Ernexa Therapeutics Inc.
For the period ended Dec 31, 2025. Filed Mar 13, 2026.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's yearly report to the SEC, with audited financial statements. It is the fullest account a company gives of its business, its finances and the risks it sees.
FY2025 · Filed Mar 13, 2026
ERNA$1.88+2.7%Stored close · as of Nov 6, 2026
What changed in Risk Factors?
Read the current filingPrevious report: 10-K
Period ended 2024-12-31; filed 2025-03-12.
0001493152-25-010051
Item 1A. Risk FactorsCurrent report: 10-K
Period ended 2025-12-31; filed 2026-03-13.
0001493152-26-010102
Item 1A. Risk FactorsThe baseline is this issuer’s latest earlier reporting period of the same form that was filed before the current report. A previous 10-Q is a different quarter, not a year-over-year comparison. Amendments are excluded.
Compared 117 previous paragraphs and 108 current paragraphs.
76 unchanged; 27 reworded; 5 added; 14 removed; 0 previous and 0 current paragraphs rearranged.
Tables are not compared: 7 previous and 7 current tables excluded. Dates, whitespace, punctuation and numbering changes are ignored; changes to financial figures remain significant.
A changed paragraph is not evidence that risk increased or decreased. An unchanged paragraph does not establish that risk stayed the same.
Added paragraphs (5)
Current report
Our stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2025 was approximately $2.4 million and we do not currently meet the MVLS or Net Income Rule However, on February 10, 2026, we completed a public offering for the sale of our common stock and accompanying warrants for net proceeds of approximately $9.5 million. As a result, as of the date of this 2025 Annual Report, our stockholders’ equity exceeds $2.5 million, as required under the Stockholders’ Equity Rule.
Current report
Since February 3, 2026, the closing bid price of our common stock has been trading below $1.00. Upon the 30 th consecutive business day of trading below $1.00, we expect to receive a notice from Nasdaq informing us that we do not meet the Bid Price Rule. To regain compliance, we must maintain a closing bid price of at least $1.00 for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days.
Current report
Because we effected a reverse stock split within the last 12 months to regain compliance with the Bid Price Rule, Nasdaq rules provide that if our common stock fails to meet the minimum bid price requirement within one year following that reverse stock split, we would not be eligible for any compliance period under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(A). In such event, Nasdaq would issue a Staff Delisting Determination with respect to our common stock, which we could appeal to a Nasdaq hearings panel in accordance with applicable Nasdaq rules.
Current report
We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete or thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every third-party patent and pending application in the U.S. and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our drug candidates in any jurisdiction.
Current report
The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect. For example, we may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third-party patent or may incorrectly predict whether a third-party’s pending application will issue with claims of relevant scope. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the U.S. or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.
Removed paragraphs (14)
Previous report
Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results ofoperationsand prospects.
Previous report
We have previously identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. If we are unable to develop and maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results in a timely manner, which may adversely affect investor confidence in us, and materially and adversely affect our business and operating results.
Previous report
In prior periods, we identified a material weakness as discussed below. We were unable to timely file our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2022 due to identifying errors in our financial statements reported in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 during our preparation of the financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2022. On June 30, 2022, we filed an amendment to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 to correct the errors in our financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 and for the quarters ended June 30, 2020, September 30, 2020, March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021. Management concluded that the errors were the result of accounting personnel’s lack of technical proficiency in the accounting for complex matters.
Previous report
Management has implemented measures designed to ensure that the deficiencies contributing to the ineffectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting are remediated, such that the internal controls are designed, implemented and operating effectively. The remediation actions implemented to date include: enhancing the business process controls related to reviews over technical, complex, and non-recurring transactions; providing additional training to accounting personnel and using external accounting advisors to review management’s conclusions on certain technical, complex and non-recurring matters.
Previous report
As a result of the above remediation measures, and as disclosed in Part II, Item 9A to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President of Finance concluded that the prior material weakness was remediated as of December 31, 2024, and our disclosure controls and procedures were effective and provided reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives.
Previous report
If we identify any additional material weaknesses in the future, any such newly identified material weakness could limit our ability to prevent or detect a misstatement of our accounts or disclosures and could result in a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements. In such case, we may be unable to maintain compliance with securities law requirements regarding timely filing of periodic reports, investors may lose confidence in our financial reporting and our stock price may decline as a result. We cannot assure you that the measures we have taken to date, or any measures we may take in the future, will be sufficient to avoid potential future material weaknesses.
Previous report
Seven stockholders collectively own a significant percentage of our outstanding common stock, and as a result of such ownership, such stockholders may influence the election of directors and other matters submitted to stockholders.
Previous report
According to their most recent SEC filings and/or our corporate records, seven stockholders—Charles Cherington, Nicholas Singer, John D. Halpern, the George Denny Estate, Freebird Partners LP, IAF, LLC and Regolith Capital Investments LP—collectively own approximately 76% of our outstanding shares of common stock. Although, to our knowledge, such stockholders are not a “group” or “acting in concert,” they have and we expect them to continue to have, individually and/or collectively, the ability to influence the election of our board of directors and the outcome of other matters submitted to our stockholders. The interests of these stockholders may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders, and such stockholders, individually or collectively, may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders. One consequence to this substantial influence is that it may be difficult for investors to remove our management and it could also deter unsolicited takeovers, including transactions in which stockholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares over then current market prices.
Previous report
The sale of our common stock to Lincoln Park Capital Fund LLC (“Lincoln Park”) may cause dilution to our other stockholders and the subsequent sale of the shares of common stock acquired by Lincoln Park, or the perception that such sales may occur, could cause the price of our common stock to fall.
Previous report
Lincoln Park committed to purchase up to $10.0 million of our common stock under a standby equity purchase agreement (“SEPA”). Through December 31, 2024, we have issued and sold approximately 214,000 shares of our common stock to Lincoln Park for approximately $0.3 million in gross proceeds under the SEPA, leaving an approximately $9.7 million balance of the $10.0 million total commitment. The purchase price for the shares that we may sell to Lincoln Park under the SEPA is subject to a pricing formula in the SEPA and will vary based on the price of our common stock at the time we initiate the sale. Depending on market liquidity at the time, sales of such shares may cause the trading price of our common stock to fall.
Previous report
We generally have the right to control the timing and amount of any future sales of our shares to Lincoln Park under the SEPA. Sales of shares of our common stock to Lincoln Park under the SEPA, if any, will depend upon market conditions and other factors to be determined by us. We may ultimately decide to sell to Lincoln Park all, some or none of the shares of our common stock that may be available for us to sell pursuant to the SEPA. If and when we do sell shares to Lincoln Park, after Lincoln Park has acquired the shares, Lincoln Park may resell all, some or none of those shares at any time or from time to time in its discretion. Therefore, sales to Lincoln Park by us could result in substantial dilution to the interests of other holders of our common stock. Additionally, the sale of a substantial number of shares of our common stock to Lincoln Park, or the anticipation of such sales, could make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and at a price that we might otherwise wish to effect sales.
Previous report
On December 30, 2024, we received notice from Nasdaq that we no longer met the Bid Price Rule and were provided until June 30, 2025 to regain compliance with the Bid Price Rule. On January 6, 2025, we received notice from Nasdaq informing us that we no longer met the MVLS Rule and were provided until July 7, 2025 to regain compliance with the MLVS Rule. If at any time during the Bid Price Rule compliance period, our closing bid price is at least $1 per share for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days during the 180-day compliance period, Nasdaq will provide written confirmation that we regained compliance with that applicable rule. In the event we do not regain compliance with the Bid Price Rule by June 30, 2025, we may be eligible for consideration of a second 180-day compliance period if we meet the MLVS Rule and all other initial listing standards for Nasdaq’s Capital Market, with the exception of the Bid Price Rule. In addition, we would also be required to notify Nasdaq of our intent to cure the Bid Price Rule deficiency by effecting a reverse stock split, if necessary. If it appears to Nasdaq that we will not be able to cure the deficiency, or if we are otherwise not eligible, Nasdaq will provide use will its notice that our securities will be subject to delisting.
Previous report
Likewise, if at any time during the MLVS Rule compliance period our MVLS closes at $35 million or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, Nasdaq will provide written confirmation that we have regained compliance that applicable rule. In the event we do not regain compliance with the Market Value Standard by July 7, 2025, Nasdaq will provide us notice that our securities will be subject to delisting, at which time, we may appeal the delisting determination.
Previous report
Additionally, our stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2024 was approximately $1.9 million and we do not currently meet the net income from continuing operations compliance standards described in Listing Rule 5500(b)(3). Accordingly, we also expect to receive a notice from Nasdaq informing us that we do not meet Listing Rule 5550(b)(1). If we receive such a notice, we expect to be afforded 45 days to submit a plan to regain compliance with the stockholders’ equity requirement for Nasdaq’s consideration, and if the plan is accepted, to be granted an extension period of up to 180 calendar days from the date of the deficiency notice to regain compliance. If the plan is not accepted or if we are unable to regain compliance within any extension period granted by Nasdaq, Nasdaq would be required to issue a delisting determination, which we expect we would be entitled to request a hearing before a Nasdaq Hearings Panel to present a plan to regain compliance and to request a further extension period to regain compliance.
Reworded paragraphs (27)
Previous wording
Our business, financial condition and operating results can be affected by many factors, whether currently known or unknown, many of which are not exclusively within our control, including but not limited to those described below, any one or more of which could, directly or indirectly, cause our financial condition and operating results to differ materially from historical or anticipated future financial condition and operating results. Any of these factors, in whole or in part, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and stock price. We urge investors to carefully consider the risk factors described below in evaluating our stock and the information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
Current wording
Our business, financial condition and operating results can be affected by many factors, whether currently known or unknown, many of which are not exclusively within our control, including but not limited to those described below, any one or more of which could, directly or indirectly, cause our financial condition and operating results to differ materially from historical or anticipated future financial condition and operating results. Any of these factors, in whole or in part, could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and stock price. We urge investors to carefully consider the risk factors described below in evaluating our stock and the information in this 2025 Annual Report, including the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
Previous wording
We have incurred significant net losses since inception. As of December 31, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $231.5 million. Since inception, we have primarily financed our operations by raising capital through the sale of shares of our common stock, warrants to purchase shares of our common stock and convertible notes.
Current wording
We have incurred significant net losses since inception. As of December 31, 2025, we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $245.6 million. Since inception, we have primarily financed our operations by raising capital through the sale of shares of our common stock, warrants to purchase shares of our common stock and convertible notes.
Previous wording
We rely on patents, know-how and proprietary technology licensed from Factor Limited under the Factor L&C Agreement. We may in the future become party to additional license agreements pursuant to which we in-license key intellectual property. The Factor L&C Agreement imposes various sublicense fees and other obligations on us. For example, we are obligated to pay Factor Limited $0.2 million per month for the first twelve months, $0.1 million per month for the first nine months toward patent costs, certain milestone payments, royalty payments on net sales of commercialized products and sublicensing fee payments. The parties have customary termination rights under the Factor L&C Agreement, including in connection with certain uncured material breaches of the Factor L&C Agreement and specified bankruptcy events. Any termination of our existing or future licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and would harm our business significantly.
Current wording
We rely on patents, know-how and proprietary technology licensed from Factor Limited under the Factor L&C Agreement. We may in the future become party to additional license agreements pursuant to which we in-license key intellectual property. The Factor L&C Agreement imposes various sublicense fees and other obligations on us. For example, we paid Factor Limited $0.2 million per month for the first twelve months and $0.1 million per month for the first nine months toward patent costs. We are also obligated to pay certain milestone payments, royalty payments on net sales of commercialized products and sublicensing fee payments. The parties have customary termination rights under the Factor L&C Agreement, including in connection with certain uncured material breaches of the Factor L&C Agreement and specified bankruptcy events. Any termination of our existing or future licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and would harm our business significantly.
Previous wording
Our intellectual property rights may notadequately protect our business.
Current wording
Our intellectual property rights may not adequately protect our business.
Previous wording
The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business. Forexample:
Current wording
The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations and may not adequately protect our business. For example:
Previous wording
Our ability to compete in the highly competitive life science industry depends in large part upon the ability to attract highly qualified personnel. In order to induce valuable employees to remain with us, we intend to provide employees with stock options and/or restricted stock units that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time will be significantly affected by movements in the price of the common stock that it will not be able to control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies.
Current wording
Our ability to compete in the highly competitive life science industry depends in large part upon the ability to attract highly qualified personnel. In order to induce valuable employees to remain with us, we intend to provide employees with stock options and/or restricted stock units that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options that vest over time will be significantly affected by movements in the price of the common stock, which we cannot control, and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies.
Previous wording
Cell reprogramming technology and related cell therapy products using iPSC lines represent novel therapeutic approaches, and to our knowledge no iPSC-derived cell products are currently approved for commercial sale anywhere in the world. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the type and scope of challenges that we may confront in developing and advancing a pipeline of iPSC-derived therapeutic products. We thus face uncertainties associated with the preclinical and clinical development, manufacture, and regulatory compliance for the initiation and conduct of clinical trials, regulatory approval, and reimbursement required for successful commercialization of future product candidates. Further, the processes and requirements imposed by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities may cause delays and additional costs in obtaining approvals for marketing authorization for any future product candidates. Because our platform is novel, and cell- based therapies are relatively new, regulatory agencies may lack experience in evaluating product candidates using our synthetic iMSC technology platform. This novelty may lengthen the regulatory review process, including the time it takes for the FDA to review IND applications if and when such applications are submitted, increase development costs, and delay or prevent commercialization of future products, if such products are approved for marketing.
Current wording
Cell reprogramming technology and related cell therapy products using iPSC lines represent novel therapeutic approaches, and to our knowledge, no iPSC-derived cell products are currently approved for commercial sale anywhere in the world. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the type and scope of challenges that we may confront in developing and advancing a pipeline of iPSC-derived therapeutic products. We thus face uncertainties associated with the preclinical and clinical development, manufacture, and regulatory compliance for the initiation and conduct of clinical trials, regulatory approval, and reimbursement required for successfully commercializing future product candidates. Further, the processes and requirements imposed by the FDA or other applicable regulatory authorities may cause delays and additional costs in obtaining approvals for marketing authorization for any future product candidates. Because our platform is novel, and cell- based therapies are relatively new, regulatory agencies may lack experience in evaluating product candidates using our synthetic iMSC technology platform. This novelty may lengthen the regulatory review process, including the time it takes for the FDA to review IND applications if and when such applications are submitted, increase development costs, and delay or prevent commercialization of future products, if such products are approved for marketing.
Previous wording
Due to the rapid advancements in cellular technologies, regulatory processes and requirements in the United States and in other jurisdictions governing cellular therapy products are evolving and the FDA or other regulatory bodies may change the requirements, or identify different regulatory pathways, for the clinical testing and approval of these product candidates. For example, in recent years the FDA has issued several new guidance documents related to developing and manufacturing cellular therapy products. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of cellular therapy products conducted by others, or in treated patients after such products are commercialized, may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. For example, in November 2023, the FDA announced that it was investigating reports of T-cell malignancy in patients following their treatment with B cell maturation antigen-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, although more recent public statements by agency leadership indicate that the benefits of such treatments are expected to still outweigh those risks. Future adverse events or safety issues could lead to more significant regulatory action applicable to either a specific product or a broader product class, based on case-by-case science-based benefit-risk assessments. Similarly, the EMA oversees the development of cellular therapies in the EU and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for cellular therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory agencies and committees and any new regulations, requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, which may reduce the anticipated benefits of our co-development strategic partnerships or adversely affect the commercialization of any future therapeutic products we may develop.
Current wording
Due to the rapid advancements in cellular technologies, regulatory processes and requirements in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions governing cellular therapy products are evolving and the FDA or other regulatory bodies may change the requirements, or identify different regulatory pathways, for the clinical testing and approval of these product candidates. For example, in recent years the FDA has issued several new guidance documents related to developing and manufacturing cellular therapy products. In addition, adverse developments in clinical trials of cellular therapy products conducted by others, or in treated patients after such products are commercialized, may cause the FDA or other oversight bodies to change the requirements for approval of any of our product candidates. For example, in November 2023, the FDA announced that it was investigating reports of T-cell malignancy in patients following their treatment with B cell maturation antigen-directed or CD19-directed autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies, although more recent public statements by agency leadership indicate that the benefits of such treatments are expected to still outweigh those risks. Future adverse events or safety issues could lead to more significant regulatory action applicable to either a specific product or a broader product class, based on case-by-case science-based benefit-risk assessments. Similarly, the EMA oversees the development of cellular therapies in the EU and may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for cellular therapy products and require that we comply with these new guidelines. These regulatory agencies and committees and any new regulations, requirements or guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, which may reduce the anticipated benefits of our co-development strategic partnerships or adversely affect the commercialization of any future therapeutic products we may develop.
Previous wording
The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the product candidate. Due to the novelty and complexity of cellular products, the regulatory approval process for such product candidates is uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process for product candidates based on other, better known or more extensively studied technologies. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for product candidates using this technology in either the United States or the E.U. or how long it will take to commercialize any product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.
Current wording
The clinical trial requirements of the FDA, the EMA and other regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the product candidate. Due to the novelty and complexity of cellular products, the regulatory approval process for such product candidates is uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process for product candidates based on other, better known or more extensively studied technologies. It is difficult to determine the time or cost required to obtain regulatory approvals for product candidates using this technology in either the U.S. or the E.U., or how long it will take to commercialize any product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.
Previous wording
We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities, and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, research and human resources than we do, and may also have strategic partnerships and collaborative arrangements with leading companies and research institutions . Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring, or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective, safer, or less costly than any products that we may develop in the future, or achieve patent protection, marketing approval, product commercialization, and market penetration earlier than us. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render any product candidates we are seeking to develop uneconomical or obsolete. For additional information regarding our competition, see “Part I, Item 1. Business—Competition”.
Current wording
We have competitors both in the U.S. and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, universities, and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, research and human resources than we do, and may also have strategic partnerships and collaborative arrangements with leading companies and research institutions. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring, or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective, safer, or less costly than any products that we may develop in the future, or achieve patent protection, marketing approval, product commercialization, and market penetration earlier than us. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render any product candidates we are seeking to develop uneconomical or obsolete. For additional information regarding our competition, see “Part I, Item 1. Business—Competition”.
Previous wording
In addition, under the terms of the asset purchase agreement pursuant to which we acquired assets from Exacis, we agreed to issue to Exacis shares of our common stock as contingent consideration. If our market capitalization equals or exceeds $100 million during the three-year period commencing on April 26, 2023 and ending on the three-year anniversary thereof, the number of shares of common stock we would issue is determined by a formula specified in the asset purchase agreement. In addition, if our market capitalization equals or exceeds $200 million during the same three-year period, we agreed to issue to Exacis additional shares of our common stock determined by a formula specified in the asset purchase agreement. See Note 4 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional information.
Current wording
In addition, under the terms of an asset purchase agreement pursuant to which we acquired assets from a company (the “Seller”) in April 2023, we agreed to issue to the Seller shares of our common stock as contingent consideration. If our market capitalization equals or exceeds $100 million during the three-year period commencing on April 26, 2023 and ending on the three-year anniversary thereof, the number of shares of common stock we would issue is determined by a formula specified in the asset purchase agreement. In addition, if our market capitalization equals or exceeds $200 million during the same three-year period, we agreed to issue to the Seller additional shares of our common stock determined by a formula specified in the asset purchase agreement. The contingent consideration period expires on April 26, 2026.
Previous wording
Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market. The Nasdaq Capital Market requires that listed companies satisfy certain continued listing requirements. Listing Rule 550(a)(2) requires that listed companies maintain a minimum bid price of their common stock of at least $1 per share (the “Bid Price Rule”). Listing Rule 5550(b) requires that listed companies have: (1) stockholders’ equity of at least $2.5 million (the “Stockholders’ Equity Rule”; (2) a market value of listed securities (the “MVLS Rule”) of at least $35 million; or (3) net income from continuing operations of $500,000 in the company’s most recently completed fiscal year or in two of the three most recently completed fiscal years.
Current wording
Our common stock is listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market. Nasdaq requires that listed companies satisfy certain continued listing requirements. Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) requires that listed companies maintain a minimum compliance with the Bid Price Rule. Listing Rule 5550(b) requires that listed companies maintain compliance with : (1) the Stockholders’ Equity Rule; (2) the MVLS Rule; or (3) the Net Income Rule.
Previous wording
Product candidates employing medical technology are subject to extensive and rigorous domestic government regulation including regulation by the FDA, other divisions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Department of Justice, state and local governments, and their respective foreign equivalents. If products employing our technologies are marketed abroad, they will also be subject to extensive regulation by foreign governments, whether or not they have obtained FDA approval for one or more uses. Such foreign regulation may be equally or more demanding than corresponding United States regulation.
Current wording
Product candidates employing medical technology are subject to extensive and rigorous domestic government regulation including regulation by the FDA, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice, state and local governments, and their respective foreign equivalents. If products employing our technologies are marketed abroad, they will also be subject to extensive regulation by foreign governments, whether or not they have obtained FDA approval for one or more uses. Such foreign regulation may be equally or more demanding than corresponding U.S. regulation.
Previous wording
Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal, and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations, and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:
Current wording
Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the U.S. and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal, and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations, and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:
Previous wording
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“ACA”) includes measures that have significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. It also included the provisions that created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The ACA continues to significantly impact the United States’s pharmaceutical industry.
Current wording
The ACA includes measures that have significantly changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the U.S. It also included the provisions that created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The ACA continues to significantly impact the U.S.’s pharmaceutical industry.
Previous wording
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which prescription drug and biological product manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several 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 drug products. In August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”), which includes (among other things) multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the United States. A manufacturer of drug products covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. The IRA is in the process of being implemented by CMS and its impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the United States remains uncertain at this time, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing a separate price negotiation program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.
Current wording
Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which prescription drug and biological product manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several 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 drug products. In August 2022, President Biden signed into the law the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”), which includes (among other things) multiple provisions that may impact the prices of drug products that are both sold into the Medicare program and throughout the U.S.. A manufacturer of drug products covered by Medicare Parts B or D must pay a rebate to the federal government if their drug product’s price increases faster than the rate of inflation. The IRA is in the process of being implemented by CMS and its impact on the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. remains uncertain at this time, in part because multiple large pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have initiated federal lawsuits against CMS arguing a separate price negotiation program is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, among other complaints. Those lawsuits are currently ongoing.
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. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our therapeutic candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.
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 U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our therapeutic candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.
Previous wording
Other parties, many of whom have substantially greater resources and have made significant investments in competing technologies, have developed or may develop technologies that may be related or competitive with our approach, and may have filed or may file patent applications and may have been issued or may be issued patents with claims that overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming the same compositions, formulations or methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. As a result, any patents we may in-license in the future may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar to future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop.
Current wording
Other parties, many of whom have substantially greater resources and have made significant investments in competing technologies, have developed or may develop technologies that may be related or competitive with our approach, and may have filed or may file patent applications and may have been issued or may be issued patents with claims that overlap or conflict with our patent applications, either by claiming the same compositions, formulations or methods or by claiming subject matter that could dominate our patent position. In addition, the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. As a result, any patents we may in-license in the future may not provide us with adequate and continuing patent protection sufficient to exclude others from commercializing products similar to future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop.
Previous wording
The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the United States or in many foreign jurisdictions. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting ANDAs or ABLAs to the FDA in which they claim that the patents related to our in-licensed technology are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert these patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find the in-licensed patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, we cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patents, whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties or whether any issued patents will effectively prevent others from commercializing competing technologies and drug candidates.
Current wording
The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents has emerged to date in the U.S. or in many foreign jurisdictions. The standards applied by the USPTO and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always applied uniformly or predictably. In addition, the determination of patent rights with respect to pharmaceutical compounds commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our competitors may also seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our products. Alternatively, our competitors may seek to market generic versions of any approved products by submitting ANDAs or aBLAs to the FDA in which they claim that the patents related to our in-licensed technology are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert these patents, or both, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or other agency with jurisdiction may find the in-licensed patents invalid or unenforceable, or that our competitors are competing in a non-infringing manner. Thus, we cannot offer any assurances regarding which, if any, patents will issue, the scope of any such issued patents, whether any such patents will be found invalid and unenforceable, whether they may be challenged by third parties or whether they will effectively prevent others from commercializing competing technologies and drug candidates.
Previous wording
If the licensor of our in-licensed technology does not obtain patent term extension for future products that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may successfully develop, our business may be materially harmed.
Current wording
If the licensor of our in-licensed technology does not obtain patent term extension for future products that we, our strategic partners or collaborators may successfully develop, our business may be materially harmed.
Previous wording
Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a particular product, we or our strategic partners or collaborators may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are approved and commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
Current wording
Patents have a limited lifespan. In the U.S., if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a particular product, we or our strategic partners or collaborators may be open to competition from competitive products. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are approved and commercialized. As a result, our patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.
Previous wording
Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop.
Current wording
Changes in patent law in the U.S. and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop.
Previous wording
Changes in either the patent laws or the interpretation of the patent laws in the United States or other jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. When implemented, the Leahy-Smith Act included several significant changes to U.S. patent law that impacted how patent rights could be prosecuted, enforced and defended. In particular, the Leahy-Smith Act also included provisions that switched the United States from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, allowed third- party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and set forth additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by the USPTO administered post grant proceedings. Under a first-to-file system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures governing the administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Some of the Company’s patents and patent applications have effective dates later than March 16, 2013 and thus will be subject to the provisions of the Leahy-Smith Act.
Current wording
Changes in either the patent laws or the interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. or other jurisdictions could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. When implemented, the Leahy-Smith Act included several significant changes to U.S. patent law that impacted how patent rights could be prosecuted, enforced and defended. In particular, the Leahy-Smith Act also included provisions that switched the U.S. from a “first-to-invent” system to a “first-to-file” system, allowed third- party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and set forth additional procedures to attack the validity of a patent by the USPTO administered post grant proceedings. Under a first-to-file system, assuming the other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application generally will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether another inventor had made the invention earlier. The USPTO developed new regulations and procedures governing the administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Some of the Company’s patents and patent applications have effective dates later than March 16, 2013 and thus will be subject to the provisions of the Leahy-Smith Act.
Previous wording
Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patents on products and product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States could be less extensive than those in the United States. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries; thus, even in countries where we do pursue patent protection, there can be no assurance that any patents will issue with claims that cover our products. There can be no assurance that we will obtain or maintain patent rights in or outside the United States under any future license agreements. 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 utilizing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, even in jurisdictions where we pursue patent protection, 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 pursued and 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 products may compete with future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing with us.
Current wording
Filing, prosecuting, maintaining, defending and enforcing patents on products and product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the U.S. could be less extensive than those in the U.S.. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries; thus, even in countries where we do pursue patent protection, there can be no assurance that any patents will issue with claims that cover our products. There can be no assurance that we will obtain or maintain patent rights in or outside the U.S. under any future license agreements. 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 U.S. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from utilizing our inventions in all countries outside the U.S., even in jurisdictions where we pursue patent protection, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not pursued and 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 U.S. These products may compete with future products and product candidates that we or our strategic partners or collaborators may develop and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing with us.
Previous wording
Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the United States and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the United States and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries including India and China, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our in-licensed patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in certain countries outside the United States and Europe. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government authorities or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.
Current wording
Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, laws of some countries outside of the U.S. and Europe do not afford intellectual property protection to the same extent as the laws of the U.S. and Europe. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries including India and China, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and pharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our in-licensed patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. For example, many foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in certain countries outside the U.S. and Europe. In addition, many countries limit the enforceability of patents against government authorities or government contractors. In these countries, the patent owner may have limited remedies, which could materially diminish the value of such patent. If we are forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.
Previous wording
Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. While we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in major markets for our products, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our products. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop.
Current wording
Proceedings to enforce our patent rights, even if obtained, in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. They could also put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, put our patent applications at risk of not issuing and provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. While we intend to protect our intellectual property rights in major markets for our products, we cannot ensure that we will be able to initiate or maintain similar efforts in all jurisdictions in which we may wish to market our products. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop.
Previous wording
Moreover, any proprietary name we have proposed to use with our drug candidates in the United States must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed proprietary product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties, and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or 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.
Current wording
Moreover, any proprietary name we have proposed to use with our drug candidates in the U.S. must be approved by the FDA, regardless of whether we have registered it, or applied to register it, as a trademark. Similar requirements exist in Europe. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed proprietary product names, including an evaluation of potential for confusion with other product names. If the FDA (or an equivalent administrative body in a foreign jurisdiction) objects to any of our proposed proprietary product names, we may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable substitute name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties, and be acceptable to the FDA. Furthermore, in many countries, owning and maintaining a trademark registration may not provide an adequate defense against a subsequent infringement claim asserted by the owner of a senior trademark. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. If we assert trademark infringement claims, a court may determine that the marks we have asserted are invalid or 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.