, directed toneffyand its uses, among other things, four pending U.S. patent applications, one pending international patent application and fifteen pending foreign patent applications directed toneffyand its uses, among other things, filing, prosecuting and defending patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These competitor products may compete with our product, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Current wording

Patents are of national or regional effect. Although as of March 31, 2026 we own, co-own or exclusively license eight issued U.S. patents, granted patents in each of Australia, Canada, China, the Eurasian Patent Organization, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and over thirty member states of the European Patent Organization, including the United Kingdom, directed toneffyand its uses, among other things, four pending U.S. patent applications, one pending international patent application and fifteen pending foreign patent applications directed toneffyand its uses, among other things, and a pending U.S. provisional patent application directed to intranasal epinephrine formulations and methods of their use, among other things, filing, prosecuting and defending patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. Increased patent-related fees from the USPTO and patent offices in foreign countries may significantly increase our operating costs and limit our ability to protect our intellectual property. These increased costs may require us to be more selective in the inventions we choose to patent or the jurisdictions in which we seek protection. If we are unable to adequately fund our patent prosecution and maintenance, or if the costs of defending our patents against third-party challenges become prohibitive, our competitive position could be weakened. Furthermore, these fee structures may incentivize our competitors to adopt more aggressive litigation strategies, potentially increasing our legal expenses and the risk of being unable to exclude others from using our proprietary technology. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These competitor products may compete with our product, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Previous wording

Further, geo-political actions in the United States and in foreign countries (such as, the Russia and Ukraine conflict and the conflict in the Middle East, including U.S. involvement therein; retaliatory measures by foreign countries in response to actions by the U.S., in particular, tariffs) could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications or those of any current or future licensors and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents or those of any current or future licensors. Many foreign countries could impose retaliatory measures that may adversely impact our intellectual property rights in those countries. For example, on March 14, 2025, Brazil enacted Law No. 15.122/2025 (known as the “Economic Reciprocity Law”), which provides a framework that allows for the suspension of obligations related to foreign entity’s intellectual property rights. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Current wording

Further, geo-political actions in the United States and in foreign countries could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution or maintenance of our patent applications or those of any current or future licensors and the maintenance, enforcement or defense of our issued patents or those of any current or future licensors. Many foreign countries could impose retaliatory measures that may adversely impact our intellectual property rights in those countries. For example, Brazil enacted Law No. 15.122/2025 (known as the “Economic Reciprocity Law”), which provides a framework that allows for the suspension of obligations related to foreign entity’s intellectual property rights. Accordingly, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

Previous wording

The patents we currently co-own or exclusively license forneffyand our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates are expected to expire as early as 2038, absent any patent term adjustments. The API inneffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates is epinephrine, a generic API that is used in FDA-approved intra-muscular injectables. Since neffy was approved by the FDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, our U.S. patents forneffyare not eligible for patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. While we are planning to seek additional patent coverage forneffy, there can be no assurances that such additional patent protection will be granted, or if granted, that these patents will not be infringed upon or otherwise held enforceable. Even if we are successful in obtaining a patent, patents have a limited lifespan. Without patent protection, we may be open to competition from generic versions ofneffy.

Current wording

The patents we currently own, co-own or exclusively license forneffyand our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates are expected to expire as early as 2038, absent any patent term adjustments. The API inneffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates is epinephrine, a generic API that is used in FDA-approved intra-muscular injectables. Since neffy was approved by the FDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, our U.S. patents forneffyare not eligible for patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. While we are planning to seek additional patent coverage forneffy, there can be no assurances that such additional patent protection will be granted, or if granted, that these patents will not be infringed upon or otherwise held enforceable. Even if we are successful in obtaining a patent, patents have a limited lifespan. Without patent protection, we may be open to competition from generic versions ofneffy.

Previous wording

We co-own or exclusively license patent applications in our portfolio relating toneffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates that are pending at the patent offices in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other foreign jurisdictions, however, we cannot predict:

Current wording

We own, co-own or exclusively license patent applications in our portfolio relating toneffyand our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates that are pending at the patent offices in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other foreign jurisdictions, however, we cannot predict:

Previous wording

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the pharmaceutical industry, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect toneffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. The pharmaceutical industry has produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that neffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, or of use either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity of third-party patents may be difficult and uncertain. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in defending our rights in these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

Current wording

There is a substantial amount of intellectual property litigation in the pharmaceutical industry, and we may become party to, or threatened with, litigation or other adversarial proceedings regarding intellectual property rights with respect toneffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing or future intellectual property rights. The pharmaceutical industry has produced a significant number of patents, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that neffyor our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, or of use either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving invalidity of third-party patents may be difficult and uncertain. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace. For example, recent shifts in USPTO policy and increased discretionary denials may restrict our ability to challenge third-party patents, potentially increasing our litigation costs and risk of infringement liability. Our ability to useinter partes review (IPR) and other post-grant proceedings to challenge the validity of third-party patents is subject to evolving procedural rules and increased administrative discretion. If we are unable to use the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate questionable patents, we may face increased litigation expenses in slower and more costly district court venues. These policy shifts could result in our inability to invalidate patents asserted against us by third parties, our infringement liability, our increased legal expenses, the need to pay significant licensing fees by us, being enjoined from selling certain our products and could adversely affect our product development timelines, market share, and overall financial condition. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in defending our rights in these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

Previous wording

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property that relate to our research programs and product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent that we own or have licensed is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of our patents is upheld, the court will construe the claims of our patents narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention at issue. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks and pay for damages.

Current wording

Competitors may infringe our patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property that relate to our research programs and product candidates, their respective methods of use, manufacture and formulations thereof. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming and divert the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents, in addition to counterclaims asserting that our patents are invalid or unenforceable, or both. In any patent infringement proceeding, there is a risk that a court will decide that a patent that we own, co-own or have exclusively licensed is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue. There is also a risk that, even if the validity of our patents is upheld, the court will construe the claims of our patents narrowly or decide that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the invention at issue on the grounds that our patent claims do not cover the invention at issue. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our patents could limit our ability to assert our patents against those parties or other competitors, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. Similarly, if we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are unenforceable, or that the party against whom we have asserted trademark infringement has superior rights to the marks in question. In this case, we could ultimately be forced to cease use of such trademarks and pay for damages.

Previous wording

neffy or our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates may face competition from generic inhalable epinephrine products sooner than expected, and our patents may be challenged.*

Current wording

neffy or our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates may face competition from generic intranasal epinephrine products sooner than expected, and our patents may be challenged.*

Previous wording

We have not received U.S. non-patent marketing exclusivity forneffy, which was approved by the FDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. Without non-patent marketing exclusivity forneffy, we may face competition by third parties seeking to market generic versions ofneffyas early as our approval by the FDA. Upon approval ofneffyby the FDA, we listed 7 patents with claims covering neffyin the Orange Book. An eighth patent with claims covering neffy was subsequently listed in the Orange Book. Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version ofneffyor an NDA submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy must make one of the following certifications to the FDA concerning the patents listed in the Orange Book forneffy: (a) the patents that are listed have expired; (b) the date on which such patents will expire; or (c) such patents are invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic equivalent version ofneffyor the drug product submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to us for each patent to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. Following receipt of a paragraph IV notice, we may bring a lawsuit for patent infringement against the paragraph IV filer, and we may be entitled to a statutory 30-month stay of approval of the proposed product of the paragraph IV filer. We received a Paragraph IV certification notice letter from Lupin in August 2025, providing notification to us that Lupin submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version ofneffy 2 mg. See Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for additional discussion. Although we expect to vigorously defend our patents from infringement by third parties, there can be no assurances that we will be successful with respect to such defense or any other legal proceedings which may arise in the ordinary course of our business. Such a failure may have a material impact on our business, our results of operations, and our financial condition in the future.

Current wording

We have not received U.S. non-patent marketing exclusivity forneffy, which was approved by the FDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. Without non-patent marketing exclusivity forneffy, we may face competition by third parties seeking to market generic versions ofneffy. Upon approval ofneffyby the FDA, we listed 7 patents with claims covering neffyin the Orange Book. An eighth patent with claims covering neffy was subsequently listed in the Orange Book. Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version ofneffyor an NDA submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy must make one of the following certifications to the FDA concerning the patents listed in the Orange Book forneffy: (a) the patents that are listed have expired; (b) the date on which such patents will expire; or (c) such patents are invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic equivalent version ofneffyor the drug product submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to us for each patent to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. Following receipt of a paragraph IV notice, we may bring a lawsuit for patent infringement against the paragraph IV filer, and we may be entitled to a statutory 30-month stay of approval of the proposed product of the paragraph IV filer. We received paragraph IV certification notice letters from Lupin in August 2025 and February 2026, providing notification to us that Lupin submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version ofneffy 2 mg and 1 mg, respectively. In August 2025 and in February 2026, we separately filed lawsuits against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of certain of our patents and seeking a permanent injunction preventing market entry of a generic product from Lupin prior to the expiry of such patents. We also received a paragraph IV certification notice letter from Cipla in March 2026, providing notification to us that Cipla submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version ofneffy 1 mg and 2 mg. In April 2026, we filed a lawsuit against Cipla in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of certain of our patents and seeking a permanent injunction preventing market entry of a generic product from Cipla prior to the expiry of such patents. See Note 9 – Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-Q for additional discussion. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in our lawsuits against Lupin and Cipla. Patent litigation is expensive and time consuming, requires significant resources, may absorb significant time of our management and has an unpredictable out…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We expanded our organization following FDA approval ofneffyin August 2024. Specifically, we increased our sales force and made additional hires in the areas of general and administrative, medical, commercial, sales and marketing, and operations. As a result, our headcount has increased from 23 full-time employees and 5 part-time employees as of July 31, 2024 to 162 full-time employees and 5 part-time employees as of September 30, 2025. We may need to further expand our headcount in the future to support our growth strategy. To manage these growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our management may need to devote a significant amount of our attention to managing these growth activities. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such recent and anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, retain key employees, or identify, recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our inability to manage the expansion of our operations effectively may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. If we are unable to effectively manage our recent and expected growth, our ability to generate revenues or achieve future profitability could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy, including the successful commercialization ofneffy.

Current wording

We expanded our organization following FDA approval ofneffyin August 2024. Specifically, we increased our sales force and made additional hires in the areas of general and administrative, medical, commercial, sales and marketing, and operations. As a result, our headcount has increased from 23 full-time employees and 5 part-time employees as of July 31, 2024 to 154 full-time employees and 5 part-time employees as of March 31, 2026. We may need to further expand our headcount in the future to support our growth strategy. To manage these growth activities, we must continue to implement and improve our managerial, operational and financial systems, expand our facilities and continue to recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our management may need to devote a significant amount of our attention to managing these growth activities. Due to our limited financial resources and the limited experience of our management team in managing a company with such recent and anticipated growth, we may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, retain key employees, or identify, recruit and train additional qualified personnel. Our inability to manage the expansion of our operations effectively may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. If we are unable to effectively manage our recent and expected growth, our ability to generate revenues or achieve future profitability could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy, including the successful commercialization ofneffy.

Previous wording

International and geo-political events could also have a serious adverse impact on our business. For instance, in February 2022, Russia started a war against Ukraine. In response, the United States and certain other countries imposed significant sanctions and trade actions against Russia and could impose further sanctions, trade restrictions, and other retaliatory actions. Additionally, in October 2023, Hamas initiated an attack against Israel, provoking a state of war and which has resulted in a larger conflict in the Middle East that has included U.S. involvement. While we cannot predict the broader consequences, the conflict and retaliatory and counter-retaliatory actions could materially adversely affect global trade, currency exchange rates, inflation, regional economies, and the global economy, which in turn may increase our costs, disrupt our supply chain, impair our ability to raise or access additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Current wording

International and geo-political events could also have a serious adverse impact on our business. While we cannot predict the broader consequences, the conflict and retaliatory and counter-retaliatory actions associated with geopolitical conflicts could materially adversely affect global trade, currency exchange rates, inflation, regional economies, and the global economy, which in turn may increase our costs, disrupt our supply chain, impair our ability to raise or access additional capital when needed on acceptable terms, if at all, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.