UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

OR

Commission File Number 001-39926

 

Terns Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 525-5535

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.  Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes ☐ No ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to submit such files).  Yes ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes ☐ No ☒

The registrant’s common stock was not publicly traded as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

The number of shares of Registrant’s Common Stock outstanding as of March 26, 2021 was 25,125,072.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None.

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

i

---

 

 

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements concerning our business, operations and financial performance and condition, as well as our plans, objectives and expectations for our business, operations and financial performance and condition. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical facts may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties related to the global COVID 19 pandemic and other important factors that are in some cases beyond our control and may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “aim,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “due,” “estimate,” “expect,” “goal,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “plan,” “predict,” “potential,” “positioned,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” and other similar expressions that are predictions of or indicate future events and future trends, or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

ii

---

 

Summary of material risks associated with our business

 

The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iii

---

 

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors below in the section entitled Item 1A. “Risk Factors” and the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The risks summarized above or described in full below are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not precisely known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and future growth prospects.

 

 

 

 

iv

---

 

 

 

PART I

Item 1. Business.

Company Overview

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing a portfolio of small-molecule single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH, and other chronic liver diseases. Our programs are based on clinically-validated and complementary mechanisms of action to address the multiple hepatic disease processes of NASH in order to drive meaningful clinical benefits for patients. The mechanisms of action targeted by our current drug candidates are the same mechanisms of action targeted by other drug candidates that have achieved clinical proof-of-concept in NASH clinical trials and have demonstrated significant improvements on histological and non-invasive markers of the disease, though no drug has been approved for the treatment of NASH in the United States or Europe. Our most advanced program is TERN-101, a liver-distributed, non-bile acid Farnesoid X Receptor agonist that has demonstrated sustained liver FXR activation, as well as a favorable tolerability profile across multiple Phase 1 clinical trials. In our Phase 1 clinical trials, no pruritus, or itching, or increases in LDL cholesterol levels as compared to the control group were observed—unlike in Phase 1 clinical trials of other FXR agonists conducted by third parties. Our Phase 2a clinical trial of TERN-101 in NASH patients (the LIFT Study) was fully enrolled in January 2021 and we expect top-line data in July 2021. Our second clinical stage program, TERN-201, is a highly selective inhibitor of Vascular Adhesion Protein-1. We intend to start our Phase 1b clinical trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients in the first half of 2021 and expect top-line data in the first half of 2022. Our third clinical stage program is TERN-501, a Thyroid Hormone Receptor beta agonist with high metabolic stability, enhanced liver distribution and greater selectivity for THR-β compared to other THR-β agonists in development. In January 2021, the FDA cleared our investigational new drug application, or IND, for TERN-501. In March 2021, we announced the initiation of our Phase 1 first-in-human clinical trial of TERN-501 and we expect top-line data in the second half of 2021. We are also pursuing two combination therapy programs to address the multiple disease processes of NASH and expect to initiate a Phase 2a clinical proof-of-concept trial evaluating a combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in the first half of 2022.

NASH is a severe form of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD, that affects up to 15 million people in the United States, and up to 6% of the global population, for which there is currently no approved therapy in the United States or Europe. In a study published in Hepatology in 2016, direct healthcare costs associated with NAFLD and NASH in the United States in 2016 were estimated to be approximately $100 billion, in the absence of approved therapies. Severe progression of NASH can lead to cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease and increased risk for hepatic carcinoma and liver-related mortality. NASH is a multifaceted disease that involves three distinct pathogenic hepatic disease processes: steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. Our pipeline of programs is intended to address each of these distinct pathogenic disease processes. We believe that with our pipeline targeting steatosis (TERN-101 and TERN-501), inflammation (TERN-101 and TERN-201) and fibrosis (TERN-101 and TERN-201) in tandem, our programs have the potential to provide greater resolution of NASH and improvements in related clinical outcomes. Furthermore, by developing combination therapies to treat NASH, we are aiming to expand the reach of NASH therapeutics through improved response rates, better tolerability and improved compliance as compared to monotherapy regimens.

5

---

 

Our NASH Pipeline Programs

Our wholly owned NASH pipeline includes multiple single-agent and combination therapy candidates that provide several opportunities to address the multifaceted nature of NASH and drive meaningful clinical benefits for patients. We intend to advance single-agent and combination therapy candidates to increase the potential for improved response rates in NASH patients, for whom there are no approved treatment options.

 

 

 

6

---

 

Combinations:

Several prior clinical trials evaluating single-agent therapies for NASH have shown only moderate histological improvements and exhibited tolerability issues with some of these agents at high doses. We believe that developing combination therapies targeting multiple mechanistic pathways will drive improved response rates for NASH patients while mitigating potential tolerability concerns and improving compliance as compared with monotherapy regimens. We are well-positioned to develop multiple combination therapies for NASH with our extensive experience in combination drug development and the ability to leverage our pipeline of wholly owned single-agents that we believe are suitable for orally administered combination development.

We believe that therapies targeting steatosis (TERN-101 and TERN-501), inflammation (TERN-101 and TERN-201) and fibrosis (TERN-101 and TERN-201) in tandem, have the potential to provide greater resolution of NASH and improvement in related clinical outcomes. We expect to initiate a Phase 2a clinical proof-of-concept trial evaluating a combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in NASH patients in the first half of 2022. We are also assessing the potential utility of combinations of TERN-201 with assets inside and outside of our pipeline. Given the strength of our internal resources and capabilities, we have the flexibility to independently advance our combination therapies without the need for a co-development partner at this time.

Our History

Terns was founded in 2017 with the goal of developing innovative therapies for patients with NASH and other liver diseases. We have assembled a team of industry veterans with extensive experience in drug discovery and development, especially in liver diseases. Collectively, our team is responsible for more than 20 FDA approved products, including eleven fixed-dose-combination drugs. Our executive team has a strong track record in leading successful biotechnology companies and research and development organizations. Senthil Sundaram, our Chief Executive Officer, has over 20 years of strategy, financial and leadership experience in the life sciences industry. Dr. Erin Quirk, our President and Chief Medical Officer, brings more than 15 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, and has personally contributed to the development of 14 approved drug products to date, including initial marketing applications for five novel fixed-dose combinations. Dr. Weidong Zhong, our founder and Chief Scientific Officer, is an accomplished industry veteran who brings 25 years of experience in drug discovery and development and has developed over 20 small-molecule and biologic drug candidates.

7

---

 

Our Strategy

Our goal is to develop and commercialize differentiated monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with NASH and other chronic liver diseases. Key elements of our strategy to achieve this goal include:

8

---

 

Background on NASH

NASH is a severe form of NAFLD, a common liver disease characterized by the accumulation of excess fat in the liver (steatosis). When hepatic steatosis results in liver inflammation and, in many cases, fibrosis, it results in NASH, a multifaceted disease that involves three distinct pathogenic hepatic disease processes: steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. Severe progression of NASH leads to cirrhosis and decompensated liver disease, with the associated risks for hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death. NASH was recently identified as the second leading etiologic indication for liver transplantation in the United States, and it is projected to become the leading cause of liver transplantation in the coming years.

NAFLD is the most common cause of chronic liver disease in the United States, affecting 80 to 100 million individuals. Among persons with NAFLD, approximately 20% will progress to NASH, which is currently estimated to affect 15 million adults in the United States. Progression of liver fibrosis ultimately leads to cirrhosis in an estimated 20% of patients with NASH. With an aging population and the markedly increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, and dyslipidemia/metabolic syndrome worldwide, NAFLD and NASH have increased greatly in prevalence, posing a significant healthcare challenge. In a study published in Hepatology in 2016, direct healthcare costs associated with NAFLD and NASH in the United States in 2016 were estimated to be approximately $100 billion, in the absence of approved therapies.

Etiology of NASH

NAFLD and NASH are classified as progressive metabolic diseases, often correlated with chronic excess caloric intake, obesity and metabolic syndrome. Physiologically, hepatocytes in the liver can act as a repository for excess energy stored by the body. As humans consume disproportionate amounts of calories relative to those burned on a consistent basis, the body becomes overweight, and organs, including the liver, become burdened by fatty tissue. With the liver acting as the hub for excess energy and energy conversion, an imbalance develops with more delivery of fats and triglycerides to the liver, an increase in hepatic fatty acid synthesis, and impaired hepatic fatty acid oxidation and removal of liver fat, resulting in NAFLD.

Within the steatotic liver, fat deposits can create lipotoxic effects to the surrounding liver tissue, resulting in hepatocyte stress and injury and activating inflammatory Kupffer cells. Local increases in reactive oxygenation species can induce hepatocytes to undergo cell death and create an inflammatory response within the organ. VAP-1 is over expressed in affected areas of the liver, serving as an attachment point for inflammatory leukocytes and triggering their recruitment from the bloodstream into the liver. These leukocytes are stimulated by local lipotoxic effects and the presence of reactive oxygenation species to produce cytokines, further exacerbating local inflammatory cascades and activating resident Kupffer cells, thereby exacerbating local inflammation.

Inflammatory cascades in the liver activate hepatic stellate cells to excrete extracellular matrix resulting in liver fibrosis. Over time, fibrosis progresses, increasingly replacing diseased and normal liver tissue with scar tissue. Eventually, most of the liver is replaced by fibrotic tissue, which histologically is categorized as cirrhosis. While some cirrhotic patients have enough functional liver tissue to maintain hepatic activity, over time, the liver fails, resulting in decompensated liver disease and the need for liver transplantation to avoid liver related death. Furthermore, cirrhosis is a key risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma.

NASH is currently diagnosed by histological findings on liver biopsy. In clinical trials, recommended scoring systems assess (i) liver fibrosis and (ii) steatosis and inflammation using the NAFLD Activity Score, or NAS, a composite score that grades the degree of three non-fibrotic histologic features of NASH: steatosis, hepatocyte ballooning, and lobular inflammation. Efficacious responses to treatment in NASH clinical trials are usually considered to be either an improvement in fibrosis score without worsening of the NAS, or an improvement of the NAS without worsening of fibrosis.

Increasingly, non-invasive blood and imaging tests are being used in clinical practice to diagnose NASH. Vibration controlled transient elastography combined with blood tests (serum chemistries, hematological parameters and other biomarkers) have shown good accuracy in diagnosing both steatosis and the degree of liver inflammation. As data from these non-invasive assessments continue to accumulate—for initial diagnosis of NASH, monitoring of disease progression over time, and monitoring response to treatment—these approaches may replace liver biopsy, both in clinical practice and clinical trials. In its December 2018 draft NASH guidance, the FDA encouraged sponsors to include non-invasive biomarkers in clinical studies of experimental NASH treatments in order to accelerate development and supplant liver biopsy.

9

---

 

Treatment of NASH

There currently are no FDA-approved therapies for the treatment of NASH, and available treatment options are limited to control of metabolic dysfunction, including weight loss, as well as lifestyle modifications such as exercise and dietary changes. However, many patients are unable to achieve or maintain significant weight loss or comply long-term with the dietary and lifestyle changes required to reverse NASH. In order to optimally treat NASH and reduce the risk of liver cancer and liver-related mortality, the three distinct disease processes may each need to be addressed–steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. Single agents focusing on specific mechanisms contributing to one of these three processes, each involving multiple pathways, have demonstrated only modest results to date.

The following table summarizes some of the treatment approaches for NASH currently in clinical development, together with limitations observed and Terns’ differentiated approach. Among the small-molecule programs with validated mechanisms, we believe FXR agonism, VAP-1 inhibition and THR-β agonism have great potential, not only as targets for single-agent therapy, but also as key components in combination therapies.

 

 

Our Programs

We are developing a portfolio of small molecules that address the multiple hepatic disease processes of NASH in order to drive meaningful clinical benefits. Our most advanced program, TERN-101, is a liver-distributed, non-bile acid FXR agonist that has demonstrated sustained liver FXR activation, as well as a favorable tolerability profile across multiple Phase 1 clinical trials. Our Phase 2a clinical trial of TERN-101 in NASH was fully enrolled in January 2021 and we expect top-line data in July 2021. Our second clinical stage program, TERN-201, is a highly selective inhibitor of VAP-1, which directly addresses hepatic inflammation. We intend to start our Phase 1b clinical trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients in the first half of 2021 and expect top-line data in the first half of 2022. Our third clinical stage program is TERN-501, a THR-β agonist with high metabolic stability, enhanced liver distribution and greater selectivity for THR-β compared to other THR-β agonists in development. In January 2021, the FDA cleared our IND for TERN-501 and we announced the initiation of our Phase 1 first-in-human clinical trial of TERN-501 in March 2021. We expect top-line data from this clinical trial in the second half of 2021. We are also pursuing two

10

---

 

combination therapy programs to address the multiple disease processes of NASH and expect to initiate a Phase 2a clinical proof-of-concept trial evaluating a combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 in the first half of 2022. We believe developing combination therapies targeting multiple mechanistic pathways will drive improved response rates across the population of NASH patients while mitigating potential tolerability concerns associated with other drugs in development.

TERN-101—a liver-distributed FXR agonist

Drug candidate summary

TERN-101 is a liver-distributed, non-bile acid FXR agonist that has demonstrated a differentiated tolerability profile and improved target engagement; likely due to its sustained FXR activation in the liver but only transient FXR activation in the intestine. FXR is a nuclear receptor primarily expressed in the liver, intestine and kidneys. FXR regulates hepatic expression of various genes involved in lipid metabolism, inflammation and fibrosis. Clinical studies of other FXR agonists have demonstrated significant histological NASH improvements but have also resulted in pruritus and adverse lipid changes. These tolerability issues have generally been observed in Phase 1 clinical trials of other FXR agonists in development and have been regarded as dose-limiting toxicities, which are suboptimal for patients and can lead to treatment discontinuation. However, in all four Phase 1 clinical trials of TERN-101, none of the 119 subjects who received TERN-101 reported pruritus, and the serum lipid profiles among TERN-101 recipients were similar to placebo recipients even at high doses. We are currently evaluating TERN-101 in a Phase 2a, 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in approximately 100 NASH patients (the LIFT Study), which was fully enrolled in January 2021, and we expect top-line data in July 2021. Our investigational new drug application, or IND, for TERN-101 went into effect in May 2019. We received Fast Track designation from the FDA for TERN-101 for the treatment of NASH in October 2019. Fast Track designation does not guarantee an accelerated review by the FDA.

FXR agonists may address NASH in different liver cell types

FXR is a nuclear receptor primarily expressed in the liver, intestine and kidneys. FXR regulates hepatic expression of various genes involved in lipid metabolism, inflammation and fibrosis. In the hepatocyte, FXR activation induces small heterodimer partner, or SHP, a key metabolic regulator. The upregulation of SHP by FXR reduces the expression of sterol-regulatory element-binding protein 1C, or SREBP1C, a master regulator of triglyceride synthesis. FXR-mediated inhibition of SREBP1C and subsequent reduction in triglyceride levels could result in reduced hepatic steatosis. FXR also plays a role in modulating hepatic inflammation. Activation of FXR in the hepatocyte represses nuclear factor-kB, or NF-kB, via induction of SHP, thereby reducing hepatic inflammation. FXR activation is also directly associated with reduction in hepatic inflammation in Kupffer cells. In hepatic stellate cells, FXR activation reduces fibrogenic markers such collagen type 1 alpha 1, or Col1a1, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1, or TIMP1. Inhibition of Col1a1 and TIMP1 reduces collagen synthesis and increases the degradation of the extracellular matrix, or ECM, thereby reducing liver fibrosis.

11

---

 

A liver-distributed FXR agonist has the potential to address NASH

by acting on the three key disease processes and cell types

 

 

Clinical validation of FXR agonists

FXR agonism has been investigated in large-scale clinical trials and has shown clinically relevant improvements in NASH. In these clinical trials, FXR agonists have shown significant histological NASH improvements in fibrosis, as well as improvement in markers of liver function.

Limitations of other FXR agonists: pruritus and adverse lipid changes

Clinical trials of other FXR agonists have demonstrated significant histological NASH improvements but have also resulted in pruritus and adverse lipid changes. These tolerability issues have been observed in early Phase 1 clinical trials for other FXR agonists as shown in the table below and have been regarded as dose-limiting toxicities, which are suboptimal for patients and can lead to treatment discontinuation. However, in all four Phase 1 clinical trials of TERN-101, none of the 119 subjects who received TERN-101 reported pruritus, and the serum lipid profiles among TERN-101 recipients were similar to placebo recipients even at high doses. An FXR agonist that can demonstrate improved liver health with minimal adverse effects would have great potential benefits for NASH patients.

12

---

 

FXR agonists: comparison of Phase 1 clinical trial results

 

 

We believe the liabilities from the other FXR agonists may be due to their activation of FXR outside the liver, particularly in the intestine. FXR activation in intestinal enterocytes results in the secretion of Fibroblast Growth Factor 19, or FGF19, which has been associated with increased serum low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol in published studies. Pruritus has been observed in clinical studies of other FXR agonists known to activate intestinal FXR. On the other hand, the use of bile acid sequestrants (such as cholestyramine or colesevelam) or ileal bile acid transporter, or IBAT, inhibitors has been demonstrated in several clinical studies to reduce plasma LDL, cholesterol in patients with hyperlipidemia and also to mitigate pruritus in patients with cholestatic liver disease, potentially through prevention of FXR activation. Therefore, we believe that an FXR agonist with sustained activity in the liver, but only minimal or transient intestinal or other extrahepatic FXR activity, would likely not be associated with pruritus or adverse lipid changes.

Our solution: TERN-101, a liver-distributed FXR agonist

We believe TERN-101 has been well-tolerated in completed clinical trials to date because of its high liver distribution, thereby minimizing activation of intestinal pathways that may be associated with pruritus and adverse lipid changes. The figure on the left below demonstrates in a preclinical model that administration of TERN-101 results in significantly higher distribution to the liver compared to other FXR agonists. The figure on the right below demonstrates that administration of TERN-101 is also associated with much higher activation of liver-related FXR gene expression, in contrast to intestinally-directed FXR agonists that have greater FXR gene activation in the intestine than in the liver. Studies have demonstrated that there is minimal overlap between liver and intestine FXR binding sites, indicating potentially a high degree of tissue-specific FXR function.

13

---

 

TERN-101 preferentially distributes to liver and induces liver-specific genes

 

 

Figure: The information from the figure above (left) represents preclinical data derived from a rat model conducted by Terns (2 mg/kg of TERN-101, cilofexor or tropifexor); and data disclosed in regulatory filings for the 30 mg/kg of OCA. The information from the figure above (right) represents preclinical data derived from a mouse study model of SHP gene expression conducted by Terns after 7 days of dosing with TERN-101 (10 mg/kg), OCA (30 mg/kg) and tropifexor (0.3 mg/kg). SHP functions to inhibit bile acid synthesis.

TERN-101 administration demonstrates sustained FXR activation in the liver

The liver-distributed profile of TERN-101 has been demonstrated in a Phase 1 clinical trial of the pharmacodynamics of TERN-101 in 36 human subjects. Sustained liver FXR activation in human subjects was demonstrated by dose-dependent decreases in 7 alpha-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one, or C4, concentrations that are among the most potent demonstrated with an FXR agonist to date. A decrease in C4 is a surrogate marker for FXR activation in the liver. In contrast to sustained liver FXR activation, repeated administration of TERN-101 over seven days resulted in only a transient increase of FGF19, suggesting transient intestinal FXR activation while the drug is being absorbed. Data from other FXR agonists in development demonstrate a much more sustained increase in FGF19 that persists through repeat administrations, which may indicate that sustained intestinal FXR activation is associated with their underlying tolerability issues.

14

---

 

TERN-101 induces sustained suppression of C4 but only transient increases of FGF19

 

 

Figure: Change in C4 relative to baseline (Day 1) on Day 7. FGF19 figure represents the mean FGF19 plasma concentration on
Day 7.

TERN-101 administration is not associated with liabilities of other FXR agonists

Across four completed Phase 1 clinical trials in 136 subjects, TERN-101 was administered to 119 subjects and was generally well-tolerated with no confirmed dose-related tolerability signals. Adverse events, or AEs, tended to be mild to moderate, with no dose-related increases in AEs. There was no pruritus among the 119 subjects treated with TERN-101, and lipid profiles in the TERN-101 dose groups were similar to placebo across each trial, including single administrations of TERN-101 at dose level of 600mg and repeated administrations at dose levels of 400mg for 14 days. The chart below plots serum LDL cholesterol concentrations from a Phase 1 pharmacodynamic clinical trial in 36 subjects and demonstrates that the lipid profiles are similar for subjects receiving TERN-101 or placebo. In one Phase 1 clinical trial, one subject receiving placebo and two subjects receiving 400 mg TERN-101 experienced elevations in alanine aminotransferase, or ALT, and aspartate transaminase, or AST, up to approximately five times the upper limit of normal. One of the TERN-101 recipients experienced transient transaminase elevations that decreased upon continued dosing through the duration of the trial, while the other TERN-101 recipient discontinued treatment. Transaminase elevations did not exceed 5.2x the upper limit of normal in any subject who received TERN-101, and none of these subjects had concomitant elevations in bilirubin. Transaminases for each of these subjects decreased to baseline at the end of the clinical trial. No transaminase elevations >1.5x upper limit of normal were observed in other TERN-101 clinical trials, including the single ascending dose trial (including doses of 600 mg) and a subsequent repeat dose trial (25 mg, 75 mg and 150 mg doses). Therefore, across the four completed Phase 1 clinical trials for TERN-101 it was concluded that the changes from baseline in ALT and AST were similar between TERN-101 and placebo recipients and the transaminase elevations that occurred in one Phase 1 clinical trial were not clinically relevant. ALT and AST elevations did not recur in subsequent trials.

15

---

 

TERN-101 shows comparable LDL changes to placebo in 7-day Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics Phase 1 trial

 

 

Figure: Changes from baseline (Day -1) in mean LDL.

We believe the favorable Phase 1 tolerability profile stems from the fact that TERN-101 is liver-distributed, with limited systemic and intestinal FXR activation that may be associated with the pruritus and adverse lipid changes seen with other FXR agonists. The solid line in the chart below shows the average plasma level on Day 7 of TERN-101 in human subjects administered 150 mg TERN-101 capsules. The dotted line represents projected TERN-101 liver concentration, which was calculated based on the TERN-101 rat tissue distribution study results. Plasma concentrations at this dose generally do not exceed the TERN-101 EC₅₀ throughout the 24 hour dosing period, thereby avoiding the effects of FXR activation outside of the liver, which we believe explains the lower incidence of off-target effects typically associated with other FXR agonists in development. However, liver concentrations of TERN-101 are projected to be much higher than the TERN-101 EC₅₀ throughout the dosing period, which we believe accounts for the potent C4 decreases observed with TERN-101. Together, these data suggest TERN-101 activity will mainly occur in the liver.

TERN-101 is projected to achieve sustained liver activation

 

 

Figure: TERN-101 150 mg capsule formulation mean plasma concentration and projected liver concentration over time on Day 7.

 Ongoing Phase 2a Clinical Trial of TERN-101 (LIFT Study) in NASH patients for 12 weeks

16

---

 

TERN-101 is currently being evaluated in the LIFT Study, a Phase 2a, 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in approximately 100 patients with phenotypic or biopsy-diagnosed NASH, identified either by prior biopsy or clinical diagnosis (liver stiffness measured by transient elastography of 7.6—25 kPa and controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) > 300). In January 2021, we completed the enrollment of patients into the LIFT Study and top-line data are expected in July 2021. Clinical trial participants receive once-daily oral administration of placebo or TERN-101 tablet doses of 5 mg, 10 mg or 15 mg for 12 weeks. TERN-101 plasma concentrations resulting from these tablet doses are expected to fall within a comparable range as the plasma concentrations observed in Phase 1 studies of capsule formulation doses of 25 mg to 150 mg. The primary endpoint is the incidence of adverse events. Key secondary and exploratory outcome measures are percent change from baseline in ALT, change from baseline in hepatic fat fraction assessed by magnetic resonance imaging derived proton density fat fraction, or MRI-PDFF, as well as other biomarkers that have been associated with histologic improvements in NASH patients.

TERN-101 Phase 2a LIFT trial design

 

 

TERN-201 – a highly selective VAP-1 inhibitor

Drug candidate summary

TERN-201 is a highly selective, irreversible, covalent inhibitor of VAP-1. In our Phase 1a first-in-human (SAD/MAD) clinical trial across 61 healthy subjects, TERN-201 was shown to fully suppress plasma VAP-1 activity at all of the doses that we evaluated and VAP-1 suppression was evident up to days after a single dose. In preclinical studies, TERN-201 reduced fibrosis in a model of liver injury in a dose-dependent manner, with inflammation and fibrosis significantly reduced after treatment. TERN-201 exhibits high selectivity for VAP-1 and enhanced liver distribution. Importantly, TERN-201 does not inhibit human MAO-A and MAO-B, thereby avoiding risks associated with MAO inhibition. We believe the sustained activity of TERN-201, with its VAP-1 selectivity and anticipated low therapeutic dose, make it suitable for coadministration with therapies directed at steatosis and other metabolic processes involved in NASH. We are currently preparing to initiate a Phase 1b clinical trial of TERN-201 in NASH patients in the first half of 2021 and expect top-line data in the first half of 2022. Our IND for TERN-201 went into effect in January 2019. We received Fast Track designation from the FDA for TERN-201 for the treatment of NASH in August 2020. Fast Track designation does not guarantee an accelerated review by the FDA.

Overview of VAP-1 biology in NASH

As liver damage accumulates in NAFLD and NASH patients, VAP-1 becomes increasingly expressed on the endothelium of blood vessels within the liver. Through its function as a leukocyte adhesion molecule, VAP-1 facilitates the deceleration, binding and transmigration of leukocytes from the blood stream into the liver, and recruits co-functioning proteins to aid in the transmigration process. These leukocytes respond to local liver tissue damage and multiple stimuli, reproducing and releasing cytokines which cause progressive liver inflammation. In addition,

17

---

 

VAP-1 acts as an enzyme to break down short-chain primary amines in the blood and produce reactive oxygen species, or ROS, aldehyde, ammonia and hydrogen peroxide in the liver, which in turn cause inflammation, hepatic oxidative stress and tissue damage. Together, the cytokine cascades resulting from white blood cell liver penetration and local ROS-mediated oxidative stress and tissue damage stimulate fibrosis, the synthesis of ECM by activating hepatic stellate cells. The following graphic illustrates this process.

VAP-1 increases oxidative stress, recruits white blood cells to the liver, increases inflammation and fibrosis

 

 

Clinical validation of VAP-1 inhibition in NASH

VAP-1 inhibition has the potential to address the inflammatory process in NASH patients. Preclinical data have demonstrated that VAP-1 inhibition improves liver histology and serum biomarkers. VAP-1 has been shown to be over-expressed in the livers of NASH patients in response to local lipotoxicity and liver injury. Increased levels of soluble VAP-1 in the plasma is also associated with the presence of NASH, and with increasing liver fibrosis. In a Phase 2a clinical trial, administration of a different VAP-1 inhibitor over 12 weeks in NASH patients demonstrated significant, dose dependent decreases from baseline in ALT, AST, GGT and CK-18, markers of liver injury and inflammation and cell death compared to placebo. Improvements in these markers provide clinical proof-of-concept for VAP-1 inhibition as a treatment approach in NASH.

Limitations of other VAP-1 inhibitors in development

A clinical trial of another VAP-1 inhibitor in NASH patients demonstrated improvements in markers of liver injury, inflammation and cell death, including significant reductions in ALT. However, other VAP-1 inhibitors currently in development for NASH are associated MAO inhibition due to their lack of specificity for binding VAP-1. Drugs that inhibit MAO create the risk of life-threatening serotonin syndrome and hypertensive crisis when administered with commonly prescribed serotonergic drugs and with tyramine-containing foods. Therefore, we believe a VAP-1 inhibitor with improved selectivity for VAP-1 inhibition that lacks the potential to inhibit MAO-A or MAO-B could provide meaningful clinical benefit to NASH patients in reducing inflammation and liver fibrosis without risks related to MAO inhibition.

18

---

 

Our solution for VAP-1 inhibition: TERN-201

TERN-201 was selected over other discovery candidates because it is highly specific for VAP-1 inhibition and has minimal potential to inhibit MAO-A or MAO-B at clinically relevant concentrations. Preclinical studies showed that TERN-201 was greater than 7000-fold more selective for VAP-1 than for MAO-A or MAO-B. In clinical studies, TERN-201 has shown strong VAP-1 inhibition at all doses studied, and plasma TERN-201 concentrations, or Cmax, after 7 days of dosing were more than 300 times lower than the IC50 concentrations for MAO-A and MAO–B inhibition at the highest dose level studied. The graph below illustrates the selectivity of TERN-201 for VAP-1 inhibition over MAO inhibition shown in preclinical studies.

TERN-201 shows no apparent MAO inhibition

Fold selectivity for VAP-1 over

MAO-A or MAO-B

 

 

Clinical development of TERN-201

We have completed a first-in-human, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 clinical trial (SAD/MAD) of TERN-201 which assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, or PK, and pharmacodynamics, or PD, in 61 healthy subjects. Single oral TERN-201 doses of 1, 3, 6 or 10 mg and repeat doses of 1 mg and 4 mg (once-daily for 7 days) and 10 mg (once-daily for 14 days) were administered. In the trial, TERN-201 target engagement was assessed by measuring decreases from baseline in the semi-carbazide sensitive amine oxidase, or SSAO, activity which results from VAP-1 enzymatic activity, and by changes from baseline in methylamine, a biomarker that increases in concentration in the blood as its metabolism by VAP-1 is inhibited.

TERN-201 demonstrated robust and sustained VAP-1 target engagement. Near complete inhibition of VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity was observed at four hours post-dose on Day One in all single and multiple dose groups. There was evidence of dose dependent sustained decreases in VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity for one week after completion of single and repeat dosing due to covalent binding of TERN-201 to VAP-1 and the rate of regeneration of VAP-1 over several days after completion of TERN-201 dosing. Near complete suppression of VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity persisted to 7 days after completion of a single TERN-201 dose of 10 mg and repeat doses of 4 mg and 10 mg. Changes from baseline in methylamine were also dose dependent, with the greatest increases from baseline observed in the TERN-201 10 mg dose group in both single and multiple dose cohorts.

19

---

 

TERN-201 demonstrates near complete inhibition of VAP-1 plasma SSAO activity in single ascending dose Phase 1 trial

 

 

In the Phase 1 SAD/MAD clinical trial, TERN-201 administered for up to 14 days was generally well-tolerated with no tolerability signals based on AEs, safety laboratory testing and electrocardiogram monitoring. Clinical and preclinical studies indicate that TERN-201 is not extensively metabolized and is unlikely to inhibit or induce major drug metabolism pathways or MAOs; therefore, it has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. This profile as well as its pharmaceutical properties and anticipated low therapeutic dose make it a very attractive candidate for co-formulation with other drugs as part of a single-tablet, fixed-dose combination treatment for NASH.

Preclinical data for TERN-201

In preclinical studies, TERN-201 demonstrated dose-dependent beneficial effects on liver histology and serum biomarkers comparable to other VAP-1 inhibitors in development. TERN-201 exhibited dose-dependent inhibition of rat hepatic stellate cells activation and reduction of fibrosis, inflammation, and ballooning in an in vivo rodent model of liver inflammation and fibrosis. TERN-201 also reduced inflammation and markers of fibrosis, leukocyte infiltration, and hepatic stellate cell activation in an in vivo NASH rodent model. Histological improvements were noted in inflammation and fibrosis scores as shown in the figure below. The animals in the TERN-201 dosing groups had a reduced inflammation score of 1.1, while placebo animals on average had an inflammation score of 2.3. This significant histological response correlates with the anti-inflammatory activity of TERN-201. Fibrosis scores were also reduced with an average score of 2.1 and 2.3 for the low and high TERN-201 dosing groups, respectively, compared to an average score of 2.9 in the placebo group.

20

---

 

TERN-201 reduces liver inflammation and fibrosis in an in vivo rodent model of NASH

 

 

Figure: Efficacy of TERN-201 in a rat model of NASH. Liver steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis assessed by histological scoring in treated groups (n=10). TERN-201 treatment groups had an ~1 point reduction in inflammation and fibrosis scores relative to the placebo group. Data for individual animals (dots) and mean (dashed line) are presented.

Planned TERN-201 Phase 1b clinical trial

We intend to initiate a 12-week Phase 1b clinical trial of TERN-201 in patients with NASH in the first half of 2021 that will assess the tolerability of different doses of TERN-201 and the potential improvements in NASH biomarkers. We expect to enroll approximately 60 patients in this trial. The primary endpoint of this trial will be to assess the safety of TERN-201. We expect top-line data from this clinical trial to be available in the first half of 2022. Following this clinical trial, we will consider subsequent trials of TERN-201 as monotherapy or potentially in combination with a metabolically active NASH treatment.

TERN-501 – a selective THR-β agonist with enhanced metabolic stability and liver distribution

Drug candidate summary

TERN-501 is a selective THR-β agonist with enhanced metabolic stability and liver distribution, characteristics that are intended to improve safety and efficacy in NASH patients. THR-β is the major form of thyroid hormone receptor in the liver and regulates key aspects of energy metabolism, including fatty acid and lipid synthesis and removal of liver fat through induction of fatty acid oxidation. THR-β stimulation has been identified as a target for NASH on the basis of its potential to reduce hepatic steatosis and improve serum lipid parameters in NASH patients. For any THR agonist, a key concern is toxicity from excess systemic THR-α stimulation. TERN-501 is 23-fold more selective for THR-β than for THR-α activation, thereby minimizing the risk of cardiotoxicity through THR-α stimulation. TERN-501 has high metabolic stability and a low projected clinical dose, which we believe makes it an attractive candidate for fixed-dose combination co-formulations. In January 2021, the FDA cleared our IND for TERN-501 and we announced the initiation of our Phase 1 first-in-human clinical trial in March 2021. We expect top-line data from this clinical trial in the second half of 2021.

THR-β agonists for NASH

Thyroid hormone plays a central role in regulating metabolism, through its actions in multiple tissues, including fat, skeletal muscle, pancreas, and liver. THR-α and THR-β are nuclear receptors widely expressed in the body, but the two different isoforms are differentially expressed in different tissue types. THR-β is the major form of thyroid hormone receptor in the liver and regulates key aspects of energy metabolism, including fatty acid and lipid synthesis and removal of liver fat through induction of fatty acid oxidation. THR-α is the major form of thyroid hormone receptor in cardiac muscle, skeletal muscle and bone. Selective agonism of THR -β in the liver has been identified as a target for NASH and validated in clinical trials on the basis of its potential to improve hepatic steatosis and lipid profiles in NASH patients.

21

---

 

Clinical validation of THR-β agonism

Data from other NASH clinical studies validate the potential of THR-β agonism as a NASH treatment (the data from other NASH clinical studies described in this paragraph are from Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Phase 2 Study of MGL-3196 and Viking Therapeutics, Inc.’s Phase 2 Study of VK2809). In these clinical studies, two different THR-β agonists showed significant reductions in liver fat measured by MRI-PDFF, as well as reduction in lipid levels in serum, which may offer additional benefits to NASH patients who are at high risk of cardiovascular comorbidities. One of these clinical trials correlated reductions in liver fat measured by MRI-PDFF with histological responses including NAS reduction, NASH resolution and fibrosis resolution. These types of histological responses may be suitable for accelerated approval under current draft guidance from the FDA titled “Noncirrhotic Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis With Liver Fibrosis: Developing Drugs for Treatment Guidance for Industry.”

Selectivity towards THR-β over THR-α is key to modulating the metabolic activities in the liver without triggering the unwanted effects of thyroid hormone outside of the liver

 

 

Limitations of THR-β targeting

For THR agonists, a key safety concern is the potential for adverse effects from off-target thyroid hormone receptor stimulation that may stem from either lack of selectivity for THR-β or high variations in pharmacokinetics due to the lack of metabolic stability. Selectivity for THR-β over THR-α is key to modulating the metabolic activities in the liver without triggering the unwanted effects of THR-α activation outside of the liver. Stimulation of THR-α can adversely affect the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal system through increases in heart rate, cardiac arrhythmias, muscle wasting, and reduced bone mineral density. Therefore, the identification of a selective THR-β agonist particularly with enhanced liver distribution, would have the potential to improve hepatic steatosis and serum lipid profiles while potentially avoiding adverse effects of THR-α activation. However, the use of a liver-targeted pro-drug approach to overcome THR selectivity has not completely avoided cardiac adverse events in clinical trials.

In addition to THR-β selectivity, metabolic stability and predictable pharmacokinetics are important considerations in the development of thyroid hormone activators. In a Phase 2 clinical trial of another selective THR-β agonist, lack of metabolic stability resulted in significant inter-patient variability in drug exposure that required PK monitoring and dose adjustments. Dose adjustments in widespread clinical practice present potential challenges in terms of patient compliance, safety monitoring and additional burden on the healthcare system. Additionally, highly variable pharmacokinetics and unpredictable drug concentrations would hinder the potential for combination treatment in NASH patients.

22

---

 

Our solution for THR-β agonism: high THR-β-selectivity and improved metabolic stability

TERN-501 was selected over other discovery candidates because of its high selectivity for THR-β over THR-α, its improved metabolic stability and its enhanced liver-distribution, all of which are characteristics that are intended to improve efficacy and safety in NASH patients. TERN-501 has a similar structural backbone to other THR-β agonists in late stage development that are selective for THR-β. Furthermore, the TERN-501 chemical structure incorporates certain changes designed to enhance metabolic and pharmacokinetic stability, thereby limiting the need for individualized dose adjustments implemented in studies with other THR-β agonists. In a head-to-head comparison, TERN-501 has shown a 23-fold selectivity for THR-β over THR-α stimulation in a cell-free assay, which is higher than the selectivity for two other THR agonists currently in development. TERN-501 is not a pro-drug and does not rely on the metabolic process to make it pharmacologically active. The following chart illustrates the selectivity of TERN-501 as compared to a reference drug and the active metabolite of a pro-drug in clinical development for NASH.

TERN-501 demonstrates higher selectivity for THR-β over THR-α

 

 

Non-clinical tissue distribution studies show that TERN-501 demonstrates enhanced liver distribution relative to plasma and other organs. From non-clinical studies, TERN-501 is projected to have a predictable human PK profile due to its improved metabolic stability. Due to its metabolic stability, we believe that TERN-501 is unlikely to require PK monitoring and individualized clinical dose adjustment in NASH patients, as was done with another THR-β agonist in development that lacks metabolic stability and has variable PK in humans, thereby avoiding potential challenges associated with monitoring and dose adjustment in clinical practice, including patient compliance, safety monitoring and additional burden on the healthcare system. Further, TERN-501 is projected to have a low clinically efficacious dose range which, along with its metabolic stability, makes it attractive for long-term NASH treatment and for co-formulation as part of a fixed-dose combination.

Preclinical data for TERN-501

In preclinical studies, TERN-501 showed potent activity in animal models of metabolic disease. TERN-501 produced rapid and significant reductions in serum lipids in an in vivo rat model; serum total cholesterol and triglycerides were significantly reduced up to 71% and 82%, respectively, 24 hours after a single intraperitoneal injection of TERN-501. In an in vivo mouse NASH model, histological analysis showed that TERN-501 resolved liver steatosis to healthy control levels at all doses and led to a dose-dependent reduction in liver triglycerides and fibrosis. TERN-501 treatment of these mice also led to significant reductions in serum cholesterol, triglycerides and ALT.

The graph below compares reductions in plasma cholesterol and plasma triglycerides in an in vivo rat model following a single intraperitoneal administration of various doses of TERN-501 as compared to a reference compound in late-stage clinical development.

23

---

 

TERN-501 demonstrates dose-dependent reductions in serum total cholesterol and triglycerides in an in vivo rodent model of hypercholesterolemia

 

 

The graphs below demonstrate the histological improvement in an in vivo mouse model of NASH following repeat administrations of various doses of TERN-501.

TERN-501 improves steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis in an

in vivo mouse model of NASH

 

 

Figure: Efficacy of TERN-501 in a mouse model of NASH. Liver steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis assessed by histological scoring in treated groups (n=8). Data for individual animals (dots) and mean (dashed line) are presented.

Phase 1 first-in-human clinical trial for TERN-501

In March 2021, we announced the initiation of our Phase 1 first-in-human clinical trial of TERN-501. As a Phase 1 first-in-human clinical trial, the primary purpose of this trial is to address the safety of TERN-501. We expect to enroll approximately 90 participants in this trial. As with our other clinical programs, this Phase 1 clinical trial is planned to include single ascending dose and multiple ascending dose cohorts in which we intend to assess TERN-501 safety, tolerability and PK, as well as the reduction in serum lipid levels which could serve as an early marker of target engagement. As part of this Phase 1 clinical trial, we also intend to assess drug-drug interactions, including the co-administration of our liver-distributed FXR agonist (TERN-101) and our metabolically stable THR-beta agonist (TERN-501), two mechanisms that have shown additive or synergistic improvements on histological endpoints and serum lipid parameters in our preclinical NASH studies. We expect top-line data from our Phase 1 clinical trial in the second half of 2021. Following this Phase 1 clinical trial, we plan to conduct a Phase 2a clinical trial in NASH patients assessing TERN-501 administered as monotherapy and potentially co-administered with TERN-101.

24

---

 

Combination Therapy Programs

Several prior clinical trials evaluating single-agent therapies for NASH have shown only moderate histological improvements and exhibited tolerability issues with some of these agents at high doses. We believe developing combination therapies targeting multiple mechanistic pathways will drive improved response rates for NASH patients while mitigating potential tolerability concerns and improving compliance as compared with monotherapy regimens. We are well-positioned to develop multiple combination therapies for NASH with our extensive experience in combination drug development and the ability to leverage from within our pipeline of wholly owned single-agents that we believe are attractive candidates for combination development. We are focused on developing combination therapies with clinically validated mechanisms of action to address the multifaceted nature of NASH. Given the strength of our internal resources and capabilities, we have the flexibility to independently advance our combination therapies without the need for a co-development partner at this time. We believe that therapies targeting steatosis (TERN-101 and TERN-501), inflammation (TERN-101 and TERN-201) and fibrosis (TERN-101 and TERN-201) in tandem, have the potential to provide greater resolution of NASH and improvement in related clinical outcomes.

Our combination approach: complementary mechanisms for the treatment of NASH

 

 

Preclinical data for combination therapies

We believe that a combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 has the potential for improved therapeutic benefit for NASH patients. As a liver-distributed FXR agonist, TERN-101 is expected to have effects on multiple facets of NASH, including potential improvements in steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis. TERN-501 is a THR-β agonist that is expected to potently and rapidly reduce hepatic steatosis and normalize plasma lipid parameters through the modulation of metabolic pathways that are distinct from those modulated by liver FXR activation. A combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501 would therefore be expected to significantly reduce steatosis, inflammation and fibrosis in NASH patients through their complementary effects without the need to use maximal dose levels of either agent. The combination may also result in a positive serum lipid profile since TERN-501 is expected to reduce LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels in NASH patients in whom FXR agonists have generally not demonstrated potentially therapeutic decreases in plasma cholesterol or triglycerides.

As seen in the charts below, the combination of the FXR agonist TERN-101 and the THR-β agonist TERN-501 showed robust efficacy in an in vivo mouse model of NASH by profoundly reducing steatosis and significantly improving fibrosis, serum triglycerides, serum total cholesterol and ALT. The combination treatment of TERN-101 and TERN-501 also resulted in the expression of more than 800 additional distinct genes as compared to either agent alone, supporting our hypothesis that additional biological processes are activated by combination treatment. Together these results suggest that the combination of the FXR agonist TERN-101 and the THR-β agonist TERN-501 may provide additional benefits for NASH patients than either treatment alone.

25

---

 

Combination of TERN-101 + TERN-501 demonstrates improvements in liver histology and serum biomarkers in an in vivo NASH mouse model

 

 

Figure: Data from a NASH mouse model. TERN-101 dose 3 mg/kg; TERN-501 dose 1 mg/kg. Liver steatosis (upper left), inflammation (upper middle) and fibrosis (upper right) were quantified by histological analysis for degree of steatosis, lobular inflammation, and fibrosis. Serum was collected at termination and analyzed for triglycerides, or TG (lower left), total cholesterol, or TC, (lower middle) and a biomarker of liver damage, alanine aminotransferase, or ALT (lower right). Data for individual animals (dots) and mean (dashed line) are presented; **p <0.01, ***p <0.001, ****p <0.

We are also evaluating the potential to combine our VAP-1 inhibitor, TERN-201, with a metabolically active NASH treatment. We believe the anti-inflammatory and anti-fibrotic effects, sustained target engagement, VAP-1 selectivity and anticipated low therapeutic dose of TERN-201 make it suitable for co-administration with therapies directed at steatosis and other metabolic processes involved in NASH. For example, the combination of our FXR agonist TERN-101 and TERN-201 demonstrated histological improvements in inflammation and GGT, an inflammation biomarker, in an in vivo rodent model of NASH.

Clinical development plan for NASH combination of TERN-101 and TERN-501

Our approach for developing a differentiated NASH combination regimen is to discover and develop promising drug candidates targeting clinically validated mechanisms of action, advance them first as monotherapies to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers and subsequently conduct Phase 1b or 2a trials to assess safety in NASH patients and potentially efficacious dose ranges using known non-invasive biomarkers of efficacy for these mechanisms of action. Subsequently, we intend to proceed to Phase 2a studies with the coadministration of two or

26

---

 

more complimentary mechanisms of action—such as the FXR agonist TERN-101 and the THR-β agonist TERN-501—to assess the potential for combinations to generate additive or synergistic effects on these same non-invasive biomarkers relative to monotherapy and inform dose selection for later phase studies of the agents in combination. We then plan to proceed to longer duration Phase 2b and Phase 3 trials that can evaluate our individual monotherapies as well as promising combinations within the same trials to confirm treatment effects using liver biopsy and histological markers of efficacy. We believe this approach maximizes the chance of achieving higher NASH response rates compared to treatment approaches that rely exclusively on single-agent therapeutics and creates efficiencies through the evaluation of our individual monotherapies and combination treatments, allowing us to proceed to marketing authorization applications for those single-agent drug candidates and combination therapies that offer the clearest advantages to patients. The following graphic illustrates our potential combination development plan.

 

 

Preclinical Pipeline

Our small-molecule glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor, or GLP-1R, agonist program is intended to address metabolic processes involved in the pathogenesis of NAFLD and NASH. The natural endogenous ligand, glucagon-like peptide-1, or GLP-1, promotes insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells in a glucose-dependent-manner following food ingestion. Activation of the GLP-1 pathway has shown to be effective in driving NASH resolution in studies of available GLP-1 agonists currently approved for the treatment of diabetes. However, these approved agents are synthetic peptides and potentially require higher doses more frequent subcutaneous injections for the potential treatment of NASH. This injectable route of administration is likely to limit their use in NASH patients, particularly if efficacious oral NASH treatments become available. Although an oral GLP-1 peptide formulation is available for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, it requires high doses, is associated with adverse effects and lacks NASH efficacy data. A non-peptidic small-molecule oral GLP-1 receptor agonist may offer advantages over currently available peptide GLP-1R agonists that have been studied for the treatment of NASH.

Our GLP-1R program has identified several potentially suitable small-molecule scaffolds. We plan to further optimize these series of compounds and identify structures that have the potential for once daily oral administration and a profile suitable for combination with other NASH drugs within our pipeline. We aim to nominate a final candidate for further development in the second half of 2021.

Manufacturing and supply

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of any of our drug candidates, nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations in the foreseeable future. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third-party contract manufacturers for manufacturing all our drug candidates for preclinical research and clinical trials. We do not have long-term agreements with any of these third parties.

27

---

 

If any of our drug candidates are approved by any regulatory agency, we intend to enter into agreements with a third-party contract manufacturer and one or more back-up manufacturers for the commercial production of those drugs. Development and commercial quantities of any drugs that we develop will need to be manufactured in facilities, and by processes, that comply with the requirements of the FDA and the regulatory agencies of other jurisdictions in which we are seeking approval.

Sales and Marketing

Given our stage of development, we have not yet established a commercial organization. We intend to establish a targeted commercial infrastructure in key geographies at the appropriate time prior to regulatory approval of our single-agent drugs and fixed-dose combination therapies. We expect to manage sales, marketing and distribution through internal resources and third-party relationships.

In addition, we will opportunistically explore commercialization partnerships in territories outside the United States. As our drug candidates progress through our pipeline, our commercial plans may change. Clinical data, the size of the development programs, the size of our target markets, the size of a commercial infrastructure and manufacturing needs may all influence our commercialization strategies.

Competition

The biotechnology industry is intensely competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We believe that our pipeline, development experience, and scientific knowledge provide us with competitive advantages. However, we face potential worldwide competition from many different sources, including large multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, and smaller or earlier stage biotechnology companies. In addition, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private organizations conducting research may seek patent protection with respect to potentially competitive products or technologies. Given the high incidence of NASH, it is likely that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies for the treatment of liver and cardio-metabolic diseases, including NASH, will increase. Most of our competitors are focused on single-agent product candidates; there are fewer competitors, of which we are aware, who are developing combination therapies for the treatment of NASH.

We are aware of both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with development programs in NASH. Large pharmaceutical companies participating in the development of NASH treatments include, but are not limited to, AbbVie, Inc., Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca PLC/MedImmune LLC, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eisai, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Roche Holding AG, Sanofi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

In relation to TERN-101, companies who are currently conducting clinical trials with FXR in the context of NASH include AbbVie, Inc., Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ENYO Pharma SA, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Metacrine, Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

TERN-201, our VAP-1 inhibitor, is a relatively novel mechanism for the treatment of NASH, and thus has little competition we are aware of. The companies who are currently developing a SSAO/VAP-1 inhibitor with NASH as a lead indication are LG Chem Ltd. and Novo Nordisk A/S.

With regards to TERN-501, companies who are currently conducting clinical trials targeting THR-β in the context of NASH include Ascletis Pharma Inc., Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Viking Therapeutics, Inc.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who are developing clinical-stage drugs to treat NASH, using mechanisms not mentioned above, include 89Bio, Inc., Akero Therapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Axcella Health, Inc., Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., Cirius Therapeutics, Inc., CohBar, Inc., Coherus Biosciences Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Inventiva Pharma SA,

28

---

 

Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MediciNova, Inc., NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., NorthSea Therapeutics, Inc., Pliant Therapeutics, Inc., Poxel SA, Sagimet Biosciences, Inc., T3D Therapeutics, Inc. and Zydus Cadila Healthcare.

Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, human and other resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market technologically superior products. In addition, many of these competitors have significantly greater experience than we have in undertaking preclinical studies and human clinical trials of new pharmaceutical products and in obtaining regulatory approvals of human therapeutic products. Accordingly, our competitors may succeed in obtaining FDA approval for superior products. Many of our competitors have established distribution channels for the commercialization of their products, whereas we have no such channel or capabilities. In addition, many competitors have greater name recognition and more extensive collaborative relationships. Smaller and earlier-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies.

Although we believe our drug and combination therapy candidate programs possess appealing attributes, we cannot guarantee that our products will achieve regulatory or market success. Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we do, or obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our drug candidate or any future drug candidates. Our competitors may also develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used, and less costly, or have a better tolerability profile than our drugs. These competitors may also be more successful than we are in manufacturing and marketing their products. Should we not be able to compete with the aforementioned companies or others, it may hinder our ability to bring our product to market as planned.

Intellectual Property

The proprietary nature of, and protection for, our drug candidates and our discovery programs, processes and know-how are important to our business. For our patent portfolio for pipeline drug candidates, we seek to pursue patent protection covering compositions of matter and methods of use and manufacture. Our policy is to pursue, maintain, defend and enforce patent rights in strategic areas, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties, and to protect the technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets, confidential information and other proprietary know-how that may be important to the development of our business.

As of March 15, 2021, our owned and exclusively licensed patent portfolio includes:

29

---

 

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection of our current and future drug candidates, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our drugs depends in large part on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents that cover these activities. We cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our owned or licensed pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed or licensed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any patents that may be granted to, or licensed by, us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our drug candidates, discovery programs and processes. Moreover, we cannot be sure that any of our owned or licensed patents will not be challenged, invalidated or circumvented or that such patents will be commercially useful in protecting our technology.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we file, including the United States, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application. In the United States, the patent term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug, in certain cases, may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term extension as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 permits such patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent, but patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval. Only one patent among those eligible for an extension may be extended and the amount of available extension to any extension-eligible patent which claims a product, a method of using a product or a method of manufacturing a product, depends on a variety of factors, including the date on which the patent issues and certain dates related to the regulatory review period. Provisions are available in Europe and some other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. In the future, if and when our drugs receive FDA or analogous foreign approval, we expect to apply for patent term extensions on patents covering those drugs from the applicable authorities where patent term extension is available, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO. There is no guarantee that the applicable authorities, including the USPTO, will agree with our assessment of whether such extensions should be granted, and if granted, the length of such extensions.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trademark registration, trade secrets, know how, other proprietary information and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect and maintain the confidentiality of proprietary information of our business that is not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We take steps to protect our proprietary information, including trade secrets and unpatented know-how, by entering into confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and inventions agreements with employees, consultants and advisors. However, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets and unpatented know-how, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

30

---

 

Moreover, third parties may still obtain this proprietary information or may come upon this or similar information independently, and we would have no right to prevent them from using that information to compete with us. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets and know how the value of this information may be greatly reduced, and our competitive position would be harmed. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

The patent positions of biotechnology companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent or other intellectual property or other proprietary right would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, or any of our drug candidates or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or our failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights required to develop or commercialize our future drugs may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the United States that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the USPTO to determine priority of invention. For more information regarding the risks related to intellectual property, please see Item 1A. “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Licensing and Other Intellectual Property-Related Agreements

TERN-101 License Agreement with Eli Lilly

In February 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Eli Lilly, or the TERN-101 License Agreement, pursuant to which we have been granted an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable (subject to certain conditions), royalty-bearing license under certain intellectual property rights, including patents applications filed in both the United States and foreign jurisdictions claiming the composition of the compound Eli Lilly has designated as LY2562175 and methods of using the same and certain know-how related to the manufacture of LY2562175 owned or controlled by Eli Lilly to develop, manufacture and commercialize therapeutic products containing LY2562175, or TERN-101 Products, for all uses and indications in humans. Eli Lilly also has the right, on a country-by-country and TERN-101 Product-by-TERN-101 Product basis, to negotiate an agreement governing the co-promotion of TERN-101 Products if we, or our sublicensees, decide to commercialize a TERN-101 Product in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan.

Pursuant to the terms of the TERN-101 License Agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, apply for regulatory approval of and commercialize TERN-101 Products in the People’s Republic of China. In addition, Eli Lilly provided us, at its expense, certain support in connection with the transfer of the licensed materials.

As consideration for the exclusive license, we are required to pay Eli Lilly up to an aggregate of $56 million upon the achievement of pre-specified clinical, regulatory and commercial milestone events for TERN-101 Products; no such milestones have been achieved to date under the TERN-101 License Agreement.

We are also required to pay tiered royalties calculated on a calendar year basis, ranging from mid-single digit to mid teen percentages, on net sales of TERN-101 Products. The royalty rate is subject to customary reductions, including reductions based on certain generic competition to a TERN-101 Product or amounts paid to any third party under a necessary license to such third party’s patent rights in order to develop, manufacture, commercialize or use a TERN-101 Product. The royalty term will terminate on a country-by-country, TERN-101 Product-by-TERN-101 Product basis on the later of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights infringed by the sale of such TERN-101 Product in such country, (ii) the loss of regulatory exclusivity for such TERN-101 Product in such country, and (iii) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such TERN-101 Product in such country.

Any intellectual property or inventions developed solely by either party in connection with activities conducted pursuant to the TERN-101 License Agreement shall be owned solely by that party, and any jointly-developed intellectual property or inventions shall be jointly owned (although no joint development activities are anticipated). We have the first right to prosecute, maintain, defend and enforce certain patents licensed under the TERN-101 License Agreement, including any patents that are solely and directly related to LY2562175 or TERN-101 Products.

31

---

 

The TERN-101 License Agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term for the TERN-101 Products on a country-by-country basis. Upon expiration of the TERN-101 License Agreement, the license granted to us shall be considered fully paid-up, irrevocable, perpetual and non-exclusive. Either we or Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-101 License Agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement or defaults in the performance thereunder and fails to cure that breach within 90 days after written notice is provided, or in the event of insolvency of the other party. We may terminate the TERN-101 License Agreement in its entirety or on a country-by-country and TERN-101 Product-by-TERN-101 Product basis upon 180 days’ prior written notice. Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-101 License Agreement if we, our affiliates or our sublicensees challenge the licensed patents or if we assist any third party in challenging such patents.

TERN-201 License Agreement with Eli Lilly

In March 2018, we entered into an exclusive license agreement with Eli Lilly, or the TERN-201 License Agreement, pursuant to which we have been granted an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable (subject to certain conditions), royalty-bearing license under certain intellectual property rights, including patents applications filed in both the United States and foreign jurisdictions claiming the composition of the compound Eli Lilly has designated as LY3379274, and methods of using the same and certain know-how related to the manufacture of LY3379274 owned or controlled by Eli Lilly to develop, manufacture, and commercialize therapeutic products containing LY3379274, or TERN-201 Products, for all uses and indications in humans. Eli Lilly has a right of first negotiation to negotiate an agreement covering the commercialization of any TERN-201 Product before we negotiate the same with a third party. Eli Lilly also has the right, on a country-by-country and TERN-201 Product-by- TERN-201 Product basis, to negotiate an agreement governing the co-promotion of TERN-201 Products if we, or our sublicensees, decide to commercialize a TERN-201 Product in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan.

Pursuant to the terms of the TERN-201 License Agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, manufacture, apply for regulatory approval of and commercialize TERN-201 Products in the People’s Republic of China, the United States, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. In addition, Eli Lilly provided us, at its expense, certain support in connection with the transfer of the licensed materials.

As initial consideration for the license under the TERN-201 License Agreement, we paid Eli Lilly a non-refundable, upfront payment of $4 million. As additional consideration for the exclusive license, we are required to pay Eli Lilly up to an aggregate of $104 million upon the achievement of specified clinical and regulatory milestone events for TERN-201 Products. No development milestones have been achieved to date under the TERN-201 License Agreement.

We are also required to pay tiered royalties, ranging from mid-single digit to mid-teen percentages, on annual net sales of TERN-201 Products. The royalty rate is subject to customary reductions, including reductions based on certain generic competition to a TERN-201 Product or amounts paid to any third party under a necessary license to such third party’s patent rights in order to develop, manufacture, commercialize or use a TERN-201 Product. The royalty term will terminate on a country-by-country, TERN-201 Product-by-TERN-201 Product basis on the later of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights infringed by the sale of such TERN-201 Product in such country, (ii) the loss of regulatory exclusivity for such TERN-201 Product in such country, and (iii) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such TERN-201 Product in such country.

Any intellectual property or inventions developed solely by either party in connection with activities conducted pursuant to the TERN-201 License Agreement shall be owned solely by that party, and any jointly-developed intellectual property or inventions shall be jointly owned (although no joint development activities are anticipated). We have the first right to prosecute, maintain, defend and enforce certain patents licensed under the TERN-201 License Agreement, including any patents that are solely and directly related to LY3379274 or TERN-201 Products.

The TERN-201 License Agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term for the TERN-201 Products on a country-by-country basis. Upon expiration of the TERN-201 License Agreement, the license granted to us shall be considered fully paid-up, irrevocable, perpetual and non-exclusive. Either we or Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-201 License Agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement or defaults in the performance thereunder and fails to cure that breach within 90 days after written notice is provided, or in the event of insolvency of the other party. We may terminate the TERN-201 License Agreement in its entirety or on a

32

---

 

country-by-country and TERN-201 Product-by-TERN-201 Product basis upon 180 days prior written notice. Eli Lilly may terminate the TERN-201 License Agreement if we, our affiliates or our sublicensees challenge the licensed patents or if we assist any third party in challenging such patents.

THR-β Agonist Assignment Agreement with Vintagence Biotechnology Ltd.

In June 2019, we entered into an assignment agreement with Vintagence Biotechnology Ltd., or Vintagence, pursuant to which Vintagence assigned to us certain worldwide intellectual property rights that are directed to THR-β agonists. In particular, we have been assigned a Chinese patent application and potentially certain other patents or patent applications and know-how relating to our THR-β program. We are also entitled to license the rights granted to us under the assignment agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the assignment agreement, we must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a product based on the assigned intellectual property in each of several major market territories.

During the term of the assignment agreement, Vintagence may not develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit any compound covered by any of the assigned patent rights. In the event Vintagence develops a THR-β agonist not covered by the assigned patent rights, we will have the first right to negotiate an assignment or license to exclusively develop, manufacture, commercialize or otherwise exploit such agonist.

As initial consideration for the assignment, we paid Vintagence an upfront payment of CNY 5 million (approximately $0.75 million). As additional consideration, we are required to pay Vintagence up to an aggregate CNY 205 million (approximately $30 million) upon the achievement of specified developmental, clinical and regulatory milestone events with respect to products covered by the agreement.

We have the sole responsibility and decision-making authority to prosecute the assigned patents. However, if we decline to pay the prosecution costs for any assigned patent, Vintagence shall have the right to prosecute such assigned patent, and we must assign such assigned patent back to Vintagence. We also have the first right to enforce the assigned patents and know-how. If we do not bring an action to enforce any of the assigned patents or know-how against infringing activities, Vintagence has the right to bring such an action.

The assignment agreement will continue on a country-by-country basis until we have paid all milestone payments. We may terminate the assignment agreement in its entirety or on a covered product-by-covered product and country-by-country basis without cause with 60 days’ prior written notice. Either party may terminate the assignment agreement for the other party’s material breach that remains uncured for 90 days or for the other party’s insolvency. If we terminate the assignment agreement without cause or if Vintagence terminates the assignment agreement for our uncured material breach, we must transfer the assigned intellectual property back to Vintagence.

TRN-000632 Exclusive Option and License agreement with Hansoh Pharmaceuticals

In July 2020, we, along with our subsidiaries, CaspianTern LLC and Terns, Inc., entered into an exclusive option and license agreement with Hansoh pursuant to which we have granted an exclusive option, exercisable during a specified period, to Hansoh to obtain an exclusive, royalty-bearing license under certain patent and other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by us, including patents claiming the composition of TRN-000632, our small-molecule allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL fusion gene, and methods of using the same, to research, develop, manufacture, use, distribute, sell and otherwise exploit therapeutic products containing TRN-000632, or Hansoh Products, for all prophylactic, palliative, therapeutic and/or diagnostic uses in human diseases and disorders in the field of oncology in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, or the Hansoh Territory. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we would retain co-exclusive rights under certain know-how licensed to Hansoh and all rights under the patent rights outside of the field of oncology and Hansoh Territory. If Hansoh exercises its option and at our request, the parties will enter into a manufacturing and technology transfer agreement under which Hansoh will provide technical assistance and support related to the manufacture of Hansoh Products containing TRN-000632 as the sole active ingredient, at our cost. Pursuant to the terms of the option and license agreement, upon Hansoh’s exercise of its option, Hansoh must use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize a Hansoh Product in the Hansoh Territory and Hansoh may not exploit any other product in the Hansoh Territory with the same primary mechanism of action as the Hansoh Products.

33

---

 

As consideration for the exclusive option, we received an upfront, refundable (if Hansoh does not exercise the option) payment of $1 million. Under the license, if Hansoh exercises its option, Hansoh has agreed to pay us up to an aggregate $67.0 million upon the achievement of pre-specified clinical, regulatory and sales milestones with respect to the Hansoh Products. No such milestones have been achieved to date under this option and license agreement. Hansoh must also pay us royalties of a mid-single digit percentage on net sales of all Hansoh Products. The royalty rate is subject to customary reductions, including reductions based on generic competition to the Hansoh Products or royalties paid to any third party under a license to such third party’s patent rights necessary in order to commercialize a Hansoh Product. The royalty term will terminate on a Hansoh Product-by-Hansoh Product and country-by-country basis on the later of (i) the expiration date of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights covering such Hansoh Product in such country, (ii) the loss of regulatory exclusivity for such Hansoh Product in such country, and (iii) the tenth anniversary of the first commercial sale of such Hansoh Product in such country.

Upon the effectiveness of the license, intellectual property developed out of the activities under this option and license agreement, and that is necessary or useful to exploit TRN-000632 or Hansoh Products, solely developed by one party shall be owned by that party, and jointly-developed intellectual property shall be jointly-owned. Hansoh will have the first right to prosecute, maintain, defend and enforce the licensed patent rights in the Hansoh Territory.

Hansoh’s right to exercise the option shall expire upon the earlier of 30 days after certain studies are completed or 16 months from the effective date of the option and license agreement. Hansoh can terminate its option at any time. If Hansoh exercises its option, the option and license agreement shall expire upon the expiration of the last-to-expire royalty term for the Hansoh Products in the Hansoh Territory. Upon expiration of the option and license agreement, the license under our know-how granted to Hansoh shall be considered fully paid-up, perpetual and co-exclusive. Either we or Hansoh may terminate the option and license agreement if the other party commits a material breach of the agreement and fails to cure that breach within 90 days after written notice is provided, or in the event of insolvency of the other party. Hansoh may terminate the option and license agreement upon 180 days’ prior written notice if the option has been exercised. Hansoh may also terminate the option and license agreement upon 60 days’ prior written notice if we undergo certain change of control events. If Hansoh terminates the option and license agreement upon such change of control events, we must assign our entire right, title and interest in and to the Hansoh Products, including all intellectual property rights therein, in the Hansoh Territory to Hansoh and Hansoh shall provide us the fair market value of such assignment.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Among others, the FDA, the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, and comparable regulatory authorities in state and local jurisdictions and in other countries impose substantial and burdensome requirements on companies involved in the clinical development, manufacture, marketing and distribution of drugs such as those we are developing. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate, among other things, the research and development, testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising and promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling and export and import of our drug and combination therapy candidates. Any drug candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in those foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the United States, although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in the European Union, or EU, are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or

34

---

 

distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties.

The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Prior to beginning the first clinical trial with a product candidate in the United States, we must submit an IND to the FDA. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new drug product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for clinical studies. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND also includes results of animal and in vitro studies assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information; and any available human data or literature to support the use of the investigational product. An IND must become effective before human clinical trials may begin. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, raises safety concerns or questions about the proposed clinical trial. In such a case, the IND may be placed on clinical hold and the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before the clinical trial can begin. Submission of an IND therefore may or may not result in FDA authorization to begin a clinical trial.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical study. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial conducted during product development and for any subsequent protocol amendments. Furthermore, an independent IRB for each site proposing to conduct the clinical trial must review and approve the plan for any clinical trial and its informed consent form before the clinical trial begins at that site and must monitor the study until completed. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial

35

---

 

subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. Regulatory authorities, the IRB or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the trial is unlikely to meet its stated objectives. Some studies also include oversight by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical study sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board, which provides authorization for whether or not a study may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the study and may halt the clinical trial if it determines that there is an unacceptable safety risk for subjects or other grounds, such as no demonstration of efficacy. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical studies and clinical study results to public registries.

Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap or be combined:

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 studies, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, such as with accelerated approval drugs, FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 trials. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA.

The FDA or the sponsor may suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. In addition, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. Depending on its charter, this group may determine whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

During the development of a new drug, sponsors are given opportunities to meet with the FDA at certain points. These points may be prior to submission of an IND, at the end of Phase 2, and before an NDA is submitted. Meetings at other times may be requested. These meetings can provide an opportunity for the sponsor to share information about the data gathered to date, for the FDA to provide advice, and for the sponsor and the FDA to reach agreement on the next phase of development. Sponsors typically use the meetings at the end of the Phase 2 trial to discuss Phase 2 clinical results and present plans for the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials that they believe will support approval of the new drug.

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In

36

---

 

addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

While the IND is active and before approval, progress reports summarizing the results of the clinical trials and nonclinical studies performed since the last progress report must be submitted at least annually to the FDA, and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the same or similar drugs, findings from animal or in vitro testing suggesting a significant risk to humans, and any clinically important increased incidence of a serious suspected adverse reaction compared to that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

U.S. Review and Approval Process

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. This review typically takes twelve months from the date the NDA is submitted to FDA because the FDA has approximately two months to make a “filing” decision after it the application is submitted. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing.

The FDA may refer an application for a novel drug to an advisory committee. An advisory committee is a panel of independent experts, including clinicians and other scientific experts, that reviews, evaluates and provides a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCPs. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it will outline the deficiencies in the submission and often will request additional testing or information. Notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

After the FDA evaluates an NDA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with prescribing information for specific indications. A Complete Response Letter indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete, and the application will not be approved in its present form. A Complete Response Letter usually describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA and may require additional clinical data, such as an additional pivotal Phase 3 trial or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response

37

---

 

Letter is issued, the sponsor must resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If regulatory approval of a product is granted, such approval will be granted for particular indications and may contain limitations on the indicated uses for which such product may be marketed. For example, the FDA may approve the NDA with a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to ensure the benefits of the product outweigh its risks. A REMS is a safety strategy to manage a known or potential serious risk associated with a medicine and to enable patients to have continued access to such medicines by managing their safe use, and could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries, and other risk minimization tools. The FDA also may condition approval on, among other things, changes to proposed labeling or the development of adequate controls and specifications. Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-marketing requirements is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the marketplace. The FDA may also require one or more Phase 4 post-market studies and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization, and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies. In addition, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could impact the timeline for regulatory approval or otherwise impact ongoing development programs.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a number of programs intended to expedite the development or review of products that meet certain criteria. For example, new drugs are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a Fast Track product has opportunities for more frequent interactions with the review team during product development, and the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

Any product submitted to the FDA for approval, including a product with a Fast Track designation, may also be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide safe and effective therapy where no satisfactory alternative therapy exists or a significant improvement in the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of a disease compared to marketed products. The FDA will attempt to direct additional resources to the evaluation of an application for a new drug designated for priority review in an effort to facilitate the review. The FDA endeavors to review applications with priority review designations within six months of the filing date as compared to ten months for review of new molecular entity NDAs under its current PDUFA review goals.

In addition, a product may be eligible for accelerated approval. Drug products intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may be eligible for accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, the FDA currently requires pre-approval of promotional materials as a condition for accelerated approval, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act established a category of drugs referred to as “breakthrough therapies” that may be eligible to receive breakthrough therapy designation. A sponsor may seek FDA designation of a product candidate as a “breakthrough therapy” if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more

38

---

 

clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the Fast Track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance. The breakthrough therapy designation is a distinct status from both accelerated approval and priority review, which can also be granted to the same drug if relevant criteria are met. If a product is designated as breakthrough therapy, the FDA will work to expedite the development and review of such drug.

Fast Track designation, breakthrough therapy designation, priority review, and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process. Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We may explore some of these opportunities for our drug and combination therapy candidates as appropriate.

Post-approval Requirements

Any products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to pervasive and continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, requirements relating to record-keeping, reporting of adverse experiences, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, and advertising and promotion of the product. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products. Drug manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP, which impose certain procedural and documentation requirements upon us and our third-party manufacturers. Changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and, depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. FDA regulations also require investigation and correction of any deviations from cGMP and impose reporting requirements upon us and any third-party manufacturers that we may decide to use.

Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMP and other aspects of regulatory compliance.

The FDA may withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information; imposition of post-market studies or clinical studies to assess new safety risks; or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

39

---

 

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested by us and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labeling.

In addition, the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical products is subject to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, or PDMA, which regulates the distribution of drugs and drug samples at the federal level, and sets minimum standards for the registration and regulation of drug distributors by the states. Both the PDMA and state laws limit the distribution of prescription pharmaceutical product samples and impose requirements to ensure accountability in distribution.

Marketing Exclusivity

Market exclusivity provisions authorized under the FDCA can delay the submission or the approval of certain marketing applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to obtain approval of an NDA for a new chemical entity. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the action of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not approve or even accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or an NDA submitted under Section 505(b)(2), or 505(b)(2) NDA, submitted by another company for another drug based on the same active moiety, regardless of whether the drug is intended for the same indication as the original innovative drug or for another indication, where the applicant does not own or have a legal right of reference to all the data required for approval. However, an application may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement to one of the patents listed with the FDA by the innovator NDA holder.

The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application, for example new indications, dosages or strengths of an existing drug. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to any preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

40

---

 

Foreign Government Regulation

Our product candidates will be subject to similar laws and regulations imposed by jurisdictions outside of the United States, and, in particular, Europe, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

In order to market our future product candidates in the European Economic Area (which is comprised of the 28 Member States of the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), or the EEA, and many other foreign jurisdictions, we must obtain separate regulatory approvals. More concretely, in the EEA, medicinal product candidates can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA, There are two types of marketing authorizations:

Under the above described procedures, before granting the MA, the EMA or the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA make an assessment of the risk-benefit balance of the product on the basis of scientific criteria concerning its quality, safety and efficacy.

Data and marketing exclusivity. In the EEA, new product candidates authorized for marketing, or reference product candidates, qualify for eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity upon marketing authorization. The data exclusivity period prevents generic or biosimilar applicants from relying on the preclinical and clinical trial data contained in the dossier of the reference product when applying for a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization in the EU during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EU. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product in the EU. The 10-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies.

Adaptive pathways.    The EMA has an adaptive pathways program which allows for early and progressive patient access to a medicine. The adaptive pathways concept is an approach to medicines approval that aims to improve patients’ access to medicines in cases of high unmet medical need. To achieve this goal, several approaches are envisaged: identifying small populations with severe disease where a medicine’s benefit-risk balance could be favorable; making more use of real-world data where appropriate to support clinical trial data; and involving health technology assessment bodies early in development to increase the chance that medicines will be recommended for payment and ultimately covered by national healthcare systems. The adaptive pathways concept applies primarily to treatments in areas of high medical need where it is difficult to collect data via traditional routes and where large clinical trials would unnecessarily expose patients who are unlikely to benefit from the medicine. The approach builds on regulatory processes already in place within the existing EU legal framework. These include: scientific advice;

41

---

 

compassionate use; the conditional approval mechanism (for medicines addressing life-threatening conditions); patient registries and other pharmacovigilance tools that allow collection of real-life data and development of a risk-management plan for each medicine.

The adaptive pathways program does not change the standards for the evaluation of benefits and risks or the requirement to demonstrate a positive benefit-risk balance to obtain marketing authorization.

PRIME scheme. In July 2016, the EMA launched the PRIME scheme. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicines that target unmet medical needs. It is based on increased interaction and early dialogue with companies developing promising medicines, to optimize their product development plans and speed up their evaluation to help them reach patients earlier. Product developers that benefit from PRIME designation can expect to be eligible for accelerated assessment but this is however not guaranteed. The benefits of a PRIME designation includes the appointment of a rapporteur from the Committee for Medicinal Product candidates for Human Use before submission of an MAA, early dialogue and scientific advice at key development milestones, and the potential to qualify product candidates for accelerated review earlier in the application process.

Other U.S. Healthcare Laws

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims and physician sunshine laws and regulations. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and individual imprisonment.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. Decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. These third-party payors are increasingly reducing reimbursements for medical products, drugs and services. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures, and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could further limit sales of any product. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for any product or a decision by a third-party payor not to cover a product could reduce physician usage and patient demand for the product and also have a material adverse effect on sales.

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the ACA, was signed into law, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States. By way of example, the ACA increased the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; required collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; imposed a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell certain “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected; expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs; creates a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and established a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

42

---

 

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, in 2017, Congress enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or the Tax Act, which eliminated the tax-based shared responsibility payment imposed by the ACA on certain individuals who fail to maintain qualifying health coverage for all or part of a year that is commonly referred to as the “individual mandate.” On December 14, 2018, a Texas U.S. District Court Judge ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was repealed as part of the Tax Act, the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. In December 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case, although it is unclear when the Supreme Court will make a decision. In addition, there may be other efforts to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers, which will remain in effect through 2030 absent additional congressional action, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 2020 through March 2021. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. In addition, individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, federal and foreign laws govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality and security of health-related information. In the United States, numerous federal and state laws and regulations, including state data breach notification laws, state health information privacy laws, and federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations (e.g., Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or FTC Act), govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of health-related and other personal information could apply to our operations or the operations of our partners. State laws may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to protected health information, or PHI, than the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, and state laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA, as the result of a breach of unsecured PHI, a complaint about privacy practices, or an audit by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, may be subject to significant civil, criminal, and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance.

Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, violating consumers’ privacy rights or failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure may constitute unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards.

In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the GDPR, govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. For example, California recently enacted legislation, the CCPA, which went into effect in January 2020. The CCPA, among other things, creates new data privacy obligations for covered companies and

43

---

 

provides new privacy rights to California residents, including the right to opt out of certain disclosures of their information. The CCPA also creates a private right of action with statutory damages for certain data breaches, thereby potentially increasing risks associated with a data breach. Further, the CPRA was recently voted into law by California residents, which significantly amends the CCPA, and imposes additional data protection obligations on companies doing business in California, including additional consumer rights processes and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It also creates a new California data protection agency specifically tasked to enforce the law, which would likely result in increased regulatory scrutiny of California businesses in the areas of data protection and security. The substantive requirements for businesses subject to the CPRA will go into effect in January 2023, and become enforceable in July 2023.

In Europe, we are subject to laws relating to our and our suppliers’, vendors’, partners’ and subcontractors’ collection, control, processing and other use of personal data (i.e., any data relating to an identifiable living individual, whether that individual can be identified directly or indirectly). We are subject to the supervision of local data protection authorities in those jurisdictions where we are established, where we offer goods or services to EEA and United Kingdom residents and where we monitor the behavior of individuals within the EEA or the United Kingdom (i.e., undertaking clinical trials). We and our suppliers, partners and subcontractors process personal data including in relation to our employees, employees of customers, clinical trial patients, healthcare professionals and employees of suppliers including health and medical information. The data privacy regime in the EEA and the United Kingdom includes the GDPR, the e-Privacy Directive and the e-Privacy Regulation (once in force) and the national laws and regulations implementing or supplementing each of them.

The GDPR requires that personal data is only collected for specified, explicit and legal purposes as set out in the GDPR or local laws, and the data may then only be processed in a manner consistent with those purposes. The personal data collected and processed must be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which it is collected and processed, it must be held securely, not transferred outside of the EEA (unless certain steps are taken to ensure an adequate level of protection), and must not be retained for longer than necessary for the purposes for which it was collected. In addition, the GDPR requires companies processing personal data to take certain organizational steps to ensure that they have adequate records, policies, security, training and governance frameworks in place to ensure the protection of data subject rights, including as required to respond to complaints and requests from data subjects. For example, the GDPR requires us to make more detailed disclosures to data subjects, requires disclosure of the legal basis on which we can process personal data, makes it harder for us to obtain valid consent for processing, requires the appointment of a data protection officer where sensitive personal data (e.g., health data) is processed on a large scale, introduces mandatory data breach notification throughout the EEA and imposes additional obligations on us when we are contracting with service providers.

In addition, to the extent a company processes, controls or otherwise uses “special category” personal data (including patients’ health or medical information, genetic information and biometric information), more stringent rules apply, further limiting the circumstances and the manner in which a company is legally permitted to process that data. Finally, the GDPR provides a broad right for EU and EEA member states to create supplemental national laws which may result in divergence across Europe making it harder to maintain a consistent operating model or standard operating procedures. Such laws, for example, may relate to the processing of health, genetic and biometric data, which could further limit our ability to use and share such data or could cause our costs to increase, and harm our business and financial condition.

We depend on a number of third parties in relation to the provision of our services, a number of which process personal data on our behalf. It is our policy to enter into contractual arrangements with each such provider to ensure that they only process personal data according to our instructions, and that they have sufficient technical and organizational security measures in place. Where we transfer personal data outside the EEA, we do so in compliance with the relevant data export requirements from time to time. We take our data protection obligations seriously, as any improper, unlawful or accidental disclosure, loss, alteration or access to, personal data, particularly sensitive personal data (i.e., special category), could negatively impact our business and/or our reputation.

We are also subject to EU laws on personal data export, as we may transfer personal data from the EEA to other jurisdictions which are not considered by the European Commission to offer adequate protection of personal data. Such transfers need to be legitimized by a valid transfer mechanism under the GDPR. Recent legal developments in Europe have created complexity and uncertainty regarding transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United

44

---

 

States: in July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework, or Privacy Shield, under which personal data could be transferred from the EEA to US entities who had self-certified under the Privacy Shield scheme. While the CJEU upheld the adequacy of the standard contractual clauses (a standard form of contract approved by the European Commission as an adequate personal data transfer mechanism, and potential alternative to the Privacy Shield), it made clear that reliance on them alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances. GDPR increases financial penalties for noncompliance (including possible fines of up to four percent of global annual revenue for the preceding financial year or €20 million (whichever is higher) for the most serious violations). Relatedly, following the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU after the expiry of the transition period in January 2021, the United Kingdom will operate a separate but similar regime to the EU which we will have to comply with (with respect to any United Kingdom activities) and allows for fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year (whichever is higher).

 

Employees and Human Capital Management

 

As of December 31, 2020, we had 30 employees, all of whom were full-time, all of whom are engaged in research and development activities, operations, finance and administration. Sixteen of our employees hold doctorate degrees (Ph.D., M.D. or Pharm.D.). None of our employees is subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Our key human capital management objectives include, among others: (i) attracting, developing, and retaining a diverse and talented workforce; (ii) providing opportunities for learning, development, career growth, and movement within our company; (iii) evaluating compensation and benefits, and rewarding performance; (iv) investing in physical, emotional, and financial health of team members; (v) obtaining team member feedback; (vi) maintaining and enhancing our culture and mission; and (vii) communicating with our board of directors on a routine basis on key topics. We have implemented and continue to develop many programs designed to achieve these priorities.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands on December 9, 2016. On December 29, 2020, we effected a de-registration under the Cayman Islands Companies Law (2020 Revision) and a domestication under Section 388 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (by means of filing a certificate of domestication with the Secretary of State of Delaware), pursuant to which our jurisdiction of incorporation was changed from the Cayman Islands to the State of Delaware. Our principal executive offices are located at 1065 East Hillsdale Boulevard, Suite 100, Foster City, California 94404, and our telephone number is (650) 525-5535.

Our website address is www.ternspharma.com. We make available on or through our website certain reports and amendments to those reports that we file with or furnish to the SEC in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. These include our annual reports on Form 10-K, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and our current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. We make this information available on or through our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC. References to our website address do not constitute incorporation by reference of the information contained on the website, and the information contained on the website is not part of this document or any other document that we file with or furnish to the SEC.  The SEC maintains a site on the worldwide web that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at www.sec.gov.

45

---

 

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” before deciding whether to invest in our common stock. Many of the following risks and uncertainties are, and will be, exacerbated by the coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, pandemic and any worsening of the global business and economic environment as a result. The occurrence of any of the events or developments described below could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In such an event, the market price of our common stock could decline and you may lose all or part of your investment. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations and the market value of our common stock.

Risks Related to Our Limited Operating History, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale. We have incurred significant losses since our inception, and we anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, which, together with our limited operating history, makes it difficult to assess our future viability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, and we have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from sales of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in December 2016. We have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. In addition, we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.

We have had significant operating losses since our inception. Our net loss attributable to common stockholders for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 was approximately $29.4 million and $68.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $131.9 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue to develop our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, conduct clinical trials and pursue research and development activities. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.

We will require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed on acceptable terms, or at all, could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our product development programs, commercialization efforts or other operations.

Since our inception, we have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in research and development activities. Our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will require additional clinical development, and we intend to conduct additional research and development activities to discover and develop new single-agent and combination therapy candidates, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, all of which will require substantial additional funds. We will continue to expend significant resources for the foreseeable future in connection with these activities. These expenditures will include costs associated with conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and manufacturing and supply, as well as marketing and selling any drugs approved for sale. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of any preclinical study or clinical trial is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully complete the development and commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

As of December 31, 2020, we had capital resources consisting of cash and cash equivalents of approximately $74.9 million. In December 2020, we issued and sold shares of our convertible preferred stock for gross proceeds of

46

---

 

approximately $87.4 million (including conversion of the $15.0 million of convertible notes and effective conversion of $1.8 million in a bridge loan, plus accrued interest). In February 2021, we issued and sold 8,625,000 shares of our common stock in our initial public offering, or IPO, for net proceeds of approximately $132.9 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses. We expect our existing capital resources, which includes the gross proceeds from the issuance and sale of our convertible preferred stock and the net proceeds from our IPO, will fund our planned operating expenses into 2024. However, our operating plans may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned through public or private equity offerings or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations. Such financing may result in dilution to our stockholders, imposition of burdensome debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may affect our business. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans.

Our future capital requirements depend on many factors, including:

47

---

 

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by potential worsening global economic conditions and the recent disruptions to and volatility in the credit and financial markets in the United States and worldwide resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to:

We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or single-agent and combination therapy candidates that we would otherwise pursue on our own. We do not expect to realize revenue from sales of products or royalties from licensed products in the foreseeable future, if at all, and unless and until our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are clinically tested, approved for commercialization and successfully marketed. To date, we have primarily financed our operations through the sale of equity and debt securities. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and currently intend to do so through public or private equity offerings or debt financings, credit or loan facilities, collaborations or a combination of one or more of these funding sources. Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, many of which are beyond our control. Additional funds may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will suffer dilution and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders. Debt financing, if available, is likely to involve restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of our equity securities received any distribution of our corporate assets.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we must prioritize development of certain single-agent and combination therapy candidates and/or certain disease indications, which initially will be NASH. We may expend our limited resources on candidates or indications that do not yield a successful product and fail to capitalize on single-agent and combination therapy candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

We are currently focused on developing a portfolio of small-molecule single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH, and other chronic liver diseases. We seek to maintain a process of prioritization and resource allocation among our programs to maintain a balance between advancing our three clinical-stage programs, TERN-101, TERN-201 and TERN-501, in identified indications and exploring additional indications or mechanisms as well as developing future single-agent and combination therapy candidates. We also aim to conduct combination trials of our single-agent drug candidates. However, due to the significant resources required for the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we must focus on specific diseases and disease pathways and decide which single-agent and combination therapy candidates to pursue and the amount of resources to allocate to each such single-agent or combination therapy candidate.

Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, development, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular single-agent and combination therapy candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of any viable commercial drug and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, any decision to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain programs may subsequently also prove to be suboptimal and could cause us to miss valuable opportunities. If we make incorrect determinations regarding the viability or market potential of any of our programs or single-agent and combination therapy candidates or misread trends in NASH or in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical or biotechnology industry, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. As a result, we may fail to

48

---

 

capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities, be required to forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other single-agent and combination therapy candidates or other diseases and disease pathways that may later prove to have greater commercial potential than those we choose to pursue, or relinquish valuable rights to such single-agent and combination therapy candidates through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been advantageous for us to invest additional resources to retain development and commercialization rights.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations.

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes it difficult for us to predict our future operating results. These fluctuations may occur due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control and may be difficult to predict, including:

The cumulative effects of these factors could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance.

This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any forecasts we may provide to the market, or if any forecasts we provide to the market are below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated revenue or earnings guidance we may provide.

49

---

 

Risks related to the discovery and development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We are early in our development efforts. Our business is heavily dependent on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our current and future single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We have no drugs or combination therapies approved for sale, and our two clinical-stage programs are in early stages of clinical development. The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and, in particular, the advancement of our current clinical-stage programs, which are in early stages of clinical development. Given our stage of development, it may be many years, if we succeed at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate sufficient to warrant approval for commercialization. We cannot be certain that our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will receive regulatory approval or be successfully commercialized even if we receive regulatory approval.

We have not previously submitted a new drug application, or NDA, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, or similar approval filings to a comparable foreign regulatory authority, for any single-agent or combination therapy candidate. An NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish that the single-agent or combination therapy candidate is safe and effective for each desired indication. The NDA or other relevant regulatory filing must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product. We cannot be certain that our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, even if they are successful in clinical trials, our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates may not receive regulatory approval. If we do not receive regulatory approvals for current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations. Even if we successfully obtain regulatory approval to market a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, our revenue will depend, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval and have commercial rights, as well as the availability of competitive products, whether there is sufficient third-party reimbursement and adoption by physicians.

We plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates both in the United States and in select foreign countries. While the scope of regulatory approval generally is similar in other countries, in order to obtain separate regulatory approval in other countries, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety and efficacy. Other countries also have their own regulations governing, among other things, clinical trials and commercial sales, as well as pricing and distribution of drugs, and we may be required to expend significant resources to obtain regulatory approval and to comply with ongoing regulations in these jurisdictions.

In the future, we may also become dependent on other single-agent and combination therapy candidates that we may develop or acquire. The clinical and commercial success of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and future single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

50

---

 

51

---

 

These factors, many of which are beyond our control, could cause us to experience significant delays or an inability to obtain regulatory approvals or commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Even if regulatory approvals are obtained, we may never be able to successfully commercialize any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurances that we will be able to generate sufficient revenue through the sale of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates to continue our business or achieve profitability.

 

 

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process with uncertain timelines and outcomes, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results. If development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates is unsuccessful or delayed, we may be unable to obtain required regulatory approvals and we may be unable to commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates on a timely basis, if at all.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure or delay can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. Success in nonclinical testing and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including biotechnology companies, have suffered significant setbacks in clinical trials, even after promising results in earlier nonclinical or clinical studies. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, nonclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway and safety or efficacy observations made in clinical studies, including previously unreported adverse events. The results of preclinical, nonclinical and early clinical studies of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Single-agent and combination therapy candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical and initial clinical trials. Notwithstanding any potential promising results in earlier studies, we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We may experience delays in initiating our clinical trials and we cannot be certain that the trials or any other future clinical trials for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. Clinical trials can be delayed or terminated for a variety of reasons, including delay or failure related to:

52

---

 

In addition, disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may increase the likelihood that we encounter such difficulties or delays in initiating, enrolling, conducting, or completing our planned and ongoing clinical trials. We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions at which such trials are being conducted, by a data monitoring committee, or DMC, for such trial or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a drug, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial.

Moreover, principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and receive compensation in connection with such services. Under certain circumstances, we may be required to report some of these relationships to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may conclude that a financial relationship between us and a principal investigator has created a conflict of interest or otherwise affected the interpretation of the trial. The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority may therefore question the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized. This could result in a delay in approval, refusal to accept or rejection, of our marketing applications by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, and may ultimately lead to the denial of marketing approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

If we experience delays in the completion of any clinical trial of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or the termination of any such clinical trial, the commercial prospects of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may be harmed, and our ability to generate drug revenues from any of these single-agent and combination therapy candidates will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our single-agent and combination therapy candidate development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence drug sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

If we encounter difficulties or delays enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may not be able to initiate or continue our planned clinical trials for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates if we are unable to identify and enroll a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in these trials as required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authority. Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of patients to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the clinical trial, the design of the clinical trial, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the single-agent or combination therapy candidate being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating.

The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

53

---

 

In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for single-agent and combination therapy candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors.

Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of the planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We face significant competition for our drug discovery and development efforts in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, will face significant competition, which may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration. Many of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do, and we may not be able to successfully compete.

The pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries in particular are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, patenting, manufacturing and marketing of healthcare products competitive with those that we are developing. We face competition from a number of sources, such as pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, generic drug companies and academic and research institutions.

We are aware of both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies with development programs in NASH. Large pharmaceutical companies participating in the development of NASH treatments include, but are not limited to, AbbVie, Inc., Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca PLC/MedImmune LLC, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eisai, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Pfizer Inc., Roche Holding AG, Sanofi, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

In relation to TERN-101, companies conducting NASH clinical trials with FXR agonists include AbbVie, Inc., Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ENYO Pharma SA, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Metacrine, Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

TERN-201, our VAP-1 inhibitor, is a relatively novel mechanism for the treatment of NASH, and thus has little competition we are aware of. The companies who are currently developing a SSAO/VAP-1 inhibitor with NASH as a lead indication are LG Chem Ltd. and Novo Nordisk A/S.

With regards to TERN-501, companies conducting NASH clinical trials with THR-β agonists include Ascletis Pharma Inc., Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Viking Therapeutics, Inc.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies who are developing clinical-stage drugs to treat NASH using mechanisms not mentioned above include 89Bio, Inc., Akero Therapeutics, Inc., Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Axcella Health, Inc., Carmot Therapeutics, Inc., Cirius Therapeutics, Inc., CohBar, Inc.,

54

---

 

Coherus Biosciences Inc., Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc., Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Galectin Therapeutics Inc., Galmed Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Inventiva Pharma SA, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., MediciNova, Inc., NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., NorthSea Therapeutics, Inc., Pliant Therapeutics, Inc., Poxel SA, Sagimet Biosciences, Inc., T3D Therapeutics, Inc. and Zydus Cadila Healthcare.

It is also probable that the number of companies seeking to develop drugs and therapies for the treatment of serious metabolic diseases, such as NASH, will increase.

Many of our competitors have greater financial resources, marketing capabilities, sales forces, manufacturing capabilities, research and development capabilities, clinical trial expertise, intellectual property portfolios, experience in obtaining patents and regulatory approvals for drug candidates and other resources than we do. Some of the companies also have a broad range of other product offerings, large direct sales forces and long-term customer relationships with our target physicians, which could inhibit our market penetration efforts. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Certain alternative treatments that may be approved and offered by competitors in the future may be available at lower prices and may offer greater efficacy or better safety profiles. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for the intended indication of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over any of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours and may obtain orphan product exclusivity from the FDA for indications our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are targeting, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. For additional information regarding our competition, see the section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K captioned Item 1. “Business—Competition.”

We are initially developing single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH, an indication for which there is currently no approved therapy in the United States or Europe. There is a heightened risk that we will not be able to gain agreement with regulatory authorities regarding an acceptable development plan, that the outcome of our clinical trials will not be favorable or that, even if favorable, regulatory authorities may not find the results of our clinical trials to be sufficient for marketing approval. This makes it difficult to predict the timing and costs of the clinical development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH.

Our current research and development efforts are focused on developing our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH, an indication for which there is currently no approved therapy in the United States or Europe. The regulatory approval process for novel drug candidates can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or extensively studied drug candidates. As other companies are in later stages of clinical trials for their potential NASH therapies, we expect that the path for regulatory approval for NASH therapies may continue to evolve as these other companies refine their regulatory approval strategies and interact with regulatory authorities. Such evolution may impact our future clinical trial designs, including trial size and approval endpoints, in ways that we cannot predict today.

In the United States, the FDA generally requires two adequate and well-controlled pivotal clinical trials to approve an NDA. Furthermore, for full approval of an NDA, the FDA requires a demonstration of efficacy based on a clinical benefit endpoint. The FDA may grant accelerated approval based on a surrogate endpoint reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Even though our pivotal clinical trials for a specific indication may achieve their primary endpoints and are reasonably believed by us to be likely to predict clinical benefit, the FDA may not accept the results of such trials or approve our single-agent and combination therapy candidates on an accelerated basis, or at all. It is also possible that the FDA may refuse to accept for filing and review any regulatory application we submit for regulatory approval in the United States. Even if our regulatory application is accepted for review, there may be delays

55

---

 

in the FDA’s review process and the FDA may determine that such regulatory application does not contain adequate clinical or other data or support the approval of the single-agent and combination therapy candidate. In such a case, the FDA may issue a complete response letter that may require that we conduct and/or complete additional clinical trials and preclinical studies or provide additional information or data before it will reconsider an application for approval. Any such requirements may be substantial, expensive and time-consuming, and there is no guarantee that we will continue to pursue such application or that the FDA will ultimately decide that any such application supports the approval of the single-agent or combination therapy candidate. As an example, the FDA recently returned a complete response to an NDA submitted by Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the drug candidate obeticholic acid, or OCA, for the treatment of NASH. The efficacy of OCA for the treatment of NASH was based on the surrogate histologic endpoint of improvement of fibrosis as shown by liver biopsy with no worsening of NASH in lieu of clinical outcomes in the NASH patients enrolled in the trial, such as overall survival and time to liver transplant. Such decisions may impact our future clinical trial designs, including trial size and approval endpoints, in ways that we cannot predict today. Furthermore, the FDA may also refer any regulatory application to an advisory committee for review and recommendation as to whether, and under what conditions, the application should be approved. While the FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient revenue to maintain our business.

Even if we receive accelerated approval for any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates, we anticipate we will be required to conduct or complete a post-approval clinical outcomes trial to confirm the clinical benefit of such single-agent and combination therapy candidates by demonstrating the correlation of the surrogate endpoint therapeutic response in patients with a significant reduction in adverse clinical outcomes over time. There can be no assurance that the clinical outcomes trial will confirm that the surrogate endpoint used as the basis of the regulatory submissions we make will eventually show an adequate correlation with clinical outcomes.

Our anticipated development costs would likely increase if development of any current or future single-agent or combination therapy candidate is delayed because we are required by the FDA to perform studies or trials in addition to, or different from, those that we currently conduct or anticipate. Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of any increase in our anticipated development costs.

We also may evaluate our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in combination with one or more therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA, EMA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. We may not be able to market and sell any single-agent or combination therapy candidate we develop in combination with an unapproved therapy if that unapproved therapy does not ultimately obtain marketing approval. In addition, unapproved therapies face the same risks described with respect to our single-agent and combination therapy candidates currently in development, including the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA or EMA approval. If the FDA, EMA or similar foreign regulatory authorities do not approve these other therapies or revoke their approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the therapies we choose to evaluate in combination with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market any such single-agent or combination therapy candidate.

The lack of widely-accepted non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of NASH is likely to present a major challenge to the market penetration of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH.

Liver biopsy is the standard approach for the diagnosis of inflammation and fibrosis associated with NASH. However, the procedure-related morbidity and, in rare cases, mortality, sample errors, costs, patient discomfort and thus lack of patient interest in undergoing the procedure limit its use. As such, only patients with a high risk of NASH, which includes patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, or NAFLD, are generally referred for liver biopsy. Because NASH tends to be asymptomatic until the disease progresses, many individuals with NASH remain undiagnosed until the disease has reached its late stages. The lack of widely-accepted non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of NASH is likely to present a major challenge to the market penetration of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH, if ever commercialized, as many practitioners and patients may not be aware that a patient suffers from NASH and requires treatment. As such, use of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for the treatment of NASH might not be as wide-spread as our

56

---

 

actual target market and this may limit the commercial potential of such single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

A further challenge to the market penetration for our NASH single-agent and combination therapy candidates is that currently a liver biopsy is the standard approach for measuring improvement in NASH patients. Because it would be impractical to subject all patients that take our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, to regular and repeated liver biopsies, it will be difficult to demonstrate effectiveness to practitioners and patients unless and until widely-accepted non-invasive methods for the diagnosis and monitoring of NASH become available in clinical practice and clinical trials, as to which there can be no assurance.

While non-invasive diagnostic approaches are being advanced, their use in the diagnosis of NASH and monitoring of response to treatment has not been broadly recommended in professional treatment guidelines. Moreover, some diagnostics in development have not yet been clinically validated, have uncertain timetables for clinical validation, and may also be subject to regulation by FDA or other regulatory authorities as medical devices and may require premarket clearance or approval.

Our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, cause us to suspend or discontinue clinical trials, limit the commercial profile of an approved label, or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if any.

Undesirable side effects caused by our single-agent and combination therapy candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics. To date, both TERN-101 and TERN-201 have been well-tolerated though we did observe transient elevations in transaminases in one of our Phase 1 clinical trials of TERN-101. Drugs with similar mechanism of actions to those we are developing have shown tolerability issues, including pruritus and adverse lipid changes in other FXR agonists, non-selective MAO inhibition in other VAP-1 inhibitors and potential cardiac toxicity in other THR-β agonists. As a result, it is possible that our drug candidates will display similar safety and tolerability issues and adverse events when evaluated in longer clinical trials in larger patient populations despite the results we have observed in our clinical trials to date.

If unacceptable side effects arise in the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we, the IRBs at the institutions in which our studies are conducted or the DMC could recommend suspension or termination of our clinical trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. Furthermore, we may be required to expend time and incur costs to train medical personnel using our single-agent and combination therapy candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

In addition, if any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by such drugs, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

57

---

 

Any of the foregoing events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate, if approved, and result in the loss of significant revenues to us, which would materially and adversely affect our results of operations and business.

Interim, top-line and preliminary data from our clinical trials that we announce or publish from time to time may change as more patient data become available and are subject to audit and verification procedures that could result in material changes in the final data.

From time to time, we may publicly disclose interim, top-line or preliminary data from our clinical trials, which is based on a preliminary analysis of then-available data, and the results and related findings and conclusions are subject to change following a more comprehensive review of the data related to the particular study or trial. We also make assumptions, estimations, calculations and conclusions as part of our analyses of data, and we may not have received or had the opportunity to fully and carefully evaluate all data. As a result, the interim, top-line or preliminary results that we report may differ from future results of the same studies, or different conclusions or considerations may qualify such results, once additional data have been received and fully evaluated. Interim, top-line and preliminary data also remain subject to audit and verification procedures that may result in the final data being materially different from the preliminary data we previously published. As a result, such data should be viewed with caution until the final data are available. From time to time, we may also disclose interim data from our clinical trials. Interim, top-line or preliminary data from clinical trials that we may complete are subject to the risk that one or more of the clinical outcomes may materially change as patient enrollment continues and more patient data become available. Adverse differences between interim, top-line or preliminary data and final data could significantly harm our business prospects.

Further, others, including regulatory agencies, may not accept or agree with our assumptions, estimates, calculations, conclusions or analyses or may interpret or weigh the importance of data differently, which could impact the value of the particular program, the approvability or commercialization of the particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate and our company in general. In addition, the information we choose to publicly disclose regarding a particular study or clinical trial is based on what is typically extensive information, and you or others may not agree with what we determine is the material or otherwise appropriate information to include in our disclosure, and any information we determine not to disclose may ultimately be deemed significant with respect to future decisions, conclusions, views, activities or otherwise regarding a particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate or our business. If the interim, top-line or preliminary data that we report differ from actual results, or if others, including regulatory authorities, disagree with the conclusions reached, our ability to obtain approval for, and commercialize, our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may be harmed, which could harm our business, operating results, prospects or financial condition.

58

---

 

The regulatory approval process is lengthy, expensive and uncertain, and we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates under applicable regulatory requirements. The denial or delay of any such approval would delay commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and adversely impact our ability to generate revenue, our business and our results of operations.

The development, research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, approval, selling, import, export, marketing, promotion and distribution of drug products are subject to extensive and evolving regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities in the United States, principally the FDA, and by foreign regulatory authorities, which regulations differ from country to country. Neither we nor any future collaborator is permitted to market any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates in the United States until we receive regulatory approval of an NDA from the FDA.

Obtaining regulatory approval of an NDA can be a lengthy, expensive and uncertain process. Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a single-agent or combination therapy candidate in the United States or abroad, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA or other foreign regulatory authorities, that such single-agent and combination therapy candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. The number of nonclinical studies and clinical trials that will be required for regulatory approval varies depending on the single-agent or combination therapy candidate, the disease or condition that the single-agent or combination therapy candidate is designed to address, and the regulations applicable to any particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate.

Results from nonclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the nonclinical or clinical data for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA and other regulatory authorities. Administering single-agent and combination therapy candidates to humans may produce undesirable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and result in the FDA or other regulatory authorities denying approval of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate for any or all indications. The FDA may also require us to conduct additional studies or trials for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates either prior to or post-approval, such as additional clinical pharmacology studies or safety or efficacy studies or trials, or it may object to elements of our clinical development program such as the primary endpoints or the number of subjects in our clinical trials.

The FDA or any foreign regulatory bodies can delay, limit or deny approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or require us to conduct additional nonclinical or clinical testing or abandon a program for many reasons, including:

59

---

 

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or other regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy development and approval process as well as the unpredictability of future clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we eventually complete clinical testing and receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, the FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and/or in the case of the FDA, the implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or the applicable foreign regulatory authority also may approve a single-agent or combination therapy candidate for a more limited indication or a narrower patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval, or the failure to receive marketing authorization with a label that allows us to market the single-agent or combination therapy candidate as we desire, would delay, prevent or otherwise limit commercialization of that single-agent or combination therapy candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

Our business has been and could continue to be adversely affected by the evolving and ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic in regions where we or third parties on which we rely have significant manufacturing facilities, concentrations of clinical trial sites or other business operations. The COVID-19 pandemic could adversely affect our operations, as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers or other third parties with whom we conduct business.

Our business has been and could continue to be adversely affected by the effects of the recent and evolving COVID-19 pandemic, which was declared by the World Health Organization as a global pandemic. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, we may experience ongoing disruptions that could severely impact our business and clinical trials, including:

60

---

 

These and other disruptions in our operations and the global economy could negatively impact our business, operating results and financial condition.

Our clinical trials have been, and may in the future be, affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic may impact patient enrollment, visits or continued participation in our ongoing trials, including our Phase 2a clinical trial of TERN-101 (LIFT Study) and our Phase 1 clinical trial of TERN-501, and our planned trials, such as our Phase 1b clinical trial for TERN-201. In particular, some sites have in the past or may in the future pause enrollment to focus on, and direct resources to, COVID-19, while at other sites, patients may choose not to enroll or continue participating in the clinical trial as a result of the pandemic. In addition, patient visits to medical providers in the United States have slowed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people who have serious chronic medical conditions are at higher risk of getting very sick from COVID-19. As a result, potential patients in our ongoing or planned clinical trials may choose to not enroll, not participate in follow-up clinical visits or drop out of the trials as a precaution against contracting COVID-19. Further, some patients may not be able or willing to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupts healthcare services.

We are unable to predict with confidence the duration of such patient enrollment delays and difficulties. If patient enrollment is delayed for an extended period of time, our clinical trials could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected. Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, may be adversely impacted.

In addition, ongoing or planned clinical trials may also be impacted by interruptions or delays in the operations of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. For example, we have also made certain adjustments to the operation of our trials in an effort to ensure the monitoring and safety of patients and minimize risks to trial integrity during the pandemic in accordance with the guidance issued by the FDA, and may need to make further adjustments in the future. For example, we have initiated our clinical trial protocols to enable remote visits to mitigate any potential impacts as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these adjustments are new and untested, may not be effective, may affect the integrity of data collected, and may have unforeseen effects on the progress and completion of our clinical trials and the findings from such clinical trials.

In addition, we may encounter a shortage in supplies of, or in delays in shipping, our study drug or other components of the clinical trial vital for successful conduct of the trial. Further, the successful conduct of our LIFT Study and our other clinical trials depend on retrieving laboratory, imaging and other data from patients. Any failure by the vendors with which we work with to send us such data could impair the progress of such clinical trials. These events could delay our clinical trials, increase the cost of completing our clinical trials and negatively impact the integrity, reliability or robustness of the data from our clinical trials.

In addition, quarantines, shelter-in-place and similar government orders, or the perception that such orders, shutdowns or other restrictions on the conduct of business operations could occur, related to COVID-19 or other infectious diseases could impact personnel at our study sites or third-party manufacturing facilities upon which we rely, or the availability or cost of materials, which could disrupt the supply chain for our drug and combination therapy candidates. To the extent our suppliers and service providers are unable to comply with their obligations under our agreements with them or they are otherwise unable to deliver or are delayed in delivering goods and services to us due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our ability to continue meeting clinical supply demand for our drug and combination therapy candidates or otherwise advancing development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may become impaired.

61

---

 

The spread of COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread may also materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, the COVID-19 pandemic may be difficult to assess or predict, there could be a significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity and financial position. In addition, the trading prices for other biopharmaceutical companies have been highly volatile as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, we may face difficulties raising capital through sales of our common stock or such sales may be on unfavorable terms.

COVID-19 and actions taken to reduce its spread continue to rapidly evolve. The extent to which COVID-19 may impede the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, reduce the productivity of our employees, disrupt our supply chains, delay our clinical trials, reduce our access to capital or limit our business development activities, will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence.

In addition, to the extent the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adversely affects our business and results of operations, it may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks and uncertainties described in this Item 1A. “Risk Factors” section.

We have received Fast Track designation for TERN-101 and TERN-201 for the treatment of NASH, and we may seek Fast Track designation for some or all of our other single-agent and combination therapy candidates. We may not receive such designation, and even for those single-agent and combination therapy candidates for which we do, it may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and will not increase the likelihood that single-agent and combination therapy candidates will receive marketing approval.

We have received Fast Track designation from the FDA for TERN-101 and TERN-201 for the treatment of NASH, and we may seek Fast Track designation and priority review for some of our other single-agent and combination therapy candidates. If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition or disease, and nonclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need, the drug may qualify for FDA Fast Track designation, for which sponsors must apply. The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant this designation. Thus, even if we believe a particular single-agent or combination therapy candidate is eligible for this designation, the FDA may decide not to grant it. Moreover, even if we do receive Fast Track designation, we or our collaborators may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA procedures. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

A Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA, even if granted for any of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will receive marketing approval.

We may seek a Breakthrough Therapy designation for one or more of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates if the clinical data support such a designation for one or more single-agent and combination therapy candidates. A Breakthrough Therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drug candidates that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development.

Designation as a Breakthrough Therapy is within the discretion of the FDA. Accordingly, even if we believe one of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates meets the criteria for designation as a Breakthrough Therapy, the FDA may disagree and instead determine not to make such designation. In any event, the receipt of a Breakthrough Therapy designation for a single-agent or combination therapy candidate may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to drug candidates considered for approval under non-expedited FDA review procedures and does not assure ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, even if one or more of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates qualify as Breakthrough Therapies, the FDA may later decide that the single-agent or combination therapy no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened.

62

---

 

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the single-agent or combination therapy candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a single-agent or combination therapy candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our drugs is also subject to approval.

Obtaining foreign regulatory approvals and compliance with foreign regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could delay or prevent the introduction of our drugs in certain countries. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will be harmed.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense. Additionally, our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, could be subject to labeling and other restrictions on marketing or withdrawal from the market, and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or if we experience unanticipated problems with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, when and if any of them are approved.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the drug may be marketed or the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-market testing and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the single-agent or combination therapy candidate. The FDA may also require us to adopt a REMS to ensure that the benefits of treatment with such single-agent or combination therapy candidate outweigh the risks for each potential patient, which may include, among other things, a communication plan to health care practitioners, patient education, extensive patient monitoring or distribution systems and processes that are highly controlled, restrictive and more costly than what is typical for the industry. We or our collaborators may also be required to adopt a REMS or engage in similar actions, such as patient education, certification of health care professionals or specific monitoring, if we or others later identify undesirable side effects caused by any drug that we develop alone or with collaborators.

In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, the manufacturing, quality control, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for the approved drug will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. The FDA also requires submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMP requirements and good clinical practice, or GCPs, for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

63

---

 

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response, and could generate negative publicity. Any failure to comply with ongoing regulatory requirements may significantly and adversely affect our ability to commercialize and generate revenue from our drugs. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.

Advertising and promotion of any single-agent or combination therapy candidate that obtains approval in the United States will be heavily scrutinized by the FDA, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, state attorneys general, members of the U.S. Congress and the public. Additionally, advertising and promotion of any single-agent or combination therapy candidate that obtains approval outside of the United States will be heavily scrutinized by comparable foreign entities and stakeholders. Violations, including actual or alleged promotion of our drugs for unapproved or off-label uses, are subject to enforcement letters, inquiries and investigations, and civil and criminal sanctions by the FDA or comparable foreign bodies. Any actual or alleged failure to comply with labeling and promotion requirements may result in fines, warning letters, mandates to corrective information to healthcare practitioners, injunctions or civil or criminal penalties.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. 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. For example, the results of the 2020 Presidential election may impact our business and industry. Namely, the Trump administration took several executive actions, including the issuance of a number of Executive Orders, that could impose significant burdens on, or otherwise materially delay, FDA’s ability to engage in routine oversight activities such as implementing statutes through rulemaking, issuance of guidance, and review and approval of marketing applications. It is difficult to predict how these executive actions will be implemented or whether they will be rescinded or replaced under the Biden Administration. The policies and priorities of the new Administration are unknown and could materially impact the regulation of our products. 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, we may be subject to enforcement action and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire and retain key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new products and services from being developed or commercialized in a timely manner, which could negatively impact our business.

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and statutory, regulatory and policy changes. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable.

Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for new drugs to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down

64

---

 

several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Separately, in response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the FDA announced its intention to postpone most foreign inspections of manufacturing facilities and products through April 2020, and subsequently in March 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, in July 2020 the FDA announced its intention to resume certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA intends to use this risk-based assessment system to identify the categories of regulatory activity that can occur within a given geographic area, ranging from mission critical inspections to resumption of all regulatory activities. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. If a prolonged government shutdown occurs, or if global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular inspections, reviews, or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses. If we are found or alleged to have improperly promoted off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies strictly regulate the promotional claims that may be made about prescription drugs, as our single-agent and combination therapy candidates would be, if approved. In particular, a drug may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA or such other regulatory agencies as reflected in the drug’s approved labeling. Physicians may nevertheless prescribe such drugs to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. If we cannot successfully manage the promotion of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, we could become subject to significant liability, which would materially adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Risks related to our reliance on third parties

We rely completely on third parties to manufacture our clinical drug supplies and we intend to rely on third parties to produce commercial supplies of any approved single-agent or combination therapy candidate, and our commercialization of any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates could be stopped, delayed or made less profitable if those third parties fail to obtain approval of the FDA or comparable regulatory authorities, fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of drug product or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have nor do we plan to acquire the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture our clinical drug supplies for use in the conduct of our clinical trials, and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. The facilities used by our contract manufacturers to manufacture our single-agent and combination therapy candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with cGMPs for manufacture of both active drug substances and finished drug products. If our contract manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have no control over the ability of our contract manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved.

65

---

 

Any replacement of our manufacturers could require significant effort and expertise because there may be a limited number of qualified replacements. In some cases, the technology required to manufacture our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may be unique to the original manufacturer and we may have difficulty transferring such skills or technology to another third party. The process of changing manufacturers is extensive and time consuming and could cause delays or interruptions in our drug development. Further, if we are required to change manufacturers for any reason, we will be required to verify that the new manufacturer maintains facilities and procedures that comply with quality standards and with all applicable regulations and guidelines. The delays associated with the verification of a new manufacturer could negatively affect our ability to develop single-agent and combination therapy candidates in a timely manner or within budget.

We rely on our manufacturers to purchase from third-party suppliers the materials necessary to produce our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for our clinical trials. There are a limited number of suppliers for raw materials that we use to manufacture our drugs and there may be a need to assess alternate suppliers to prevent a possible disruption of the manufacture of the materials necessary to produce our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for our clinical trials, and if approved, ultimately for commercial sale. We do not have any control over the process or timing of the acquisition of these raw materials by our manufacturers. Moreover, we currently do not have any agreements for the commercial production of these raw materials. Although we generally do not begin a clinical trial unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate to complete the clinical trial, any significant delay in the supply of a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, or the raw material components thereof, for an ongoing clinical trial due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical trials, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. If our manufacturers or we are unable to purchase these raw materials after regulatory approval has been obtained for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, the commercial launch of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates would be delayed or there would be a shortage in supply, which would impair our ability to generate revenues from the sale of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We, or our manufacturing partners, may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If we or our manufacturing partners are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of that single-agent or combination therapy candidate may be delayed or become infeasible, and marketing approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business.

We expect to continue to depend on third-party contract manufacturers for the foreseeable future. We have not entered into long-term agreements with our current contract manufacturers or with any alternate fill/finish suppliers, and though we intend to do so prior to commercial launch in order to ensure that we maintain adequate supplies of finished drug product, we may be unable to enter into such an agreement or do so on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse impact upon our business. We currently obtain our supplies of finished drug product through individual purchase orders.

We rely on third parties to conduct, supervise and monitor our preclinical and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet rigorously enforced regulatory standards or meet expected deadlines, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates on a timely basis or at all.

We currently do not have the ability to independently conduct preclinical studies that comply with the regulatory requirements known as good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions require us to comply with GCP requirements for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials, in order to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the trial subjects are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct GLP-compliant nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials on our single-agent and combination therapy candidates properly and on time. While we will have agreements governing their activities, we control only certain aspects of their activities and have limited influence over their actual performance. The third parties with whom we

66

---

 

contract for execution of our GLP nonclinical studies and our GCP clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our GLP-compliant preclinical and nonclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

Many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. If the third parties conducting our GLP preclinical or nonclinical studies or our clinical trials do not perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience work stoppages, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our clinical trial protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies or clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable single-agent or combination therapy candidate, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenues could be delayed.

We depend on collaborations with third parties for the development of certain of our drug candidates, and we may depend on additional collaborations in the future for the development and commercialization of these or other potential candidates. If our collaborations are not successful, our ability to develop and commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates could be adversely affected.

We are currently collaborating with third parties to develop certain of our potential drug candidates. For example, we are collaborating with Hansoh (Shanghai) Healthtech Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Hansoh Pharmaceutical Group Company Ltd. with respect to certain aspects of TRN-000632, our small-molecule allosteric inhibitor of the BCR-ABL fusion gene. In the future, we may seek collaboration arrangements for the commercialization, or potentially for the development, of certain of our other single-agent and combination therapy candidates depending on the merits of retaining commercialization rights for ourselves as compared to entering into collaboration arrangements. For example, certain of the disease areas that we believe our single-agent and combination therapy candidates address require large, costly and later-stage clinical trials, which a collaboration partner may be better positioned to finance and/or conduct. In addition, a component of our strategy is to maximize the commercial value of our current and future single-agent and combination therapy candidates, which may also strategically align with partnering commercial rights with partners that have large and established sales organizations. To the extent that we decide to enter into collaboration agreements, we may face significant competition for appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain and challenging to manage. We may not be successful in our efforts to enter into collaboration agreements. The terms of collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

The success of our current and future collaboration arrangements will depend heavily on the efforts and activities of our collaborators. Collaborations are subject to numerous risks, which may include risks that:

67

---

 

If our collaborations on research and development candidates do not result in the successful development and commercialization of products or if one of our collaborators terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration.

If conflicts arise between us and our collaborators or strategic partners, these parties may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies.

If conflicts arise between our collaborators or strategic partners and us, the other party may act in a manner adverse to us and could limit our ability to implement our strategies. Current or future collaborators or strategic partners may develop, either alone or with others, products in related fields that are competitive with the products or potential products that are the subject of these collaborations.

Our current or future collaborators or strategic partners may preclude us from entering into collaborations with their competitors, fail to obtain timely regulatory approvals, terminate their agreements with us prematurely or fail to devote sufficient resources to the development and commercialization of products. Furthermore, competing products, either developed by our current or future collaborators or strategic partners or to which our collaborators or strategic partners may have rights, may result in the withdrawal of partner support for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Any of these developments could harm our product development efforts.

68

---

 

Risks related to commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates

The successful commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities and health insurers establish adequate coverage, reimbursement levels and pricing policies. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, could limit our ability to market those drugs and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford prescription medications such as our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, assuming FDA approval. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement for products by governmental authorities, private health insurers and other organizations will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Assuming we obtain coverage for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. We cannot be sure that coverage and reimbursement in the United States, the European Economic Area, or EEA, or elsewhere will be available for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or any product that we may develop, and any reimbursement that may become available may be decreased or eliminated.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our single-agent and combination therapy candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive drug. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, pricing of existing third-party therapeutics may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. These payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of a given product or establish prices for new or existing marketed products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment in our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. For products administered under the supervision of a physician, obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement may be particularly difficult because of the higher prices often associated with such drugs. Additionally, separate reimbursement for the product itself or the treatment or procedure in which the product is used may not be available, which may impact physician utilization. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and other countries have and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially-reasonable revenue and profits.

69

---

 

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for newly approved products and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates due to the trend toward managed health care, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and biologics and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products.

Even if our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates obtain regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption and use necessary for commercial success.

Even if one or more of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates receive FDA or other regulatory approvals, the commercial success of any of our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians and patients for approved indications. Given the number of drugs in development for the treatment of NASH, if we are unsuccessful in achieving a differentiated profile with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates based on efficacy, safety and tolerability, dosing and administration, market acceptance will be limited. Our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may not be commercially successful for a variety of reasons, including, among other things, competitive factors, pricing or physician preference, reimbursement by insurers, the degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates. If approved, the commercial success of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

70

---

 

We cannot assure you that our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, will achieve broad market acceptance among physicians and patients. Any failure by our single-agent and combination therapy candidates that obtain regulatory approval to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our results of operations.

We currently have no sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales capabilities on our own or through third parties, we may not be able to market and sell our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved, effectively in the United States and foreign jurisdictions or generate drug revenue.

We currently do not have a marketing or sales organization. In order to commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. If any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates receive regulatory approval, we expect to establish a sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such single-agent or combination therapy candidate, which will be expensive and time consuming. We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology products, and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. We may choose to collaborate with third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. If we are not successful in commercializing our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future drug revenue and we would incur significant additional losses.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, principal investigators, CROs, consultants and commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, provide accurate information to the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or

71

---

 

regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting obligations and oversight if subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Our business operations and future relationships with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers will be subject to applicable healthcare regulatory laws, which could expose us to penalties.

Our business operations and future arrangements with investigators, healthcare professionals, consultants, third-party payors, patient organizations and customers, may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations. These laws may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we will conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, if approved. Such laws include:

72

---

 

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.

Enacted and future healthcare legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to obtain marketing approval of and commercialize our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and may affect the prices we may set.

In the United States, the EEA and other jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations. In particular, there have been and continue to be a number of initiatives at the U.S. federal and state levels that seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively the ACA, was enacted, which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the ACA, those of greatest importance to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries include the following:

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case, although it is unclear when the Supreme Court will make a decision. It is also unclear how other efforts to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will affect the law or our business.

73

---

 

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 resulted in aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 2020 through March 2021, unless additional action is taken by Congress. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These new laws or any other similar laws introduced in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could negatively affect our future customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products. We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally-mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. This could reduce the ultimate demand for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or put pressure on our product pricing.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action in the United States or any other jurisdiction. If we or any third parties we may engage are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or such third parties are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may lose any regulatory approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

If the market opportunities for any single-agent or combination therapy that we or our strategic collaborators develop are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We intend to initially focus our single-agent and combination therapy candidate development on therapies for the treatment of NASH and other liver and other chronic liver diseases. Our projections of addressable patient populations that have the potential to benefit from treatment with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are based on estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including the scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these diseases. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates may not ultimately be amenable to treatment with our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Our market opportunity may also be limited by future competitor treatments that enter the market. If any of our estimates are inaccurate, the market opportunities for any of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates could be significantly diminished and have an adverse material impact on our business.

74

---

 

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Our current and any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates could be alleged to infringe patent rights and other intellectual property rights of third parties, which may require costly litigation and, if we are not successful, could cause us to pay substantial damages and/or limit our ability to commercialize our drugs and combination therapy candidates.

Our commercial success depends on our ability to develop, manufacture and market our current and any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates that may be approved for sale, and to use our proprietary technology without infringing the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. If any third-party patents, or other intellectual property rights are found to cover our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or their compositions, methods of use or manufacturing, we may be required to pay damages, which could be substantial, and we would not be free to manufacture or market our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or to do so without obtaining a license, which may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Regardless of merits, intellectual property disputes can be costly to defend, time-consuming and may cause our business, operating results and financial condition to suffer.

We operate in an industry with extensive intellectual property litigation. As the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that there may be patents issued to third parties that relate to our products and technology of which we are not aware or that we may need to challenge to continue our operations as currently contemplated.

From time to time, we may be subject to legal proceedings and claims with respect to intellectual property with respect to our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and technologies we use in our business. We may face allegations that we have infringed the trademarks, copyrights, patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties, including patents held by our competitors or by non-practicing entities. Litigation may make it necessary to defend ourselves by determining the scope, enforceability and validity of third-party proprietary rights, or to establish our proprietary rights. Interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. Regardless of whether claims that we are infringing patents or other intellectual property rights have merit, the claims can be time consuming, divert management attention and financial resources and are costly to evaluate and defend. Results of any such litigation are difficult to predict and may require us to cease developing, manufacturing, or commercializing the infringing single-agent and combination therapy candidate, stop treating certain conditions, obtain licenses or modify our drugs or combination therapies and features while we develop non-infringing substitutes, or may result in significant settlement costs. For example, litigation can involve substantial damages for infringement, and if the court finds that the infringement was willful, we could be ordered to pay treble damages and the patent owner’s attorneys’ fees. We may also be prohibited from selling or licensing our single-agent and combination therapy candidates unless the third party licenses rights to us, which it is not required to do at a commercially reasonable price or at all. If a license is available from a third party, we may have to pay substantial royalties or upfront fees or grant cross-licenses to intellectual property rights for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

Although we have reviewed certain third-party patent filings that we believe may be relevant to certain of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, we have not conducted a freedom-to-operate search or analysis for all of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. As such, we may not be aware of patents or pending or future patent applications that, if issued, would block us from commercializing our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Thus, we cannot guarantee that our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, or our commercialization thereof, do not and will not infringe any third party’s intellectual property.

In addition, patent applications in the United States and many international jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after the filing of certain priority documents (or, in some cases, are not published until they issue as patents), and publications in the scientific literature often lag behind actual discoveries. Claims in patent applications can also be revised before issuance. Therefore, we cannot be certain that others have not filed patent applications or made public disclosures relating to our technology or our contemplated technology. A third party may have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our patent applications or patents, which could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed

75

---

 

a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to ours, depending on whether the timing of the filing date falls under certain patent laws, we may have to participate in a priority contest (such as an interference proceeding) declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention in the United States. The costs of patent litigation and other proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful if it is determined that the other party had independently arrived at the same or similar invention prior to our own invention, resulting in a loss of our U.S. patent position with respect to such invention.

The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we were sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our single-agent and combination therapy candidates either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid or unenforceable, and we may not be successful in doing so. Proving invalidity or unenforceability is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Even if we believe third-party intellectual property claims are without merit, there is no assurance that a court would find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity, or enforceability.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can. Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments, and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

There can be no assurance with respect to the outcome of any future litigation brought by or against us, and the outcome of any such litigation could have a material adverse impact on our business, operating results and financial condition. Litigation is inherently unpredictable, and outcomes are uncertain. Further, as the costs and outcome of these types of claims and proceedings can vary significantly, it is difficult to estimate potential losses that may occur. Such claims and proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Accordingly, we are unable at this time to estimate the effects of these potential future lawsuits on our financial condition, operations or cash flows.

We may be subject to claims by employees, consultants and contractors claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

While it is our policy to require our employees, consultants and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own, which may result in claims by or against us related to the ownership of such intellectual property. In addition, such agreements may not be self-executing such that the intellectual property subject to such agreements may not be assigned to us without additional assignments being executed, and we may fail to obtain such assignments. In addition, such agreements may be breached. Accordingly, we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims that they may bring against us to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property. If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our senior management and scientific personnel, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

76

---

 

If we are unable to obtain, maintain and enforce intellectual property protection directed to our current and any future technologies that we develop, others may be able to make, use or sell drugs or combination therapies substantially the same as ours, which could adversely affect our ability to compete in the market.

The market for pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals is highly competitive and subject to rapid technological change. Our success depends, in part, upon our ability to maintain a competitive position in the development and protection of technologies and any future single agent or combination therapy candidates for use in these fields and upon our ability to obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights. We seek to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property rights to restrict the ability of others to market products that misappropriate our technology and/or infringe our intellectual property to unfairly and illegally compete with any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, our competitive position and our business could be harmed, as third parties may be able to make, use or sell products that are substantially the same as any single agent or combination therapy candidates we may sell without incurring the sizeable development and licensing costs that we have incurred, which would adversely affect our ability to compete in the market. We use a combination of patents, trademarks, know-how, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our proprietary technology and that of our licensors. However, these protections may not be adequate and may not provide us with any competitive advantage. For example, patents may not issue from any of our or our licensors’ currently pending or any future patent applications, and our or our licensors’ issued patents and any future patents that may issue may not survive legal challenges to their scope, validity or enforceability or provide significant protection for us.

To protect our proprietary position, we file patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our single-agent and combination therapy candidates that we consider important to our business. The patent application and approval process is expensive, time-consuming and complex. We may not be able to file, prosecute and maintain all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, depending on the terms of any future license or collaboration agreements to which we may become a party, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology licensed from third parties. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

Furthermore, 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 biological and pharmaceutical products commonly involves complex legal and factual questions, which have 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. 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 single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

The USPTO, international patent offices or judicial bodies may deny or significantly narrow claims made under our patent applications, and our issued patents may be successfully challenged, may be designed around or may otherwise be of insufficient scope to provide us with protection for our drugs or combination therapies. Further, the USPTO, international trademark offices or judicial bodies may deny our trademark applications and, even if published or registered, these trademarks may not effectively protect our brand and goodwill. Like patents, trademarks also may be successfully opposed or challenged.

We cannot be certain that the steps we have taken will prevent unauthorized use or unauthorized reverse engineering of our technology. Moreover, third parties may independently develop technologies that are competitive with ours and such competitive technologies may or may not infringe our intellectual property. The enforcement of our intellectual property rights also depends on the success of any legal actions we may take against these infringers in the respective country or forum, but these actions may not be successful. As with all granted intellectual property, such intellectual property may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, may not provide protection and/or may not prove to be enforceable in actions against specific alleged infringers.

77

---

 

Even if our patents are determined by a court to be valid and enforceable, they may not be interpreted sufficiently broadly to prevent others from marketing products similar to ours or designing around our patents. For example, third parties may be able to make products that are similar to ours but that are not covered by the claims of our patents. Third parties may assert that we or our licensors were not the first to make the inventions covered by our issued patents or pending patent applications. The claims of our or our licensors’ issued patents or patent applications when issued may not cover our single-agent or combination therapy candidates or any future drugs or combination therapies that we develop. We may not have freedom to commercialize unimpeded by the patent rights of others. Third parties may have patents that dominate, block or are otherwise relevant to our technology. There may be prior public disclosures or other art that could be deemed to invalidate one or more of our patent claims. Further, we may not develop additional proprietary technologies in the future, and, if we do, they may not be patentable.

We may not be able to correctly estimate or control our future operating expenses in relation to obtaining intellectual property, enforcing intellectual property and/or defending intellectual property, which could affect operating expenses. Our operating expenses may fluctuate significantly in the future as a result of a variety of factors, including the costs of preparing, filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patent and trademark claims and other intellectual property-related costs, including adverse proceedings and litigation costs.

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time consuming, and unsuccessful. Further, our issued patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

Competitors may infringe our intellectual property rights or those of our licensors. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more patent of ours or any of our current licensors or future licensors is not valid or is unenforceable, in whole or in part, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our or our licensors’ patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our or our licensors’ patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, which may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making and selling similar or competitive products, and could put our or our licensors’ patent applications at risk of not issuing. If we or any of our potential future collaborators were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at our products, the defendant could counterclaim that our or our licensors’ patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could also include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar validity claims before the USPTO in post-grant proceedings such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes review or post-grant review, or oppositions or similar proceedings outside the United States, in parallel with litigation or even outside the context of litigation.

If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability of our or our licensors’ patents covering one of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates, we could lose a part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection covering such candidate. Competing products may also be sold in other countries in which our patent coverage might not exist or be as strong. If we lose a foreign patent lawsuit, alleging our infringement of a competitor’s patents, we could be prevented from marketing our products in one or more foreign countries. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable, and prior art could render our patents or those of our licensors invalid. Similar mechanisms for challenging the validity and enforceability of a patent exist in ex-U.S. patent offices and may result in the revocation, cancellation, or amendment of any ex-U.S. patents we hold in the future. For the patents and patent applications that we may license in the future, we may have limited or no right to participate in the defense of any licensed patents against challenge by a third party. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on such single-agent or combination therapy candidate. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

78

---

 

Even if we establish infringement, the court may decide not to grant an injunction against further infringing activity and instead award only monetary damages, which may or may not be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our potential licensors, misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.

Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our products to market.

We license or otherwise have access to patent rights from third-party owners. Such licenses or other arrangements may be subject to early termination if we fail to comply with our obligations in our agreements with third parties, which could result in the loss of rights or technology that are material to our business.

We are a party to licenses and other agreements that give us rights to third-party intellectual property that are necessary or useful for our business, and we may enter into additional licenses or other agreements in the future. For example, we are party to license agreements with Eli Lilly and Company with respect to TERN-101 and TERN-201 and an assignment agreement with Vintagence Biotechnology Ltd. with respect to our THR-β program. Under these agreements, we are obligated to pay the counterparties fees, which may include annual license fees, milestone payments, royalties, a percentage of revenues associated with the applicable technology and a percentage of sublicensing revenue. In addition, under certain of such agreements, we are required to diligently pursue the development of products using the applicable technology. If we fail to comply with these obligations and fail to cure our breach within a specified period of time, the counterparty may have the right to terminate the applicable agreement, in which event we could lose valuable rights and technology that are material to our business.

We may rely on third parties from whom we license proprietary technology to file and prosecute patent applications and maintain patents and otherwise protect the intellectual property we license from them. We may have limited control over these activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by these licensors will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We may have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that may be licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than if we conduct them ourselves.

Our intellectual property agreements with third parties may be subject to disagreements over contract interpretation, which could narrow the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology or increase our financial or other obligations to our licensors.

Certain provisions in our intellectual property agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations. The resolution of any contract interpretation disagreement that may arise could affect the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, or affect financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

79

---

 

We may jointly own certain patent rights with third parties. Our ability to out-license these patent rights, or to prevent the third party from out-licensing these patent rights, may be limited in certain countries.

We may jointly own patents and patent applications with third parties in the future. Unless we enter into an agreement with the joint owner, we will be subject to certain default rules pertaining to joint ownership. Certain countries require the consent of all joint owners to license jointly owned patents, and if we are unable to obtain such consent from the joint owner, we may not be able to license our rights under these patents and patent applications. In certain other countries, including the United States, the joint owner could license its rights under these patents and patent applications to another party without our consent and without any duty of accounting to us.

We may in the future be dependent on intellectual property licensed or sublicensed to us from, or for which development was funded or otherwise assisted by, government agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, for development of our technology and single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Failure to meet our own obligations to our licensors or upstream licensors, including such government agencies, may result in the loss of our rights to such intellectual property, which could harm our business.

In the future, government agencies may provide funding, facilities, personnel or other assistance in connection with the development of the intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to us. Such government agencies may retain rights in such intellectual property, including the right to grant or require us to grant mandatory licenses or sublicenses to such intellectual property to third parties under certain specified circumstances, including if it is necessary to meet health and safety needs that we are not reasonably satisfying or if it is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by federal regulations, or to manufacture products in the United States. Any exercise of such rights, including with respect to any such required sublicense of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize licensed products.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents and other intellectual property.

We may be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators, or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. The failure to name the proper inventors on a patent application can result in the patents issuing thereon being unenforceable. Inventorship disputes may arise from conflicting views regarding the contributions of different individuals named as inventors, the effects of foreign laws where foreign nationals are involved in the development of the subject matter of the patent, conflicting obligations of third parties involved in developing our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or as a result of questions regarding co-ownership of potential joint inventions. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Alternatively, or additionally, we may enter into agreements to clarify the scope of our rights in such intellectual property. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

We or our licensors may in the future rely on third-party consultants or collaborators or on funds from third parties, such as the U.S. government, such that we or our licensors are not the sole and exclusive owners of the patents we in-licensed. If other third parties have ownership rights or other rights to our patents, including in-licensed patents, they may be able to license such patents to our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products and technology. This could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects.

We may be subject to claims that we have wrongfully hired an employee from a competitor or that we or our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged confidential information or trade secrets of their former employers.

As is common in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants to assist us in the development of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Many

80

---

 

of these consultants, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, universities or other pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies including our competitors or potential competitors. These employees and consultants may have executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements, or similar agreements, in connection with such other current or previous employment. Although we try to ensure that our employees and consultants do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may become subject to claims that we, our employees or a consultant inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other information proprietary to their former employers or their former or current clients. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, which could adversely affect our business. Such intellectual property could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or drugs and combination therapies. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team. Any of the foregoing would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

We have a number of international patents and patent applications, and expect to continue to pursue patent protection in many of the significant markets in which we intend to do business. However, filing, prosecuting and defending patents on single-agent and combination therapy candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and 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. The requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly in developing countries. In addition, any future intellectual property license agreements may not always include worldwide rights. Consequently, we have not pursued or maintained, and may not pursue or maintain in the future, patent protection for our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in every country or territory in which we may sell our drugs and combination therapies and we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products, and may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States and where our ability to enforce our patents to stop infringing activities may be inadequate. These products may compete with any current or future single-agent or combination therapy candidates we may sell, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

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, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally.

Moreover, our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights may be adversely affected by unforeseen changes in foreign intellectual property laws. Additionally, the 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 and proprietary rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, including, for example, India, China and other developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property or proprietary rights, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our patents or other intellectual property or proprietary rights. 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 agencies 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.

81

---

 

Proceedings to enforce our patent rights 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. 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 or license.

We may not identify relevant third-party patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a third-party patent, which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our single-agent and combination therapies.

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 United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates in any jurisdiction. 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, which may negatively impact our ability to market our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. We may incorrectly determine that our single-agent and combination therapy candidates 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 United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

One aspect of the determination of patentability of our inventions depends on the scope and content of the “prior art,” information that was or is deemed available to a person of skill in the relevant art prior to the priority date of the claimed invention. There may be prior art of which we are not aware that may affect the patentability of our patent claims or, if issued, affect the validity or enforceability of a patent claim. Further, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our single-agent and combination therapy candidates or their intended uses, and as a result the impact of such third-party intellectual property rights upon the patentability of our own patents and patent applications, as well as the impact of such third-party intellectual property upon our freedom to operate, is highly uncertain. Because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for typically a period of 18 months after filing, or may not be published at all, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Furthermore, for U.S. applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. For U.S. applications containing a claim not entitled to priority before March 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law in view of the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the AIA, which brought into effect significant changes to the U.S. patent laws, including new procedures for challenging pending patent applications and issued patents.

Patent terms may be inadequate to establish our competitive position on our single-agent and combination therapy candidates for an adequate amount of time.

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. Patent terms may be shortened or lengthened by, for example, terminal disclaimers, patent term adjustments, supplemental protection certificates and patent term extensions, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Non-payment or delay in payment of patent fees, maintenance fees or annuities, delay in patent filings or delay in extension filings (including any patent term extension or adjustment filings), whether intentional or unintentional, may result in the loss of patent rights important to our business. Even if patents covering our single-agent and combination therapy candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a single-agent or combination therapy candidate, we may be open to competition from competitive medications, including generic versions. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new single-agent and combination therapy candidates, patents directed

82

---

 

towards such single-agent and combination therapy candidates might expire before or shortly after such single-agent and combination therapy candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing single-agent and combination therapy candidates similar or identical to ours for a meaningful amount of time, or at all.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of any FDA marketing approval of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates, one or more of our owned or licensed U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, or Hatch-Waxman Act, and similar legislation in the EU and certain other jurisdictions. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits, in certain cases, a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to exercise due diligence during the testing phase or regulatory review process, fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. Only one patent per approved product can be extended, the extension cannot extend the total patent term beyond 14 years from approval and the amount of available extension to any extension-eligible patent which claims a product, a method of using a product or a method of manufacturing a product, depends on a variety of factors, including the date on which the patent issues and certain dates related to the regulatory review period. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for the applicable single-agent or combination therapy candidate will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and nonclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Further, there are detailed rules and requirements regarding the patents that may be submitted to the FDA for listing in the Orange Book. We may be unable to obtain patents covering our single-agent and combination therapy candidates that contain one or more claims that satisfy the requirements for listing in the Orange Book. Even if we submit a patent for listing in the Orange Book, the FDA may decline to list the patent, or a manufacturer of generic drugs may challenge the listing. If one of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates is approved and a patent covering that single-agent or combination therapy candidate is not listed in the Orange Book, a manufacturer of generic drugs would not have to provide advance notice to us of any abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA to obtain permission to sell a generic version of such single-agent or combination therapy candidate. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Obtaining and maintaining patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We employ reputable professionals and rely on such third parties to help us comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to the patents and patent applications that we own, and we may have to rely upon our licensors to comply with these requirements and effect payment of these fees with respect to any patents and patent applications that we license. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

83

---

 

Changes in patent law in the U.S. or in other countries could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

As is the case with other pharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the pharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity and is therefore costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. Our patent rights may be affected by developments or uncertainty in U.S. or ex-U.S. patent statutes, patent case laws in USPTO rules and regulations or in the rules and regulations of ex-U.S. patent offices. There are a number of recent changes to the U.S. patent laws that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, in September 2011, the AIA, was signed into law. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the AIA, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. This could have a negative impact on some of our intellectual property and could increase uncertainties surrounding obtaining and enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

In addition, Congress may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Depending on decisions by Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future. Similarly, statutory or judicial changes to the patent laws of other countries may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. We cannot predict future changes in the interpretation of patent laws or changes to patent laws that might be enacted into law by U.S. and international legislative bodies. Those changes may materially affect the patents and patent applications of our licensors, our existing or future patents and patent applications and our ability to obtain additional patents in the future.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats to our competitive advantage.

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 or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

84

---

 

Should any of these events occur, they could significantly harm our business, results of operations and prospects.

Other Risks Related to Our Business

If we fail to attract and retain senior management and key scientific personnel, our business may be materially and adversely affected.

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and clinical and scientific personnel. We are highly dependent upon members of our senior management, particularly our Chief Executive Officer, Senthil Sundaram, and President and Chief Medical Officer, Erin Quirk, M.D., as well as our senior scientists and other members of our senior management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of our pipeline, initiation or completion of our planned clinical trials or the commercialization of our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

Competition for qualified personnel in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology field is intense due to the limited number of individuals who possess the skills and experience required by our industry. We will need to hire additional personnel as we expand our clinical development and if we initiate commercial activities. We may not be able to attract and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms, or at all. In addition, to the extent we hire personnel from competitors, we may be subject to allegations that they have been improperly solicited or that they have divulged proprietary or other confidential information, or that their former employers own their research output.

We will need to increase the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing growth.

As of December 31, 2020, we had 30 full-time employees. We will need to continue to expand our managerial, operational, finance and other resources in order to manage our operations and clinical trials, continue our development activities and, if approved, commercialize our preclinical and clinical-stage single-agent and combination therapy candidates or any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Our management and personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively execute our growth strategy requires that we:

85

---

 

If we are not successful in identifying, developing and commercializing additional single-agent and combination therapy candidates, our ability to expand our business and achieve our strategic objectives would be impaired.

Although the development and commercialization of TERN-101, TERN-201 and TERN-501 is currently our primary focus, as part of our longer-term growth strategy, we plan to evaluate the development and commercialization of other therapies related to NASH and other chronic liver diseases. The success of this strategy depends primarily upon our ability to identify and validate new therapeutic candidates, and to identify, develop and commercialize new drugs and biologics. Our research efforts may initially show promise in discovering potential new drugs and biologics, yet fail to yield single-agent and combination therapy candidates for clinical development for a number of reasons, including:

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for one or more programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Future research programs to identify new single-agent and combination therapy candidates may require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or single-agent and combination therapy candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful.

Single-agent and combination therapy candidates may require additional, time-consuming development efforts prior to commercial sale, including preclinical studies, clinical trials and approval by the FDA and/or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. All single-agent and combination therapy candidates are prone to the risks of failure that are inherent in pharmaceutical product development, including the possibility that the single-agent or combination therapy candidate will not be shown to be sufficiently safe and effective for approval by regulatory authorities. In addition, we cannot assure you that any such products that are approved will be manufactured or produced economically, be successfully commercialized, be widely accepted in the marketplace, or be more effective than other commercially available alternatives.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our current or future single-agent and combination therapy candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates and will face an even greater risk if we commercialize any single-agent or combination therapies. For example, we may be sued if any drug we develop allegedly causes injury or is found to be otherwise unsuitable during clinical testing, manufacturing, marketing or sale. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and breach of warranty. Claims could also be asserted under state consumer protection acts. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to limit commercialization of our single-agent and combination therapy candidates. Even a successful defense would

86

---

 

require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims, the commercialization of our current or any future single-agent and combination therapy candidates we develop could be inhibited or prevented. We currently carry product liability insurance covering our clinical trials. Although we maintain such insurance, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. If and when we obtain approval for marketing any of our single-agent or combination therapy candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of such single-agent or combination therapy candidate; however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

As a company with some operations and vendors located outside of the United States, our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

As a company with some operations and vendors in China, our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

87

---