GeoVax Labs, Inc.

Previous wording

As a research and development-focused company, we have had no product revenue to date and revenues from our government grants and other collaborations have not generated sufficient cash flows to cover operating expenses. Since our inception, we have incurred operating losses each year due to costs incurred in connection with research and development activities and general and administrative expenses associated with our operations. We incurred a net loss of approximately $26 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. We expect to incur additional operating losses and expect cumulative losses to increase as our research and development, preclinical, clinical, and manufacturing efforts expand. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability to successfully complete the development of our product candidates, conduct preclinical tests and clinical trials, obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, and manufacture and market or otherwise commercialize our products. Unless we are able to successfully meet these challenges, we will not be profitable and may not remain in business.

Current wording

As a research and development-focused company, we have had no product revenue to date and revenues from our government grants and other collaborations have not generated sufficient cash flows to cover operating expenses. Since our inception, we have incurred operating losses each year due to costs incurred in connection with research and development activities and general and administrative expenses associated with our operations. We incurred a net loss of approximately $25 million for the year ended December 31, 2024. We expect to incur additional operating losses and expect cumulative losses to increase as our research and development, preclinical, clinical, and manufacturing efforts expand. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability to successfully complete the development of our product candidates, conduct preclinical tests and clinical trials, obtain the necessary regulatory approvals, and manufacture and market or otherwise commercialize our products. Unless we are able to successfully meet these challenges, we will not be profitable and may not remain in business.

Previous wording

We expect that our current working capital will be sufficient to support our planned level of operations into the second quarter of 2024. We will need to raise additional funds to significantly advance our vaccine development programs and to continue our operations. In order to meet our operating cash flow needs we plan to seek sources of non-dilutive capital through government grant programs and clinical trial support. We may also plan additional offerings of our equity securities, debt, or convertible debt instruments. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, the consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects.

Current wording

We will need to raise additional funds to significantly advance our vaccine development programs and to continue our operations. In order to meet our operating cash flow needs we plan to seek sources of non-dilutive capital through government grant programs and clinical trial support. We may also plan additional offerings of our equity securities, debt, or convertible debt instruments. To the extent that we raise additional funds by issuance of equity securities, our stockholders would experience dilution, and debt financings, if available, may involve restrictive covenants and substantial fixed payments or may otherwise further constrain our financial flexibility. Should the financing we require to sustain our working capital needs be unavailable or prohibitively expensive when we require it, the consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and prospects.

Previous wording

To manufacture and sell our products, we must comply with extensive domestic and international regulation. In order to sell our products in the United States, approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) is required. Satisfaction of regulatory requirements, including FDA requirements, typically takes many years, and if approval is obtained at all, it is dependent upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product, and requires the expenditure of substantial resources. We cannot predict whether our products will be approved by the FDA. Even if they are approved, we cannot predict the time frame for approval. Foreign regulatory requirements differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may, in some cases, be more stringent or difficult to meet than FDA requirements. As with the FDA, we cannot predict if or when we may obtain these regulatory approvals. If we cannot demonstrate that our products can be used safely and successfully in a broad segment of the patient population on a long-term basis, our products would likely be denied approval by the FDA and the regulatory agencies of foreign governments.

Current wording

To manufacture and sell our products, we must comply with extensive domestic and international regulation. In order to sell our products in the United States, approval from the FDA is required. Satisfaction of regulatory requirements, including FDA requirements, typically takes many years, and if approval is obtained at all, it is dependent upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product, and requires the expenditure of substantial resources. We cannot predict whether our products will be approved by the FDA. Even if they are approved, we cannot predict the time frame for approval. Foreign regulatory requirements differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may, in some cases, be more stringent or difficult to meet than FDA requirements. As with the FDA, we cannot predict if or when we may obtain these regulatory approvals. If we cannot demonstrate that our products can be used safely and successfully in a broad segment of the patient population on a long-term basis, our products would likely be denied approval by the FDA and the regulatory agencies of foreign governments.

Previous wording

There has also been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. There have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills, as well as state efforts, 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 drug products. In June 2017, the FDA issued a Drug Competition Action plan intended to lower prescription drug prices by encouraging competition from generic versions of existing products. In July 2018, the FDA issued a Biosimilar Action Plan, intended to similarly promote competition to prescription biologics from biosimilars. In August 2020, the Inflation Reduction Act included provisions to increase Medicare’s ability to negotiate prescription drug prices.

Current wording

There has also been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. There have been several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills, as well as state efforts, 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 drug products. In June 2017, the FDA issued a Drug Competition Action plan intended to lower prescription drug prices by encouraging competition from generic versions of existing products. In July 2018, the FDA issued a Biosimilar Action Plan, intended to similarly promote competition to prescription biologics from biosimilars.

Previous wording

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. For example, in September 2017, the California State Assembly approved SB17, which requires pharmaceutical companies to notify health insurers and government health plans at least 60 days before any scheduled increases in the prices of their products if they exceed 16% over a two-year period, and further requiring pharmaceutical companies to explain the reasons for such increase and, effective in 2016, Vermont passed a law requiring certain manufacturers identified by the state to justify their price increases.

Current wording

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures. For example, in September 2017, the California State Assembly approved SB17, which requires pharmaceutical companies to notify health insurers and government health plans at least 60 days before any scheduled increases in the prices of their products if they exceed 16% over a two-year period, and further requiring pharmaceutical companies to explain the reasons for such increase. Effective in 2016, Vermont passed a law requiring certain manufacturers identified by the state to justify their price increases.

Previous wording

We do not have experience in manufacturing, selling, or marketing. To obtain the expertise necessary to successfully manufacture, market, and sell our products, we must develop our own commercial infrastructure and/or collaborative commercial arrangements and partnerships. Our ability to execute our current operating plan is dependent on numerous factors, including, the performance of third-party collaborators with whom we may contract.

Current wording

We do not have experience in manufacturing, selling, or marketing. To obtain the expertise necessary to successfully manufacture, market, and sell our products, we must develop our own commercial infrastructure and/or collaborative commercial arrangements and partnerships. Our ability to execute our current operating plan is dependent on numerous factors, including, the performance of third-party collaborators, vendors and contractors.

Previous wording

We cannot be certain that the claims in our in-licensed pending patent applications will be considered patentable by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in foreign countries, nor can we be certain that claims that may ultimately issue from our patent applications will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Current wording

We cannot be certain that the claims in our in-licensed pending patent applications will be considered patentable by the USPTO, courts in the United States or by the patent offices and courts in foreign countries, nor can we be certain that claims that may ultimately issue from our patent applications will not be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged. If we or our licensors are unable to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our product candidates, our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be materially harmed.

Previous wording

For example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review,inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation can increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the inv…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

For example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the Leahy-Smith Act), signed into law on September 16, 2011, includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted, redefine prior art and provide more efficient and cost-effective avenues for competitors to challenge the validity of patents. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review,inter partes review, and derivation proceedings. Further, because of a lower evidentiary standard in these USPTO post-grant proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action. Thus, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation can increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. After March 2013, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that the other statutory requirements are met, the first inventor to file a patent application is entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third-party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after March 2013, but before we file an application covering the same invention, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates and other proprietary technologies we may develop or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications. Even where we have a valid and enforceable patent, we may not be able to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention where the other party can show that they used the inven…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

We are obligated to issue additional shares of our common stock in connection with our outstanding warrants if the warrant holders choose to exercise them. There are warrants exercisable for approximately 2.0 million shares, 374,000 of which are prefunded ($-0- exercise price) with the remainder having a weighted-average exercise price of $14.58. The exercise of these warrants will cause us to issue additional shares of our common stock and will dilute the percentage ownership of our shareholders.

Current wording

We are obligated to issue additional shares of our Common Stock in connection with our outstanding warrants if the warrant holders choose to exercise them. There are pre-funded warrants currently exercisable for approximately 2.1 million shares and other warrants currently exercisable for approximately 10.1 million shares with a weighted average exercise price of $2.61 per share. The exercise of these warrants will cause us to issue additional shares of our Common Stock and will dilute the percentage ownership of our shareholders.