Liquidia Corp

Previous wording

the quantity of CADD-MS 3 infusion pumps available will be sufficient to serve patients through 2025, the availability of such pumps may terminate earlier than anticipated. In the event the specialty pharmacies are unable to access sufficient quantities of operable pumps or in the event we are unable to identify or develop a new pump prior to the current pumps becoming unavailable, the commercial success of Treprostinil Injection may be adversely affected.

Current wording

be depleted prior to January 1, 2025. In the event the specialty pharmacies are unable to access sufficient quantities of operable pumps or in the event we are unable to identify or develop a new pump prior to the current pumps becoming unavailable, the commercial success of Treprostinil Injection may be adversely affected.

Previous wording

We are subject to risks and uncertainties common to early-stage companies in the biotechnology industry, including, but not limited to, development by competitors of new technological innovations, dependence on key personnel, protection of proprietary technology, compliance with government regulations, and the ability to secure additional capital to fund operations. We expect to incur significant expenses and may incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future as we advance product candidates through clinical trials, seek regulatory approval and pursue commercialization of any approved product candidates. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we are able to obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we would incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. These efforts require significant amounts of capital, adequate personnel and infrastructure, and extensive compliance-reporting capabilities. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Even if our development efforts are successful, it is uncertain when, if ever, we will realize significant revenue from product sales. The future viability of our company will depend on our ability to fund future operations and capital requirements with potential sales of any approved product candidates and/or with additional capital from external financing. We may seek additional funding through public or private financings, debt financing or collaboration. Our inability to obtain funding, when needed, would have a negative impact on our financial condition and ability to pursue our business strategies.

Current wording

We are subject to risks and uncertainties common to early-stage companies in the biotechnology industry, including, but not limited to, development by competitors of new technological innovations, dependence on key personnel, protection of proprietary technology, compliance with government regulations, and the ability to secure additional capital to fund operations. We expect to incur significant expenses and may incur significant operating losses for the foreseeable future as we advance product candidates through clinical trials, seek regulatory approval and pursue commercialization of any approved product candidates. We do not expect to generate significant revenue unless and until we are able to obtain marketing approval for and successfully commercialize one or more of our product candidates. In addition, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we would incur significant commercialization expenses related to product manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution. These efforts require significant amounts of capital, adequate personnel and infrastructure, and extensive compliance-reporting capabilities. If we have not received full FDA approval and generated sufficient cash from product sales of YUTREPIA or are unable to access additional capital by the date of issuance of our fiscal year 2024 consolidated financial statements, we expect there would be substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern as of that date. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect, which would have a material impact on our operations. Even if our development efforts are successful, it is uncertain when, if ever, we will realize significant revenue from product sales. The future viability of our company will depend on our ability to fund future operations and capital requirements with potential sales of any approved product candidates and/or with additional capital from external financing. We may seek additional funding through public or private financings, debt financing or collaboration. Our inability to obtain funding, when needed, would have a negative impact on our financial condition and ability to pursue our business strategies.

Previous wording

We have a history of losses and our future profitability remains uncertain. Our net losses and significant cash used in operating activities have raised substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern.

Current wording

We have a history of losses and our future profitability remains uncertain.

Previous wording

We have incurred net losses of $68.9 million during the six months ended June 30, 2024, and $78.5 million and $41.0 million during the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. We also had negative operating cash flows for each of these periods. As of June 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $498.0 million.

Current wording

We have incurred net losses of $92.0 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2024, and $78.5 million and $41.0 million during the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, respectively. We also had negative operating cash flows for each of these periods. As of September 30, 2024, we had an accumulated deficit of $521.1 million.

Previous wording

Since our incorporation, we have invested heavily in the development of our product candidates and technologies, as well as in recruiting management and scientific personnel. To date, we have not commenced the commercialization of our product candidates and all of our revenue has been derived from up-front fees and milestone payments made to us in connection with licensing and collaboration arrangements we have entered into and the Promotion Agreement, under which we share in the profit derived from the sale of Treprostinil Injection in the United States. These up-front fees and milestone payments have been, and combined with revenue generated from Treprostinil Injection may continue to be, insufficient to match our operating expenses. We expect to continue to devote substantial financial and other resources to the clinical development of our product candidates and, as a result, must generate significant revenue to achieve and maintain profitability or raise additional capital to fund clinical development. We may continue to incur losses and negative cash flow and may never transition to profitability or positive cash flow. These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and to satisfy our estimated liquidity needs for one year from the issuance of the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Current wording

Since our incorporation, we have invested heavily in the development of our product candidates and technologies, as well as in recruiting management and scientific personnel. To date, we have not commenced the commercialization of our product candidates and all of our revenue has been derived from up-front fees and milestone payments made to us in connection with licensing and collaboration arrangements we have entered into and the Promotion Agreement, under which we share in the profit derived from the sale of Treprostinil Injection in the United States. These up-front fees and milestone payments have been, and combined with revenue generated from Treprostinil Injection may continue to be, insufficient to match our operating expenses. We expect to continue to devote substantial financial and other resources to the clinical development of our product candidates and, as a result, must generate significant revenue to achieve and maintain profitability or we will need to raise additional capital to continue funding clinical development. We may continue to incur losses and negative cash flow and may never transition to profitability or positive cash flow.

Previous wording

Our financing facility with HCR requires mutual agreement of both HCR and us in order to draw down on our financing facility, contains operating and financial covenants that restrict our business and financing activities, and is subject to acceleration in specified circumstances, which may result in HCR taking possession and disposing of any collateral.

Current wording

Our financing facility with HCR contains operating and financial covenants that restrict our business and financing activities, and is subject to acceleration in specified circumstances, which may result in HCR taking possession and disposing of any collateral.

Previous wording

Our financing facility with HCR contains restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business. Under the terms of the RIFA, HCR has agreed to pay us an aggregate investment amount of up to $100.0 million (the “Investment Amount”). Under the terms of the RIFA, $32.5 million of the Investment Amount was funded in January 2023 at the initial closing, $10.0 million of the Investment Amount was funded in July 2023 in connection with our entry into a license agreement with Pharmosa, $25.0 million of the Investment Amount was funded in January 2024. The third tranche of $10.0 million and the fourth tranche of $22.5 million of the Investment Amount will be funded fifteen business days after the mutual agreement of HCR and us to fund such amount. In the event we and HCR do not mutually agree to the funding of the third and/or fourth tranche of the Investment Amount, we will be unable to draw the full amount of the Investment Amount. In addition, under the terms of the RIFA, we may not, among other actions, without the prior written consent of HCR, (a) pay any dividends or make any other distribution or payment or redeem, retire or purchase any capital stock, except in certain prescribed circumstances, (b) create, incur, assume, or be liable with respect to any indebtedness except certain permitted indebtedness, or make or permit any payment on any indebtedness, except under certain limited circumstances, or (c) make any sale, transfer, out-license, lease or other disposition of any property or any economic interest, other than certain limited exceptions. Additionally, we are required (i) during the period from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024, to maintain at all times a minimum cash balance of $7.5 million, and (ii) during all periods after December 31, 2024, to maintain at all times a minimum cash balance of $15.0 million. Our obligations under the RIFA are collateralized by all of our assets and property, subject to limited exceptions.

Current wording

Under the terms of the RIFA, we may not, among other actions, without the prior written consent of HCR, (a) pay any dividends or make any other distribution or payment or redeem, retire or purchase any capital stock, except in certain prescribed circumstances, (b) create, incur, assume, or be liable with respect to any indebtedness except certain permitted indebtedness, or make or permit any payment on any indebtedness, except under certain limited circumstances, or (c) make any sale, transfer, out-license, lease or other disposition of any property or any economic interest, other than certain limited exceptions. Additionally, we are required (i) during the period from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024, to maintain at all times a minimum cash balance of $7.5 million, and (ii) during all periods after December 31, 2024, to maintain at all times a minimum cash balance of $15.0 million. Our obligations under the RIFA are collateralized by all of our assets and property, subject to limited exceptions.

Previous wording

If we breach certain of our covenants in the RIFA and are unable to cure such breach within the prescribed period or are not granted waivers in relation to such breach, it may constitute an event of default under the RIFA, giving HCR the right to require us to repay the then outstanding obligations immediately, and HCR could, among other things, foreclose

Current wording

If we breach certain of our covenants in the RIFA and are unable to cure such breach within the prescribed period or are not granted waivers in relation to such breach, it may constitute an event of default under the RIFA, giving HCR the right to require us to repay the then outstanding obligations immediately, and HCR could, among other things, foreclose on the collateral granted to them to collateralize such indebtedness, which includes our intellectual property, if we are unable to pay the outstanding debt immediately.

Previous wording

We are using the net proceeds of our financing facility with HCR, the January 2024 Private Placement, our December 2023 public equity offering, the December 2023 Private Placement and prior public and private equity offerings to support the development and commercialization of YUTREPIA, including the potential commercial launch of YUTREPIA in the event of final FDA approval, the commercialization of Treprostinil Injection, the development and servicing of pumps for the administration of Treprostinil Injection, the development of L606, and for general corporate purposes. Our management has broad discretion in the application of such proceeds and could spend the proceeds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our equity. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, diminish cash flows available to service our obligations to HCR, cause the value of our equity to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest such proceeds in short-term, investment-grade, interest-bearing securities, which may not yield favorable returns.

Current wording

approval, the commercialization of Treprostinil Injection, the development and servicing of pumps for the administration of Treprostinil Injection, the development of L606, and for general corporate purposes. Our management has broad discretion in the application of such proceeds and could spend the proceeds in ways that do not improve our results of operations or enhance the value of our equity. The failure by our management to apply these funds effectively could result in financial losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, diminish cash flows available to service our obligations to HCR, cause the value of our equity to decline and delay the development of our product candidates. Pending their use, we may invest such proceeds in short-term, investment-grade, interest-bearing securities, which may not yield favorable returns.

Previous wording

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change”, generally defined as a greater than 50.0% change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its post-change income may be limited. With the January 2024 Private Placement, our December 2023 public equity offering, the December 2023 Private Placement, our April 2022 public equity offering, our 2021 private placement, the closing of the RareGen acquisition in November 2020, our July 2020 public equity offering, our December 2019 private placement, issuances under our prior at-the-market facility, our March 2019 follow-on equity offering and our July 2018 initial public offering, as well as other past transactions, we may have already triggered an “ownership change” limitation. We have not completed a formal study to determine if any “ownership changes” within the meaning of IRC Section 382 have occurred. If “ownership changes” within the meaning of Section 382 of the Code have occurred, and if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and research and development tax credits generated since inception to offset U.S. federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us and could require us to pay U.S. federal income taxes earlier than would be required if such limitations were not in effect. Similar rules and limitations may apply for state income tax purposes.

Current wording

Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change”, generally defined as a greater than 50.0% change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes, such as research tax credits, to offset its post-change income may be limited. With our September 2024 public equity offering, the September 2024 Private Placement, the January 2024 Private Placement, our December 2023 public equity offering, the December 2023 Private Placement, our April 2022 public equity offering, our 2021 private placement, the closing of the RareGen acquisition in November 2020, our July 2020 public equity offering, our December 2019 private placement, issuances under our prior at-the-market facility, our March 2019 follow-on equity offering and our July 2018 initial public offering, as well as other past transactions, we may have already triggered an “ownership change” limitation. We have not completed a formal study to determine if any “ownership changes” within the meaning of IRC Section 382 have occurred. If “ownership changes” within the meaning of Section 382 of the Code have occurred, and if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and research and development tax credits generated since inception to offset U.S. federal taxable income may be subject to limitations, which could potentially result in increased future tax liability to us and could require us to pay U.S. federal income taxes earlier than would be required if such limitations were not in effect. Similar rules and limitations may apply for state income tax purposes.

Previous wording

For example, beginning in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the option to deduct research and development expenditures in the year incurred and instead requires taxpayers to capitalize and subsequently amortize such expenditures over five years for research activities conducted in the United States and over 15 years for research activities conducted outside the United States. In January 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, which would retroactively repeal for 2022 and 2023, and defer until 2026, the requirement to capitalize research and development expenditures for research activities conducted in the United States. Uncertainty exists as to whether the bill will be enacted into law. As another example, in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was enacted, and, among other things, included a new 15% alternative minimum tax on the adjusted financial statement income of certain large corporations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. To

Current wording

For example, beginning in 2022, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the option to deduct research and development expenditures in the year incurred and instead requires taxpayers to capitalize and subsequently amortize such expenditures over five years for research activities conducted in the United States and over 15 years for research activities conducted outside the United States. In January 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act, which would retroactively repeal for 2022 and 2023, and defer until 2026, the requirement to capitalize research and development expenditures for research activities conducted in the United States. Uncertainty exists as to whether the bill will be enacted into law. As another example, in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was enacted, and, among other things, included a new 15% alternative minimum tax on the adjusted financial statement income of certain large corporations for tax years beginning after December 31, 2022. To the extent that such changes have a negative impact on us, including as a result of related uncertainty, these changes could adversely impact our business, results of operations and financial position.

Previous wording

In addition, to administer Treprostinil Injection through subcutaneous injection, patients currently must use the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump manufactured by Smiths Medical. Smiths Medical no longer manufactures the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump and has indicated that they will no longer support the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump. Although we believe that the number of available CADD-MS 3 infusion pumps will be sufficient to serve patients through 2025, it is possible that the availability of CADD-MS 3 infusion pumps could end earlier. Due to this limitation in the availability of pumps, specialty pharmacies will limit the number of patients that they place on subcutaneous Treprostinil Injection therapy in order to ensure that patients placed on subcutaneous administration of Treprostinil Injection will not have to discontinue such treatment due to the unavailability of pumps. Until we are able to obtain a pump to replace the CADD-MS 3, the number of patients that can receive subcutaneous administration of Treprostinil Injection will continue to be constrained, which would continue to adversely affect sales of Treprostinil Injection.

Current wording

In addition, to administer Treprostinil Injection through subcutaneous injection, patients currently must use the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump manufactured by ICU Medical. ICU Medical no longer manufactures the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump and has indicated that they will no longer support the CADD-MS 3 infusion pump. Although we believe that the number of available CADD-MS 3 infusion pumps will be sufficient to serve patients through 2025, it is possible that the availability of CADD-MS 3 infusion pumps could end earlier. Due to this limitation in the availability of pumps, specialty pharmacies will limit the number of patients that they place on subcutaneous Treprostinil Injection therapy in order to ensure that patients placed on subcutaneous administration of Treprostinil Injection will not have to discontinue such treatment due to the unavailability of pumps. Until we are able to obtain a pump to replace the CADD-MS 3, the number of patients that can receive subcutaneous administration of Treprostinil Injection will continue to be constrained, which would continue to adversely affect sales of Treprostinil Injection.

Previous wording

We are seeking to work with third parties to develop or procure other pumps that can be used to administer Treprostinil Injection in the future. For example, we have entered into an agreement with Sandoz and Mainbridge to develop a new pump that can be used to administer Treprostinil Injection in the future. Such pumps will require FDA 510(k) clearance before they can be sold. There is no guarantee that we or our partners will receive FDA 510(k) clearance for any such pumps or, even if they do receive FDA 510(k) clearance for any such pumps, that they will do so in a timely manner. If we are unable to identify, develop and obtain any required FDA clearance for new pumps for the subcutaneous and intravenous administration of Treprostinil Injection prior to the unavailability of the CADD-MS 3, we may no longer be able to serve patients with Treprostinil Injection through the subcutaneous route of administration.

Current wording

We are seeking to work with third parties to develop or procure other pumps that can be used to administer Treprostinil Injection in the future. For example, we have entered into an agreement with Sandoz and Mainbridge to develop a new pump that can be used to administer Treprostinil Injection in the future. Such pumps will require FDA 510(k) clearance before they can be sold. There is no guarantee that we or our partners will receive FDA 510(k) clearance for any such pumps or, even if they do receive FDA 510(k) clearance for any such pumps, that they will do so in a timely manner. For example, we have still not submitted a 510(k) clearance application and are currently uncertain when, if ever, such a 510(k) clearance application will be submitted. If we are unable to identify, develop and obtain any required FDA clearance for new pumps for the subcutaneous administration of Treprostinil Injection prior to the unavailability of the CADD-MS 3, we may no longer be able to serve patients with Treprostinil Injection through the subcutaneous route of administration.

Previous wording

We are developing YUTREPIA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway with Tyvaso as the reference listed drug. Accordingly, under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, we were required to, in the NDA for YUTREPIA, certify that patents listed in the Orange Book for Tyvaso are invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of YUTREPIA. Two of these patents are U.S. Patent No. 9,604,901 (the “‘901 Patent”), entitled “Process to Prepare Treprostinil, the Active Ingredient in Remodulin®”, and U.S. Patent No. 9,593,066 (the “‘066 Patent”), entitled “Process to Prepare Treprostinil, the Active Ingredient in Remodulin®”, both of which are owned by United Therapeutics. A notice of the paragraph IV certification was required to be provided to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers.

Current wording

We are developing YUTREPIA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway with Tyvaso as the reference listed drug. Accordingly, under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, we were required to, in the NDA for YUTREPIA, certify that patents listed in the Orange Book for Tyvaso are invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use or sale of YUTREPIA.

Previous wording

In connection with an amendment to our NDA filed in July 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, we provided a new notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint for patent infringement against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00975-RGA) (the “New Hatch- Waxman Litigation”), again asserting infringement by the Company of the ‘793 Patent. In November 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the USPTO) issued U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327, or the ‘327 Patent, entitled “Treatment for Interstitial Lung Disease”, to United Therapeutics. On November 30, 2023, United Therapeutics filed an amended complaint in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation asserting infringement of the ‘327 Patent by the practice of YUTREPIA based on the amended NDA. In January 2024, we filed an answer, counterclaims and a partial motion to dismiss the claims related to the ‘793 Patent as a result of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to affirm the PTAB’s finding that the ‘793 patent is unpatentable. In February 2024, United Therapeutics stipulated to the dismissal of the claims in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation related to the ‘793 Patent. In February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. Briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction is ongoing, and the motion remains pending. Judge Andrews denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2024. Discovery in the case remains ongoing.

Current wording

In connection with an amendment to our NDA filed in July 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, we provided a new notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed a complaint for patent infringement against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00975-RGA) (the “New Hatch-Waxman Litigation”). In the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation, United Therapeutics is asserting that the Company infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327, or the ‘327 Patent, entitled “Treatment for Interstitial Lung Disease.” In February 2024, United Therapeutics filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. Judge Andrews denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2024. Discovery in the case remains ongoing.

Previous wording

In February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a lawsuit against the FDA, challenging the FDA’s acceptance of our amended NDA for review (the “FDA Litigation”). In March 2024, United Therapeutics filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the FDA Litigation, seeking to enjoin the FDA from approving our NDA for YUTREPIA with respect to the indication to treat PH-ILD. United Therapeutics’ motion was denied in March 2024. In May 2024, both we and the FDA filed motions to dismiss United Therapeutics’ complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss has been completed. Although we do not believe the arguments of United Therapeutics have merit, it is possible that the Court could rule that the FDA must reject the amendment to the YUTREPIA NDA to add PH-ILD to the label, in which case we may be required to later file a supplement to our NDA to add PH-ILD to the label. If we are required to file a supplement to add PH-ILD to the label for YUTREPIA, although we do not believe United Therapeutics would be entitled to a new 30-month stay, it is possible that the FDA or a Court could rule that a new mandatory 30-month delay has been triggered with respect to the supplement.

Current wording

In February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a lawsuit against the FDA, challenging the FDA’s acceptance of our amended NDA for review (the “Original FDA Litigation”). In March 2024, United Therapeutics filed a motion for a temporary restraining order in the Original FDA Litigation, seeking to enjoin the FDA from approving our NDA for YUTREPIA with respect to the indication to treat PH-ILD. United Therapeutics’ motion was denied in March 2024. In May 2024, both we and the FDA filed motions to dismiss United Therapeutics’ complaint. Prior to the Court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss, United Therapeutics voluntarily dismissed its complaint in the Original FDA Litigation without prejudice. In September 2024, United Therapeutics re-asserted its challenge to FDA’s acceptance of our amended NDA for review as a cross claim in the lawsuit we instituted against the FDA in August 2024 (the “New FDA Litigation”). Although we do not believe the arguments of United Therapeutics have merit, it is possible that the Court could rule that the FDA must reject the amendment to the YUTREPIA NDA to add PH-ILD to the label, in which case we may be required to later file a supplement to our NDA to add PH-ILD to the label. If we are required to file a supplement to add PH-ILD to the label for YUTREPIA, although we do not believe United Therapeutics would be entitled to a new 30-month stay, it is possible that the FDA or a Court could rule that a new mandatory 30-month delay has been triggered with respect to the supplement.

Previous wording

As a result of this litigation, we may be subject to significant delay and incur substantial additional costs in litigation before we are able to commercialize YUTREPIA, if at all. In addition, if United Therapeutics is successful in any of its appeals or requests for rehearing, we may be unable to commercialize YUTREPIA until the expiration of United Therapeutics’ patents, which could materially harm our business. For example, in the event the United States Supreme Court was to overturn or vacate the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the PTAB’s invalidation of the ‘793 Patent, it is possible that Judge Andrews could reinstitute his injunction in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation, which could either prevent the FDA from granting final approval for YUTREPIA for either PAH or PH-ILD or force the FDA to revoke any prior approval for YUTREPIA for such indications. Also, although United Therapeutics’ initial requests for injunctive relief have been denied, if United Therapeutics is successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation or the FDA Litigation, we could be limited to commercializing YUTREPIA only for the PAH indication for an extended time period.

Current wording

As a result of this litigation instituted to date and potential litigation that may be instituted in the future, we may be subject to significant delay and incur substantial additional costs in litigation before we are able to commercialize YUTREPIA, if at all. In addition, if United Therapeutics is successful in any of its claims that it has brought to date or any claims it may bring in the future, we may be unable to commercialize YUTREPIA for the treatment of one or more indications or at all until the expiration of the applicable United Therapeutics patents, which could materially harm our business. For example, in the event United Therapeutics prevails with respect to its claims regarding the ‘327 Patent, it is possible that an injunction could be issued, preventing the FDA from granting final approval for YUTREPIA for PH-ILD or forcing the FDA to revoke any prior approval for YUTREPIA for PH-ILD. Also, although United Therapeutics’ initial requests for injunctive relief have been denied, if United Therapeutics is successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation or the New FDA Litigation, we could be limited to commercializing YUTREPIA only for the PAH indication for an extended time period.

Previous wording

In December 2021, United Therapeutics filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, alleging that we and Robert Roscigno (“Dr. Roscigno”), a former United Therapeutics employee, who later joined us as an employee many years after terminating his employment with United Therapeutics, conspired to misappropriate certain trade secrets of United Therapeutics and engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices. In January 2024, Dr. Roscigno filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, but the motion was denied in July 2024. In addition, in July 2024, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims. Briefing on the Company’s motion is in process.

Current wording

In December 2021, United Therapeutics filed a complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, alleging that we and Robert Roscigno (“Dr. Roscigno”), a former United Therapeutics employee, who later joined us as an employee many years after terminating his employment with United Therapeutics, conspired to misappropriate certain trade secrets of United Therapeutics and engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices. In January 2024, Dr. Roscigno filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, but the motion was denied in July 2024. In addition, in July 2024, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims. Briefing on the Company’s motion is complete and a hearing has been scheduled for December 19, 2024.

Previous wording

In May 2024, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, against Dr. Roscigno, alleging that he breached prior employment agreements with United Therapeutics by failing to assign to United Therapeutics his interest in patents obtained by the Company that relied upon or benefitted from certain inventions, discoveries, materials, authorship, derivatives and results developed by Dr. Roscigno while he was employed by United Therapeutics. The Company was also named as a defendant in this new lawsuit. As part of the lawsuit, United Therapeutics alleges that Dr. Roscigno misappropriated certain intellectual property of United Therapeutics which led to the development of YUTREPIA. The complaint also seeks declaratory judgement such that all right, title and interest in and to any patentable or unpatentable inventions, discoveries, and ideas made or conceived by Dr. Roscigno while employed by the company should be assigned and transferred to United Therapeutics because they involved the use of United Therapeutics’ confidential information. On July 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims. Briefing on the motion is in progress.

Current wording

In May 2024, United Therapeutics filed a second complaint in the Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, against Dr. Roscigno, alleging that he breached prior employment agreements with United Therapeutics by failing to assign to United Therapeutics his interest in patents obtained by the Company that relied upon or benefitted from certain inventions, discoveries, materials, authorship, derivatives and results developed by Dr. Roscigno while he was employed by United Therapeutics. The Company was also named as a defendant in this new lawsuit. As part of the lawsuit, United Therapeutics alleges that Dr. Roscigno misappropriated certain intellectual property of United Therapeutics which led to the development of YUTREPIA. The complaint also seeks declaratory judgement such that all right, title and interest in and to any patentable or unpatentable inventions, discoveries, and ideas made or conceived by Dr. Roscigno while employed by the Company should be assigned and transferred to United Therapeutics because they involved the use of United Therapeutics’ confidential information. On July 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims. Briefing on the motion is complete and a hearing has been scheduled for December 19, 2024.

Previous wording

Success in the lawsuits orinter partes review proceedings with respect to some patents or some claims in a given patent does not mean that we will be similarly successful upon appeal of those decisions. In addition, success with respect to a given patent or patent claim in one proceeding does not mean we will be similarly successful with respect to that same patent or patent claim in another proceeding.

Current wording

Success in a lawsuit, including in any such lawsuit with respect to some patents or some claims in a given patent, does not mean that we will be similarly successful upon appeal of those decisions. In addition, success in one proceeding, including with respect to a given patent, patent claim or trade secret in one proceeding, does not mean we will be similarly successful with respect to that same or a similar patent, patent claim or trade secret in another proceeding.

Previous wording

If, after the appeals process has been completed, we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any United Therapeutics’ intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from United Therapeutics to continue developing and marketing YUTREPIA. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or to have misappropriated a trade secret of United Therapeutics. In addition, we may be forced to redesign YUTREPIA to avoid infringement.

Current wording

If we are found to infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any United Therapeutics’ intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from United Therapeutics to continue developing and marketing YUTREPIA. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent or to have misappropriated a trade secret of United Therapeutics. In addition, we may be forced to redesign YUTREPIA to avoid infringement.

Previous wording

Generic drug prices may, and often do, decline, sometimes dramatically, especially as additional generic pharmaceutical companies (including low-cost generic producers outside of the United States) receive approvals and enter the market for a given product. The goals established under the Generic Drug User Fee Act, and increased funding of the FDA’s Office of Generic Drugs, have led to more and faster generic approvals, and consequently increased competition for generic products. The FDA has stated that it has established new steps to enhance competition, promote access and lower drug prices and is approving record-breaking numbers of generic applications. The FDA’s changes may benefit our

Current wording

Generic drug prices may, and often do, decline, sometimes dramatically, especially as additional generic pharmaceutical companies (including low-cost generic producers outside of the United States) receive approvals and enter the market for a given product. The goals established under the Generic Drug User Fee Act, and increased funding of the FDA’s Office of Generic Drugs, have led to more and faster generic approvals, and consequently increased competition for generic products. The FDA has stated that it has established new steps to enhance competition, promote access and lower drug prices and is approving record-breaking numbers of generic applications. The FDA’s changes may benefit our competitors. Our ability to sell Treprostinil Injection and earn revenue is affected by the number of companies selling competitive products, including new market entrants, and the timing of their approvals.

Previous wording

There are a number of competitors seeking marketing approval and/or regulatory exclusivity with respect to products that are or would be competitive to our product candidate. Thus, we face the risk that one of our competitors will be granted marketing approval and/or regulatory exclusivity before we are able to obtain FDA approval for our product candidate. In that case, as stated above, there is the possibility that such a competitor would be able to prevent us from obtaining approval of and marketing our product candidate until the expiration of the competitor’s term of FDA regulatory exclusivity, which could be a term of three years for so-called New Clinical Investigation exclusivity, or could conceivably be for longer periods of time if the competitor is successful in being granted other forms of FDA regulatory exclusivity which might include, for example, Orphan Disease Designation exclusivity (seven years), New Chemical Entity exclusivity (five years), or Pediatric exclusivity (six months beyond other existing exclusivities or patent terms). In the event United Therapeutics sought and was able to obtain one or more regulatory exclusivities with respect to Tyvaso DPI, it could significantly delay our ability to obtain final approval for YUTREPIA. Even if the FDA does not recognize any new regulatory exclusivity for United Therapeutics, United Therapeutics could challenge the FDA’s decision and seek an injunction to prevent approval of YUTREPIA in on or more indications until such challenge has been decided.

Current wording

There are a number of competitors seeking marketing approval and/or regulatory exclusivity with respect to products that are or would be competitive to our product candidate. Thus, we face the risk that one of our competitors will be granted marketing approval and/or regulatory exclusivity before we are able to obtain FDA approval for our product candidate. In that case, as stated above, there is the possibility that such a competitor would be able to prevent us from obtaining approval of and marketing our product candidate until the expiration of the competitor’s term of FDA regulatory exclusivity, which could be a term of three years for so-called New Clinical Investigation exclusivity, or could conceivably be for longer periods of time if the competitor is successful in being granted other forms of FDA regulatory exclusivity which might include, for example, Orphan Disease Designation exclusivity (seven years), New Chemical Entity exclusivity (five years), or Pediatric exclusivity (six months beyond other existing exclusivities or patent terms). For example, United Therapeutics was recently awarded New Clinical Investigation exclusivity for Tyvaso DPI, which will expire in May 2025. As a result, unless we are successful in having such exclusivity overturned, the FDA will be unable to approve YUTREPIA until after the exclusivity expires in May 2025. In the event United Therapeutics sought and was able to obtain one or more other regulatory exclusivities with respect to Tyvaso DPI, it could further significantly delay our ability to obtain final approval for YUTREPIA. Even if the FDA does not recognize any new regulatory exclusivity for United Therapeutics, United Therapeutics could challenge the FDA’s decision and seek an injunction to prevent approval of YUTREPIA in one or more indications until such challenge has been decided.

Previous wording

In addition, if one of our competitors is granted marketing approval before we are able to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates, as was the case with respect to the approval of United Therapeutics’ Tyvaso DPI product, such competitors will be able to detail and market their products before we are able to do so, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

Current wording

In addition, if one of our competitors is granted marketing approval before we are able to obtain FDA approval for our product candidates, as was the case with respect to the approval of United Therapeutics’ Tyvaso DPI product, such competitors will be able to promote and market their products before we are able to do so, which may place us at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.

Previous wording

One or more products that are competitive with YUTREPIA could also obtain approval for additional indications or broader conditions of use. These additional indications and broader conditions of use could be protected by one or more patents or regulatory exclusivities, preventing YUTREPIA from obtaining approval for the same indications or conditions of use. For instance, if Liquidia is prevented from launching or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD in connection with the patent litigation related to the ‘327 patent or the lawsuit that United Therapeutics filed against the FDA, Tyvaso and Tyvaso DPI would have broader labels than YUTREPIA. In addition, United Therapeutics

Current wording

One or more products that are competitive with YUTREPIA could also obtain approval for additional indications or broader conditions of use. These additional indications and broader conditions of use could be protected by one or more patents or regulatory exclusivities, preventing YUTREPIA from obtaining approval for the same indications or conditions of use. For instance, if Liquidia is prevented from launching or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD in connection with the patent litigation related to the ‘327 patent or the lawsuit that United Therapeutics filed

Previous wording

is currently studying Tyvaso for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, an indication for which it has received an orphan drug designation. Thus, even if YUTREPIA is approved, such competitive products could have a broader label than the initial label for YUTREPIA. If YUTREPIA has a narrower label than other competitive products, it may affect our ability to compete with such products.

Current wording

against the FDA, Tyvaso and Tyvaso DPI would have broader labels than YUTREPIA. In addition, United Therapeutics is currently studying Tyvaso for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, an indication for which it has received an orphan drug designation. Thus, even if YUTREPIA is approved, such competitive products could have a broader label than the initial label for YUTREPIA. If YUTREPIA has a narrower label than other competitive products, it may affect our ability to compete with such products.

Previous wording

In order to market and sell any of our drug products, if and when approved, we will be required to build our marketing and sales capabilities with respect to such products. With the acquisition of Liquidia PAH, we acquired a sales force to market generic treprostinil in accordance with the Promotion Agreement. In addition, during 2023, we significantly increased the size of our sales force in anticipation of a potential launch of YUTREPIA. However, if we experience continued delays in the approval of YUTREPIA, we may be unable to retain our sales force. Moreover, we cannot

Current wording

In order to market and sell any of our drug products, if and when approved, we will be required to build our marketing and sales capabilities with respect to such products. With the acquisition of Liquidia PAH, we acquired a sales force to market generic treprostinil in accordance with the Promotion Agreement. In addition, during 2023, we significantly increased the size of our sales force in anticipation of a potential launch of YUTREPIA. However, if we experience

Previous wording

assure you that we will be successful in further building or effectively managing our marketing and sales capabilities or be able to do so in a cost-effective manner. In addition, we may enter into collaboration arrangements with third parties to market our drug products. We may face significant competition for collaborators. In addition, collaboration arrangements may be time-consuming to negotiate and document. We cannot assure you that we will be able to negotiate collaborations for the marketing and sales of our drug products on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we do enter into such collaborations, we cannot assure you that our collaborators will be successful in commercializing our products. If we or our collaborators are unable to successfully commercialize our drug products, whether in the United States or elsewhere, our business and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

Current wording

continued delays in the approval of YUTREPIA, we may be unable to retain our sales force. Moreover, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in further building or effectively managing our marketing and sales capabilities or be able to do so in a cost-effective manner. In addition, we may enter into collaboration arrangements with third parties to market our drug products. We may face significant competition for collaborators. In addition, collaboration arrangements may be time-consuming to negotiate and document. We cannot assure you that we will be able to negotiate collaborations for the marketing and sales of our drug products on acceptable terms, or at all. Even if we do enter into such collaborations, we cannot assure you that our collaborators will be successful in commercializing our products. If we or our collaborators are unable to successfully commercialize our drug products, whether in the United States or elsewhere, our business and results of operations may be materially and adversely affected.

Previous wording

In the future, we may choose to participate in sales activities with collaborators for some of our drug candidates. However, there are also risks with entering into these types of arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services. For example, we may not be able to enter into such arrangements on terms that are favorable to us. Our drug revenues or the profitability of these drug revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any drug candidates that we develop ourselves. In addition, we likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our drug candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in

Current wording

In the future, we may choose to participate in sales activities with collaborators for some of our drug candidates. However, there are also risks with entering into these types of arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing and distribution services. For example, we may not be able to enter into such arrangements on terms that are favorable to us. Our drug revenues or the profitability of these drug revenues to us are likely to be lower than if we were to market and sell any drug candidates that we develop ourselves. In addition, we likely will have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our drug

Previous wording

collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates. Further, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects will be materially adversely affected.

Current wording

candidates effectively. If we do not establish sales and marketing capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our drug candidates. Further, our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects will be materially adversely affected.

Previous wording

We received tentative approval of our NDA for YUTREPIA for the treatment of PAH in November 2021. However, our receipt of tentative approval does not mean that we will receive final approval of our NDA for YUTREPIA in a timely manner or at all or that we will receive approval for other indications, such as PH-ILD. However, United Therapeutics has invested considerable time and resources in an effort to block final approval of YUTREPIA, and expectations related to final FDA approval and projected product launch timelines are impacted by ongoing litigation following lawsuits filed by United Therapeutics. For instance, Judge Andrews issued an order in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation enjoining the FDA from issuing a final approval for the YUTREPIA NDA until the expiration of the ‘793 Patent in 2027. While Judge Andrews set aside the injunction after a December 2023 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming an earlier decision by the PTAB to invalidate all claims of the ‘793 Patent, United Therapeutics has appealed Judge Andrews’ decision to set aside the injunction. In the event such appeal or United Therapeutics’ appeal to the United States Supreme Court of the decision invalidating the ‘793 Patent are successful, Judge Andrews may reinstitute the injunction, in which case the final approval of YUTREPIA may be blocked or, if it has already been granted, revoked. Furthermore, in connection with an amendment to our NDA filed on July 24, 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, we provided a new notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation, again asserting infringement by the Company of the ‘793 Patent, which lawsuit was amended on November 30, 2023, to add claims asserting infringement of the ‘327 Patent. Although the claims related to the ‘793 Patent were subsequently withdrawn, in February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. That motion for preliminary injunction was denied, but United Therapeutics may still seek injunctive relief in the future. In February 2024, United Therapeutics also commenced the FDA Litigation, seeking to enjoin the FDA from approving our NDA for YUTREPIA with respect to the indication to treat PH-ILD. Although we do not believe United Therapeutics is entitled to any injunction or temporary restraining order in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation or the FDA Litigation, it is possible that the Court could rule that the FDA must reject the amendment to the YUTREPIA NDA to add PH-ILD to the label or that, even if YUTREPIA has launched for both PAH and PH-ILD, the Company must re…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

We received tentative approval of our NDA for YUTREPIA for the treatment of PAH and PH-ILD in August 2024. However, our receipt of tentative approval does not mean that we will receive final approval of our NDA for YUTREPIA in a timely manner or at all or that we will receive final approval for both indications. United Therapeutics has invested considerable time and resources in an effort to block final approval of YUTREPIA, and expectations related to final FDA approval and projected product launch timelines are impacted by ongoing litigation following lawsuits filed by United Therapeutics. For instance, in connection with an amendment to our NDA filed on July 24, 2023 to add PH-ILD as an indication for YUTREPIA, we provided a new notice of the paragraph IV certification to United Therapeutics as the owner of the patents that are the subject of the certification to which the NDA for YUTREPIA refers. As a result, in September 2023, United Therapeutics filed the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation, again asserting infringement by the Company of the ‘793 Patent, which lawsuit was amended on November 30, 2023, to add claims asserting infringement of the ‘327 Patent. Although the claims related to the ‘793 Patent were subsequently withdrawn, in February 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent us from manufacturing, marketing, storing, importing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD. That motion for preliminary injunction was denied, but United Therapeutics may still seek injunctive relief in the future. In September 2024, United Therapeutics also filed a cross claim in the New FDA Litigation, seeking to enjoin the FDA from approving our NDA for YUTREPIA with respect to the indication to treat PH-ILD. Although we do not believe United Therapeutics is entitled to any injunction or temporary restraining order in the New Hatch-Waxman Litigation or the New FDA Litigation, it is possible that the Court could rule that the FDA must reject the amendment to the YUTREPIA NDA to add PH-ILD to the label or that, even if YUTREPIA has launched for both PAH and PH-ILD, the Company must remove PH-ILD from the label for YUTREPIA.

Previous wording

In addition, a drug product that is granted tentative approval, like YUTREPIA, may be subject to additional review before final approval, particularly if tentative approval was granted more than three years before the earliest lawful approval date. The FDA’s tentative approval of YUTREPIA for the treatment of PAH was based on information available to FDA at the time of the tentative approval letter (i.e., information in the application and the status of current good manufacturing practices of the facilities used in the manufacturing and testing of the drug product) and is therefore subject to change on the basis of new information that may come to FDA’s attention. For instance, United Therapeutics recently filed a citizen petition related to the supplier of the active pharmaceutical ingredient for YUTREPIA in an attempt to prevent or delay the approval of YUTREPIA. It is possible that the issues raised in the citizen petition could delay the completion of FDA’s review of the NDA for YUTREPIA. In addition, the FDA has not yet issued even tentative approval for YUTREPIA for the treatment of PH-ILD, which remains under review. A new drug product may not be marketed until the date of final approval.

Current wording

In addition, a drug product that is granted tentative approval, like YUTREPIA, may be subject to additional review before final approval, particularly if tentative approval was granted more than three years before the earliest lawful approval date. The FDA’s tentative approval of YUTREPIA for the treatment of PAH and PH-ILD was based on information available to FDA at the time of the tentative approval letter (i.e., information in the application and the status of current good manufacturing practices of the facilities used in the manufacturing and testing of the drug product) and is therefore subject to change on the basis of new information that may come to FDA’s attention. A new drug product may not be marketed until the date of final approval.

Previous wording

determines that we failed to include required CMC information in the NDA for our products, including YUTREPIA, we may be delayed in obtaining final approval or may be unable to obtain final approval. Furthermore, responses to FDA’s requests may be time-consuming and expensive. Status as a combination product, as is the case for YUTREPIA and L606, may complicate or delay the FDA review process. Product candidates that the FDA deems to be combination products, such as YUTREPIA and L606, or that otherwise rely on innovative drug delivery systems, may face additional challenges, risks and delays in the product development and regulatory approval process. Additionally, the FDA could delay approval of YUTREPIA and/or L606 even if approvable after completing its review. For example, if a competing product comprised of an inhaled dry-powder formulation of treprostinil, such as Tyvaso DPI, is granted regulatory exclusivity, that could delay the final approval of YUTREPIA until said exclusivity expires. Moreover, the applicable requirements for approval may differ from country to country. It is also possible that recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court, eliminating court deference to decisions by administrative agencies, may delay any final decisions from the FDA as it considers how to implement this new ruling into its decision-making process.

Current wording

We cannot assure you that we will receive final marketing approval for YUTREPIA or L606 or, even if we do receive final marketing approval, the indications for which they will be approved. The FDA or comparable regulatory authorities in other countries may delay, limit or deny final approval of our product candidate for various reasons. For example, such authorities may disagree with the design, scope or implementation of our clinical trials, or with our interpretation of data from our preclinical studies or clinical trials. Further, there are numerous FDA personnel assigned to review different aspects of an NDA, and uncertainties can be presented by their ability to exercise judgment and discretion during the review process. During the course of review prior to final approval, the FDA may request or require additional preclinical, clinical, chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) or other data and information or conduct additional inspections. If any additional issues were identified in such information requests or inspections or if FDA determines that we failed to include required CMC information in the NDA for our products, including YUTREPIA, we may be delayed in obtaining final approval or may be unable to obtain final approval. Furthermore, responses to FDA’s requests may be time-consuming and expensive. Status as a combination product, as is the case for YUTREPIA and L606, may complicate or delay the FDA review process. Product candidates that the FDA deems to be combination products, such as YUTREPIA and L606, or that otherwise rely on innovative drug delivery systems, may face additional challenges, risks and delays in the product development and regulatory approval process. Additionally, the FDA could delay approval of YUTREPIA and/or L606 even if approvable after completing its review. For example, Tyvaso DPI was granted regulatory exclusivity that will delay final approval of YUTREPIA until after the exclusivity expires in May 2025. If a competing product comprised of an inhaled dry-powder formulation of treprostinil, such as Tyvaso DPI, is granted additional regulatory exclusivity, that could delay the final approval of YUTREPIA until said exclusivity expires. Moreover, the applicable requirements for approval may differ from country to country. It is also possible that

Previous wording

intended use of the product candidate. A single clinical trial may take up to several years to complete. Moreover, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be delayed or halted due to various factors, including, among others:

Current wording

Furthermore, conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials is a costly and time-consuming process. The length of time required to conduct the required studies and trials may vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use of the product candidate. A single clinical trial may take up to several years to complete. Moreover, our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be delayed or halted due to various factors, including, among others:

Previous wording

Pursuing marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product candidate (for example, through the NDA process) is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process. We cannot assure you that any of our product candidates

Current wording

Pursuing marketing approval for a pharmaceutical product candidate (for example, through the NDA process) is an extensive, lengthy, expensive and inherently uncertain process. We cannot assure you that any of our product candidates will receive marketing approval. Regulatory authorities may delay, limit or deny approval of our product candidates for many reasons, including, but not limited to, the following:

Previous wording

disease. Furthermore, we are aware of a number of therapies for PAH that are being developed or that are already available on the market, and we expect to face competition from these investigational drugs or approved drugs for potential subjects in our clinical trials, including planned clinical trials for YUTREPIA and L606, which may delay enrollment in our planned clinical trials.

Current wording

We expect that if we initiate, as we are currently contemplating, a clinical trial of YUTREPIA in pediatric patients, we may encounter difficulties enrolling patients in such a trial because of the limited number of pediatric patients with this disease. Furthermore, we are aware of a number of therapies for PAH that are being developed or that are already available on the market, and we expect to face competition from these investigational drugs or approved drugs for potential subjects in our clinical trials, including planned clinical trials for YUTREPIA and L606, which may delay enrollment in our planned clinical trials.

Previous wording

The FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials to support any change from the reference listed drug, which could be time-consuming and substantially delay our receipt of marketing approval. Also, as has been the experience of others in our industry, our competitors may file citizen petitions or other correspondence with the FDA or lawsuits against the FDA to contest approval of our NDA, which may delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. For instance, United Therapeutics has a lawsuit against the FDA and recently filed a citizen petition in an attempt to prevent or delay the approval of YUTREPIA. If an FDA decision or action relative to our product candidate, or the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) more generally, is successfully challenged, it could result in delays or even prevent the FDA from approving a 505(b)(2) application for our product candidates or for certain indications for our product candidates. Even if we are able to utilize the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, a drug approved via this pathway may be subject to the same post-approval limitations, conditions and requirements as any other drug.

Current wording

The FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials to support any change from the reference listed drug, which could be time-consuming and substantially delay our receipt of marketing approval. Also, as has been the experience of others in our industry, our competitors may file citizen petitions or other correspondence with the FDA or lawsuits against the FDA to contest approval of our NDA, which may delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. For instance, United Therapeutics has a lawsuit against the FDA and recently filed a citizen petition in an attempt to prevent or delay the approval of YUTREPIA. If an FDA decision or action relative to our product candidate, or the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) more generally, is successfully challenged, it could result in delays or even prevent the FDA from approving a 505(b)(2) application for our product candidates or for certain indications for our product candidates. Even if we are able to utilize the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, the approval of a drug developed under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway may be delayed by one or more regulatory exclusivities. For example, Tyvaso DPI was recently granted New Clinical Investigation exclusivity, which has delayed final approval of YUTREPIA until after the exclusivity expires in May 2025. Also, a drug approved via this pathway may be subject to the same post-approval limitations, conditions and requirements as any other drug.

Previous wording

In addition, we may face Hatch-Waxman litigation in relation to our NDAs submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which may further delay or prevent the approval of our product candidates. The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a 505(b)(2) NDA. If the previously approved drugs referenced in an applicant’s 505(b)(2) NDA are protected by patent(s) listed in the Orange Book, the 505(b)(2) applicant is required to make a claim after filing its NDA or certain types of amendments to its NDA that each such patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed. The patent holder may thereafter bring suit for patent infringement, which will trigger a mandatory 30-month delay (or the shorter of dismissal of the lawsuit or expiration of the patent(s)) in approval of the 505(b)(2) NDA application. In addition, in the event the court in any such lawsuit finds that any claims of any of the asserted patents are both valid and infringed, the court would likely issue an injunction prohibiting approval of the product at issue until the expiration of the patent(s) found to have been infringed. For example, the YUTREPIA NDA was filed under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway with Tyvaso as the reference listed drug. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, as a result of the litigation commenced by United Therapeutics in June 2020, the FDA was automatically precluded from approving the YUTREPIA NDA for up to 30 months. In August 2022, prior to the expiration of the 30-month stay, the Court found that the asserted claims of one of the patents, the ‘793 Patent, were both valid and infringed by the Company and ordered that the effective date of any final approval by the FDA of YUTREPIA shall be a date which is not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘793 Patent. In December 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the earlier decision by the PTAB, which found all claims of the ‘793 Patent to be unpatentable due to the existence of prior art cited by us ininter partes review proceedings. As a result of this decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the invalidity of the ‘793 Patent, in December 2023, we filed a motion for Judge Andrews to set aside the injunction he issued in the Original Hatch-Waxman Litigation. The motion was granted in March 2024, and the injunction on final approval by the FDA of YUTREPIA was set aside. However, United Therapeutics has appealed Judge Andrews’ decision to set aside the injunction to the Federal Circuit.

Current wording

In addition, we may face Hatch-Waxman litigation in relation to our NDAs submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, which may further delay or prevent the approval of our product candidates. The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, and 505(b)(2) NDAs are subject to special requirements designed to protect the patent rights of sponsors of previously approved drugs that are referenced in a 505(b)(2) NDA. If the previously approved drugs referenced in an applicant’s 505(b)(2) NDA are protected by patent(s) listed in the Orange Book, the 505(b)(2) applicant is required to make a claim after filing its NDA or certain types of amendments to its NDA that each such patent is invalid, unenforceable or will not be infringed. The patent holder may thereafter bring suit for patent infringement,

Previous wording

It is also not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product, such as United Therapeutics, to file a citizen petition or other correspondence with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products or to take other actions, such as engaging in litigation with the FDA to enjoin approval of a competing product. If successful, such petitions, correspondence or litigation can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. For example, United Therapeutics is currently pursuing litigation under the Administrative Procedures Act, seeking to require the FDA to reject our amendment to the YUTREPIA NDA to add PH-ILD to the label. In addition, United Therapeutics recently filed a citizen petition related to the supplier of the active pharmaceutical ingredient for YUTREPIA in an attempt to prevent or delay the approval of YUTREPIA. Even if the FDA ultimately denies the petition and prevails in such litigation, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition or correspondence and is engaged in litigation or the FDA may be temporarily enjoined by a court from granting approval until the court has ruled on United Therapeutics’ requests.

Current wording

It is also not uncommon for a manufacturer of an approved product, such as United Therapeutics, to file a citizen petition or other correspondence with the FDA seeking to delay approval of, or impose additional approval requirements for, pending competing products or to take other actions, such as engaging in litigation with the FDA to enjoin approval of a competing product. If successful, such petitions, correspondence or litigation can significantly delay, or even prevent, the approval of the new product. For example, United Therapeutics is currently pursuing litigation under the Administrative Procedures Act, seeking to require the FDA to reject our amendment to the YUTREPIA NDA to add PH-ILD to the label. Even if the FDA ultimately prevails in such litigation, the FDA may substantially delay approval while it considers and responds to the petition or correspondence and is engaged in litigation or the FDA may be temporarily enjoined by a court from granting approval until the court has ruled on United Therapeutics’ request.

Previous wording

If the FDA determines that any of our product candidates do not qualify for the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we would need to reconsider our plans and might not be able to commercialize our product candidates in a cost-efficient manner, or at all. If we were to pursue approval under the 505(b)(1) NDA pathway, we would be subject to more extensive requirements and risks such as conducting additional clinical trials, providing additional data and information or meeting

Current wording

If the FDA determines that any of our product candidates do not qualify for the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway, we would need to reconsider our plans and might not be able to commercialize our product candidates in a cost-efficient manner, or at all. If we were to pursue approval under the 505(b)(1) NDA pathway, we would be subject to more extensive requirements and risks such as conducting additional clinical trials, providing additional data and information or meeting additional standards for marketing approval. As a result, the time and financial resources required to obtain marketing approval for our product candidates would likely increase substantially and further complications and risks associated with our product candidates may arise. Also, new competing products may reach the market faster than ours, which may materially and adversely affect our competitive position, business and prospects.