UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from __________ to _________

Commission File Number: 001-38682

KODIAK SCIENCES INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 281-0850

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 Section 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 Exchange Act 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, a 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 aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of a share of the registrant’s common stock on June 30, 2021 as reported by the Nasdaq Global Market on such date, was approximately $3.1 billion. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer and director and by each other person who may be deemed to be an affiliate of the registrant, have been excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of February 18, 2022, the registrant had 51,934,500 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding.

Table of Contents

Kodiak Sciences Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021

i

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends affecting the financial condition of our business. Forward-looking statements should not be read as a guarantee of future performance or results and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at, or by, which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time those statements are made and/or management’s good faith beliefs as of that time with respect to future events, and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in or suggested by the forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not historical facts. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “might,” “will,” “objective,” “intend,” “should,” “could,” “can,” “would,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “project,” “target,” “design,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “plan”, “hope” or the negative of these terms, or similar expressions and comparable terminology intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views with respect to future events and are based on assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties, including those set forth under the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

ii

All forward-looking statements are based on information available to us on the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and we will not update any of the forward-looking statements after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, except as required by law. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other written and oral forward-looking statements made by us from time to time, are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements, and you should not regard these statements as a representation or warranty by us or any other person that we will achieve our objectives and plans in any specified time frame, or at all. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the following discussion and within Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

In addition, statements that “we believe” and similar statements reflect our beliefs and opinions on the relevant subject. These statements are based upon information available to us as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and although we believe such information forms a reasonable basis for such statements, such information may be limited or incomplete, and our statements should not be read to indicate that we have conducted a thorough inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. These statements are inherently uncertain and investors are cautioned not to unduly rely upon these statements.

All brand names or trademarks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective holders. Unless the context requires otherwise, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Kodiak” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Kodiak Sciences Inc. and its subsidiaries.

iii

RISK FACTOR SUMMARY

Investing in our securities involves a high degree of risk. Below is a summary of material factors that make an investment in our securities speculative or risky. Importantly, this summary does not address all of the risks that we face. The below summary is qualified in its entirety by that more complete discussion of such risks and uncertainties. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described under “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

iv

v

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Overview

Since its founding in 2009, Kodiak Sciences Inc. (“Kodiak,” the “Company,” “we” or “our”) has developed a new technology platform for retinal medicines. Our goal is to prevent and treat the major causes of blindness by developing and commercializing next-generation therapeutics for chronic, high-prevalence retinal diseases.

Kodiak has progressed its lead investigational therapy, KSI-301, into six registrational clinical trials. The comprehensive clinical program targets high prevalence anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (“anti-VEGF”) dependent retinal diseases with clinical trials designed as a package to support a broad product label, which we hope will include the key diseases and the longest dosing intervals. KSI-301 is being developed to become a differentiated, long-interval therapy for use in many patients who may benefit from anti-VEGF therapy. At the same time, Kodiak is investing in commercial scale manufacturing. We aim to provide a pre-filled syringe early in commercialization, and are working actively towards this goal. We believe combining these ambitious clinical and manufacturing efforts sets the stage for potential market share capture when and if KSI-301 is approved.

In addition, Kodiak is investing in its pipeline. The Company is progressing its Antibody Biopolymer Conjugate (“ABC”) PlatformTM towards suboptimal anti-VEGF responder patients, a group estimated to be as large as 30% of treated patients, with its bispecific conjugate KSI-501. Beyond today’s anti-VEGF market, Kodiak’s new triplet medicines are being designed on its ABC Platform in an effort to bring new capabilities to treat the even higher prevalence retinal diseases of dry age-related macular degeneration (“AMD”) and glaucoma.

Notably, up to this point, Kodiak has retained all global rights to make, use and sell its product candidates, which we believe preserves future value and allows for agile decision-making.

While engaged in these research and development efforts, we believe we have demonstrated a disciplined and creative approach to building and financing the company. As of December 31, 2021, we had $731.5 million in cash and cash equivalents.

Our objective is to develop our retina-focused product candidates, seek FDA and worldwide health authority marketing authorization approvals, and ultimately commercialize our product candidates.

Following from these efforts, we believe Kodiak has the potential to achieve our ambition of becoming a significant incumbent retinal development and commercialization franchise on a global basis.

Recent Developments

KSI-301 Phase 2b/3 Pivotal Study in Wet AMD Top-line Readout

We recently announced top-line results from our randomized, double-masked, active comparator-controlled Phase 2b/3 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy, durability and safety of KSI-301, a novel antibody biopolymer conjugate, in treatment-naïve subjects with neovascular wet AMD.

The trial randomized 559 participants, approximately 80% of whom were enrolled in the United States. The study had two treatment arms: KSI-301 5mg on a flexible long-interval regimen and aflibercept 2mg on a fixed short-interval regimen. In the study, three monthly loading doses were administered to all subjects at 0-, 4- and 8-weeks. Subjects on aflibercept were then treated at fixed two month intervals. Subjects on KSI-301 were assessed starting three months after the completion of the loading phase (i.e., beginning at 20 weeks) and, based on predefined disease activity criteria, were treated every three-, four-, or five-months. As a result, patients in the KSI-301 group did not receive dosing more frequently than every three months at any point in the study after the loading phase. The primary endpoint of the study was the average change in best-corrected visual acuity (“BCVA”) score (a measure of the best vision a person can achieve when reading letters on an eye chart, including with correction such as glasses) from baseline at year one. For the assessment of the primary efficacy endpoint, KSI-301 patients in all three groups (dosed every three, four or five months) were pooled together and their BCVA was compared as a group to the aflibercept group (dosed every two months).

The results show that KSI-301 did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of showing non-inferior visual acuity gains for subjects dosed on extended regimens compared to aflibercept given every eight weeks.

A pre-specified secondary analysis at year 1 assessing durability showed 59% of patients in the KSI-301 arm achieved five-month dosing with visual acuity gains and anatomic improvements comparable to the overall aflibercept group.

KSI-301 was well-tolerated in the study, with no new safety signals identified.

1

Intraocular inflammation occurred in 3.2% of KSI-301 treated patients as compared to 0.0% of patients treated with aflibercept. In all cases reported in the Phase 2b/3 study, the clinical finding of inflammation resolved, and no cases of intraocular inflammation with vascular occlusions were observed. We believe that these safety data coupled with the safety observations across the ongoing Phase 3 studies continue to suggest a safety profile for KSI-301 comparable to today’s existing standard of care agents.

We believe allowing treatment with KSI-301 no more often than every twelve weeks after the loading phase for every patient was insufficient. Nonetheless, we believe the results demonstrate a clear anti-VEGF effect, strong durability and a reassuring safety profile. We believe these data continue to support the potential of KSI-301 and our ABC Platform to significantly extend treatment intervals in retinal disorders in a safe and convenient manner.

KSI-301 Clinical Program Outlook

We intend to continue advancing our ongoing pivotal studies of KSI-301 in all of the major retinal vascular disorders for which intravitreal anti-VEGF therapies are currently used, namely our Phase 3 pivotal study BEACON in retinal vein occlusion (“RVO”), our paired Phase 3 studies GLEAM/GLIMMER in diabetic macular edema (“DME”), our Phase 3 short-interval study DAYLIGHT in wet AMD, and our Phase 3 pivotal study GLOW in non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy without DME (“NPDR” without DME). Our BEACON study is expected to have the primary endpoint visit completed in all patients this coming June, with top-line data anticipated to follow shortly thereafter. For our GLEAM and GLIMMER studies in, as well as the DAYLIGHT study, we expect top-line data in the first half of 2023.

BEACON – Phase 3 Study in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Retinal Vein Occlusion (RVO)

The Phase 3 BEACON study is a global, multi-center, randomized study designed to evaluate the durability, efficacy and safety of KSI-301 in patients with treatment-naïve macular edema due to retinal vein occlusion, including both branch and central subtypes. Patients are randomized 1:1 to a KSI-301 arm or an aflibercept arm. In the first six months, the KSI-301 arm is treated with a proactive, fixed regimen which includes two monthly loading doses and then every 8-week treatment (including treatment 4-weeks prior to the 24-week primary endpoint). In the first six months, the aflibercept arm is treated with a fixed monthly regimen, per its label. In the second six months, patients in both groups will receive treatment on an individualized basis per protocol-specified criteria. Following this, patients can continue to receive KSI-301 for an additional six months on an individualized basis. The study completed enrollment of over 550 patients worldwide in 2021. The primary endpoint is at six months, and patients will be treated and followed for 18 months. The last patient visit for the 24-week primary endpoint is expected in mid-June 2022 and we expect to announce top-line data in 2022.

GLEAM / GLIMMER – Paired Phase 3 Studies in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Diabetic Macular Edema (DME)

The Phase 3 GLEAM and GLIMMER studies are global, multi-center, randomized pivotal studies designed to evaluate the durability, efficacy and safety of KSI-301 in patients with treatment-naïve diabetic macular edema. In each study, patients are randomized 1:1 to receive either KSI-301 or aflibercept. The KSI-301 arm is treated with a proactive, individualized dosing regimen of every 8-, 12-, 16-, 20- or 24 weeks (utilizing tight dynamic retreatment criteria) after three loading doses. The aflibercept arm is treated with a fixed regimen of 8-week dosing after five monthly loading doses, per its label. Both studies have completed enrollment of approximately 450 patients each worldwide. The primary endpoint for both studies is at one year, and patients will be treated and followed for a total of two years. We expect to announce top-line data in 2023.

DAYLIGHT – Phase 3 Study in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Wet AMD

The Phase 3 DAYLIGHT study is a global, multi-center, randomized pivotal study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-frequency KSI-301 in patients with treatment-naïve wet AMD. Patients are randomized to receive either KSI-301 on a monthly dosing regimen or to receive standard-of-care aflibercept on a fixed regimen of 8-week dosing after three monthly loading doses, per its label. The study is expected to enroll approximately 500 patients worldwide. The primary endpoint is at 40 weeks.

In June 2021, we randomized the first patients into DAYLIGHT. Study enrollment continues, with recruitment now underway both in the United States and the European Union. Additional global study sites were activated through the fourth quarter of 2021, and we believe DAYLIGHT may complete enrollment in the first half of 2022 and announce top-line data in 2023.

2

GLOW – Phase 3 Study in Patients with Non-Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy without DME

The Phase 3 GLOW study is a global, multi-center, randomized pivotal study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of KSI-301 in patients with treatment-naïve, moderately severe to severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (“NPDR”). Patients are randomized to receive either KSI-301 on a once every six-month dosing regimen after three initiating doses or to receive sham injections. The study is expected to enroll approximately 240 patients worldwide. The primary endpoint is at one year and patients will be treated and followed for two years. Outcomes include changes in diabetic retinopathy severity, measured on a standardized photographic grading scale, and the rate of development of sight-threatening complications due to diabetic retinopathy. We randomized the first patients into GLOW in September 2021. We believe KSI-301 has the potential to be a longest-interval therapeutic option for patients with diabetic retinopathy.

KSI-301 Regulatory Plan and Outlook

We are progressing four ongoing Phase 3 studies which we expect to announce topline data in 2022 and 2023. If successful, we intend to include data from the BEACON, GLEAM/GLIMMER and DAYLIGHT studies in a single initial BLA and would seek labeling at launch that is supportive of a range of indications and dosing intervals. If successful, we continue to expect that data from our GLEAM and GLIMMER studies in DME will serve as the primary basis for approval of KSI-301 in our anticipated BLA submission. GLEAM and GLIMMER explore long-interval dosing while also allowing for every 8-week dosing for patients in need of more intensive anti-VEGF therapy. Data from our BEACON study are intended to serve as the basis for approval in RVO. In wet AMD, we believe that the DAYLIGHT study may clarify the ability of KSI-301 when dosed more frequently to effectively treat a broader population of patients with wet AMD. If successful, we believe that data from our DAYLIGHT study could form the basis of approval in wet AMD, with monthly dosing. We believe that, over time, we may be able to generate additional data to support longer-interval dosing in wet AMD in certain patient populations. We are not planning for results of the GLOW study to be included in our initial BLA filing, given our expectations for a longer recruitment timeframe. We may include the results of the GLOW study in NPDR without DME in a supplemental BLA following our planned initial BLA submission.

Kodiak Stockholder Approval of the Kodiak 2021 Long-term Performance Incentive Plan (LTPIP)

On August 12, 2021, the Board of Directors of Kodiak Sciences Inc. approved the Kodiak 2021 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan (“LTPIP”), subject to approval by Kodiak stockholders. The LTPIP was approved by Kodiak’s stockholders on October 13, 2021, with 75% of all votes cast voting in favor of approving the LTPIP, excluding votes cast by any participant in the LTPIP.

We believe the LTPIP aligns management incentives to significant value creation. The plan covers a seven-year performance period and was open to a significant number of our existing employees – not just senior management. Employees had a one-time opportunity to “opt-in” to the plan by agreeing to forego up to 75% of their annual equity incentive compensation for seven years via a one-time election. Shares would be earned based on significant stock price appreciation over the seven-year performance period, with the possibility to earn up to 35% of the award based on achieving substantive operational goals. Earned awards begin vesting once earned and vest through the remainder of the seven-year period in equal monthly increments, ensuring what we believe is a true long-term incentive program.

China Clinical Development Activities

In March 2021, our investigational new drug (“IND”) application for KSI-301 in RVO and DME were approved by China’s National Medicinal Products Administration (“NMPA”). These approvals allow Kodiak to enroll patients from China into the BEACON and GLIMMER Phase 3 pivotal studies; we believe that inclusion of patients from China in these studies could be beneficial for the potential future approval of KSI-301 in China.

The first Chinese patients were enrolled in the BEACON pivotal study in early 2022. We believe there is substantial clinical unmet need in China for the type of long-interval dosing which KSI-301 and our ABC Platform may provide.

3

KSI-301 Phase 1b Study

In February 2021, we presented Year 1 durability, efficacy and safety data from our ongoing Phase 1b study of KSI-301 in patients with treatment naïve wet AMD, DME or RVO at the Angiogenesis, Exudation, and Degeneration 2021 – Virtual Edition meeting. The data showed two in every three patients were on a six-month or longer treatment-free interval at Year 1 in each of the three major retinal vascular diseases after only three loading doses. Robust vision gains (particularly notable in the context of very good baseline vision) and robust retinal drying (when baseline anatomical characteristics are considered) were seen across all three diseases being studied. Strong anti-VEGF efficacy (achieving at Year 1 approximately 20/40 eye chart vision on average in wet AMD and approximately 20/32 vision on average in DME and RVO) and an encouraging safety profile was observed across all three diseases.

COVID-19

We are continuing to monitor the global ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We and our key clinical and manufacturing partners have been able to continue to advance our operations. Through this pandemic, we continue to work closely with our clinical sites to ensure patient safety and minimize the number of missed visits and study discontinuations. The overall rate of missed study visits remains less than 5% across all of our ongoing studies combined.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic with regards to business operations, clinical trials, and manufacturing activities, we have taken steps in line with guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and the State of California to protect the health and safety of our employees and our community.

We will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation closely. The ultimate impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on our business operations remains uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. See also the section titled “Risk Factors” for additional information on risks and uncertainties related to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.

KSI-301 Manufacturing

In August 2020, we and our wholly-owned subsidiary Kodiak Sciences GmbH entered into a manufacturing agreement with Lonza Ltd (“Lonza”) for the clinical and commercial supply of drug substance for KSI-301. A custom-built manufacturing facility is planned for mechanical completion in the first half of 2022 and dedicated to the manufacture of the Company’s drug substance. The manufacturing agreement has an initial term of eight years, and the Company has the right to extend the term up to a total of 16 years. The Company and Lonza each have the ability to terminate this agreement upon the occurrence of certain conditions.

ABC Platform Update

Our ABC Platform has been designed to enhance durability, with the key elements intended to demonstrate a clear biological effect and a strong duration of this effect and doing these safely. There remains an opportunity to meaningfully improve on the durability of currently approved agents. If we can demonstrate these elements, we believe the potential for our ABC Medicines and our ABC Platform to treat and prevent retinal diseases is promising.

We believe the top-line results from the initial Phase 2b/3 study in wet AMD provided valuable insights into the potential of KSI-301 and the value of the ABC Platform more broadly in the treatment of retinal disorders. We think that these data continue to support the potential of our ABC Platform to meaningfully extend treatment intervals in retinal disorders in a safe and convenient manner.

Pipeline Progression

In addition to KSI-301, we have leveraged our ABC Platform to build a pipeline of potential product candidates, including KSI-501 and KSI-601. KSI-501 is a recombinant, mammalian cell expressed dual inhibitor antibody biopolymer conjugate, targeting both VEGF and IL-6 for the treatment of retinal diseases with an inflammatory component. The cGMP manufacturing of the dual inhibitor antibody has been completed, and KSI-501 bioconjugate manufacturing and other supporting activities are in progress towards the expected submission of an IND in 2022.

KSI-601 is a triplet inhibitor for dry AMD. In this approach, a bispecific or dual inhibitor antibody is conjugated to a phosphorylcholine biopolymer variant that is embedded with hundreds of copies of a small-molecule drug. As a result, multiple disease-related biologies - both intracellular and extracellular - can potentially be targeted with a single medicine. We believe this approach may be of particular relevance for common vision-threatening diseases with multifactorial pathophysiology, such as dry AMD and glaucoma.

4

Competition

The current standard of care for wet AMD, advanced stages of DR (including DME), and RVO is monotherapy administration of anti-VEGF drugs, principally Avastin, Lucentis and Eylea, which are well-established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors.

In addition, newer competitors have recently received FDA approval, such as Beovu (brolucizumab) from Novartis and Vabysmo (faricimab) from Roche. Beovu received FDA approval for the treatment of wet AMD in October 2019 and is being investigated as a potential treatment for patients with DME and RVO.

Vabysmo from Roche is a bispecific antibody targeting VEGF and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) and received FDA approval for the treatment of wet AMD and DME in January 2022. Vabysmo demonstrated non-inferiority in visual acuity gains to Eylea in wet AMD and DME, with extended dosing of up to once every 16 weeks for slightly less than half of patients in Phase 3 trials. We believe Vabysmo may be perceived to offer incremental benefit in durability over currently established therapies such as Lucentis and Eylea.

There are also other companies and research organizations developing treatments targeting other molecular targets, potential gene therapy treatments, stem cell transplant treatments and medical devices for the treatment of wet AMD, DME, DR, and RVO. We believe the therapeutic space of retinal diseases will become increasingly competitive in the future.

Funding Agreement

On December 1, 2019, we, and our subsidiary, Kodiak Sciences GmbH, entered into a funding agreement to sell a capped royalty right on global net sales of KSI-301 to BBA for $225,000,000. Under the funding agreement, BBA purchased the right to receive a capped 4.5% royalty on net sales following marketing approval of KSI-301 in exchange for $225,000,000 in committed development funding payable to us. Unless earlier terminated or re-purchased by us, the royalty “caps” or terminates upon the date that BBA has received an aggregate amount equal to 4.5 times the funding amount paid to us. Under the terms of the funding agreement, BBA was required to pay the first $100,000,000 of the funding amount at the closing of the funding transaction and the remaining $125,000,000 of the funding amount, subject to delivery of notice by the Company, payable upon enrollment of 50% of the patients in the RVO clinical program. In July 2021, the funding agreement was amended, at the Company’s request, that the remaining funding amount of $125.0 million would not be paid.

We have the option, exercisable at any point during the term of the funding agreement, to repurchase from BBA 100% of the royalties due to BBA under the funding agreement for a purchase price equal to the funding amount paid to us as of such time times 4.5, less amounts paid by us to BBA. Under the funding agreement, BBA also received a right to a royalty interest on future net sales following marketing approval of other of our products that employ an anti-VEGF A, or VEGF-A, biology as a sole molecular or chemical biology. In the event we commercialize related products that contain both an anti-VEGF-A biology together with at least one additional molecular or chemical biology(ies), BBA would have the right to receive a fractional royalty of up to 2.25% for one additional molecular or chemical biology or 1.5% for two additional molecular or chemical biologies provided that such other products are being progressed in indications for, or patient populations with, retinal vein occlusion, wet AMD or diabetic macular edema, or indications or patient populations in which KSI-301 or a VEGF-A product has received marketing approval. Total royalty payments under the funding agreement are not to exceed the cap of 4.5 times the funding amount paid to us. The funding agreement was the result of a competitive process overseen by independent and disinterested directors of Kodiak with the assistance of outside counsel.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States at the federal, state and local level and in other countries regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug and biological products. Generally, before a new drug or biologic can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific for each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

5

U.S. Drug Development

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA, and its implementing regulations, and biologics under the FDCA, the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, and their implementing regulations. Both drugs and biologics also are subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations requires 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 post-market may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include, among other actions, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, untitled or warning letters, product recalls or market withdrawals, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement and civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

Any future product candidates must be approved by the FDA through either a new drug application, or NDA, or a biologics license application, or BLA, process before they may be legally marketed in the United States. The process generally involves the following:

The data required to support an NDA or BLA are generated in two distinct developmental stages: preclinical and clinical. The preclinical and clinical testing and approval process requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and we cannot be certain that any approvals for any future product candidates will be granted on a timely basis, or at all.

Preclinical Studies and IND

The preclinical developmental stage generally involves laboratory evaluations of drug chemistry, formulation and stability, as well as studies to evaluate toxicity in animals, which support subsequent clinical testing. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical studies, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational product to humans, and must become effective before human clinical trials may begin.

6

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and formulation, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the potential for adverse events and in some cases to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations for safety/toxicology studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, to the FDA as part of an IND. Some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. An IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless before that time, the FDA raises concerns or questions related to one or more proposed clinical trials and places the trial on clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. As a result, submission of an IND may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence.

Clinical Trials

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCP requirements, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an IRB for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that 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 subject or his or her legal representative, and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside of the United States may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of an NDA or BLA. The FDA will accept a well-designed and well-conducted foreign clinical study not conducted under an IND if the study was conducted in accordance with GCP requirements and the FDA is able to validate the data through an onsite inspection if deemed necessary.

Clinical trials in the United States generally are conducted in three sequential phases, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, and may overlap.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, 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, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials, among other information, must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected suspected adverse events, findings from other studies suggesting a significant risk to humans exposed to the drug, findings from animal or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects and any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure.

7

Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, if at all. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate 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 or biologic has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial. Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal studies and also must develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug or biologic as well as 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 and, among other things, companies must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that our product candidates do not undergo unacceptable deterioration over their shelf life.

NDA/BLA Review Process

Following completion of the clinical trials, data are analyzed to assess whether the investigational product is safe and effective for the proposed indicated use or uses. The results of preclinical studies and clinical trials are then submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA or BLA, along with proposed labeling, chemistry and manufacturing information to ensure product quality and other relevant data. In short, the NDA or BLA is a request for approval to market the drug or biologic for one or more specified indications and must contain proof of safety and efficacy for a drug or safety, purity and potency for a biologic. The application may include both negative and ambiguous results of preclinical studies and clinical trials, as well as positive findings. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and efficacy of a product’s use 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 efficacy of the investigational product to the satisfaction of FDA. FDA approval of an NDA or BLA must be obtained before a drug or biologic may be marketed in the United States.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each NDA or BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. PDUFA also imposes an annual program fee for approved human drugs and biologics. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on NDAs or BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

The FDA reviews all submitted NDAs and BLAs before it accepts them for filing, and may request additional information rather than accepting the NDA or BLA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA or BLA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA or BLA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under PDUFA, the FDA has ten months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of a new molecular-entity NDA or original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of a new molecular-entity NDA or original BLA designated for priority review. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs or BLAs, and the review process is often extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

Before approving an NDA or BLA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP requirements. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. The FDA also may audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with GCP requirements. Additionally, the FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions, if any. The FDA is not bound by recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations when making decisions on approval. The FDA likely will reanalyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions between the FDA and the applicant during the review process. After the FDA evaluates an NDA or BLA, it will issue an approval letter or a Complete Response Letter. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific 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 all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA or BLA identified by the FDA. The Complete Response Letter may require additional clinical data, additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s) and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a Complete Response Letter is issued, the

8

applicant may either resubmit the NDA or BLA, 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 or BLA does not satisfy the criteria for approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than we interpret the same data.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

The FDA has a fast track program that is intended to expedite or facilitate the process for reviewing new drugs and biologics that meet certain criteria. Specifically, new drugs and biologics are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life threatening condition and preclinical or clinical data demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast track designation applies to both the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor can request the FDA to designate the product for fast track status any time before receiving NDA or BLA approval, but ideally no later than the pre-NDA or pre-BLA meeting.

Any product submitted to the FDA for marketing, including under a fast track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as priority review and accelerated approval. Any product is eligible for priority review if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and, if approved, would provide a significant improvement in safety and effectiveness compared to available therapies.

A product may also be eligible for accelerated approval, if it treats a serious or life-threatening condition and generally provides a meaningful advantage over available therapies. In addition, it must demonstrate 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, or IMM, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on IMM or other clinical benefit. As a condition of approval, the FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. If the FDA concludes that a drug or biologic shown to be effective can be safely used only if distribution or use is restricted, it may require such post-marketing restrictions, as it deems necessary to assure safe use of the product.

Additionally, a drug or biologic may be eligible for designation as a breakthrough therapy if the product is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs or biologics, to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over currently approved therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. The benefits of breakthrough therapy designation include the same benefits as fast track designation, plus intensive guidance from the FDA to ensure an efficient drug development program. Fast track designation, priority review, accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation do not change the standards for approval, but may expedite the development or approval process.

Abbreviated Licensure Pathway of Biological Products as Biosimilar or Interchangeable

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be highly similar to an FDA-licensed reference biological product. An application for licensure of a biosimilar product must include information demonstrating biosimilarity based upon the following, unless the FDA determines otherwise:

In addition, an application must include information demonstrating that:

9

Biosimilarity means that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components; and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product. In addition, the law provides for a designation of “interchangeability” between the reference and biosimilar products, whereby the biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. The higher standard of interchangeability must be demonstrated by information sufficient to show that:

FDA approval is required before a biosimilar may be marketed in the United States. In addition, as with BLAs, biosimilar product applications will not be approved unless the product is manufactured in facilities designed to assure and preserve the biological product’s safety, purity and potency.

The timing of final FDA approval of a biosimilar for commercial distribution depends on a variety of factors, including whether the manufacturer of the branded product is entitled to one or more statutory exclusivity periods, during which time the FDA is prohibited from approving any products that are biosimilar to the branded product. The FDA cannot approve a biosimilar application for twelve years from the date of first licensure of the reference product. Additionally, a biosimilar product sponsor may not submit an application for four years from the date of first licensure of the reference product. A reference product may also be entitled to exclusivity under other statutory provisions. For example, a reference product designated for a rare disease or condition (an “orphan drug”) may be entitled to seven years of exclusivity, in which case no product that is biosimilar to the reference product may be approved until either the end of the twelve-year period provided under the biosimilarity statute or the end of the seven-year orphan drug exclusivity period, whichever occurs later. In certain circumstances, a regulatory exclusivity period can extend beyond the life of a patent, and thus block biosimilarity applications from being approved on or after the patent expiration date. In addition, the FDA may under certain circumstances extend the exclusivity period for the reference product by an additional six months if the FDA requests, and the manufacturer undertakes, studies on the effect of its product in children, a so-called pediatric extension.

Post-Approval Requirements

Following approval of a new product, the manufacturer and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and record-keeping requirements, requirements to report adverse experiences, and comply with promotion and advertising requirements, which include restrictions on promoting drugs for unapproved uses or patient populations (known as “off-label use”) and limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers may not market or promote such uses. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Further, if there are any modifications to the drug or biologic, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, the applicant may be required to submit and obtain FDA approval of a new NDA/BLA or NDA/BLA supplement, which may require the development of additional data or preclinical studies and clinical trials.

The FDA may also place other conditions on approvals including the requirement for a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the product. A REMS 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. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Product approvals may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory standards or if problems occur following initial marketing.

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:

10

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Drugs and biologics may be promoted only for the approved indications 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, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant liability.

Other U.S. Regulatory Laws

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the United States in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and state and local governments.

For example, in the United States, our business operations, including any sales, marketing and scientific and educational programs, also must comply with state and federal fraud and abuse laws, including the federal Anti-Kickback Statue and false claims laws; federal data privacy and security laws; and federal transparency laws related to payments and/or other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals and teaching hospitals. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), to knowingly and willfully solicit, receive, offer or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce or reward referrals, including the purchase, recommendation, order or prescription of a particular drug, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. Moreover, the ACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act. Federal false claims laws, including the False Claims Act, prohibit individuals or entities from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, false or fraudulent claims for payment of federal funds, and knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme or artifice to defraud any healthcare benefit program or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g., public or private), and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters. Similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

Many states have similar laws and regulations that may differ from federal law in significant ways, thus complicating compliance efforts. For example, states have anti-kickback and false claims laws that may be broader in scope than analogous federal laws and may apply regardless of payer. In addition, the federal physician payment transparency requirements, sometimes referred to as the “Physician Payments Sunshine Act,” created under the ACA and its implementing regulations, require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually to CMS information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Beginning in 2022, applicable manufacturers also will be required to report such information related to payments or other transfers of value to physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, anesthesiologist assistants, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified nurse midwives during the previous year.

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH) and their respective implementing regulations, impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses and their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information as well as their covered subcontractors, relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of such individually identifiable health information. In addition, state data privacy laws that protect the security of health information may differ from each other and may not be preempted by federal law.

11

Moreover, several states and local jurisdictions have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales and marketing activities, report information related to drug pricing, require the registration of sales representatives, and prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices.

Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid rebate requirements of the U.S. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and more recent requirements in the ACA. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. Products must meet applicable child-resistant packaging requirements under the U.S. Poison Prevention Packaging Act. Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities also are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The distribution of biologic and pharmaceutical products is subject to additional requirements and regulations, including extensive record-keeping, licensing, storage and security requirements intended to prevent the unauthorized sale of pharmaceutical products.

Data Privacy

Privacy laws in the U.S. are also increasingly complex and changing rapidly. For example, the California legislature enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California residents, and honor their requests to access, delete and opt-out of certain sharing of their personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations. Since the enactment of the CCPA, new privacy and data security laws have been proposed in more than half of the states and in the U.S. Congress, reflecting a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the U.S. The CCPA itself will expand substantially as a result of California voters approving a November 2020 ballot measure that adopted the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or CPRA, which will, among other things, create a new administrative agency to implement and enforce California’s privacy laws effective January 1, 2023.

In addition, the processing of personal data in connection with clinical trials in the EU must comply with comprehensive data protection requirements imposed by EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. GDPR, which took effect on May 25, 2018, imposes stringent data protection requirements and provides for penalties for noncompliance that can include bans on processing personal data and fines of up to the greater of 20 million euros or four percent of worldwide annual revenues. The GDPR requires organizations to give detailed disclosures about how they collect, use and share personal information; in most cases, obtain explicit consent to process sensitive personal information, such as health or genetic information; contractually require vendors to meet data protection requirements; maintain adequate data security measures; notify regulators and affected individuals of certain data breaches; meet extensive privacy governance and documentation requirements; and honor individuals’ data protection rights, including their rights to access, correct and delete their personal information.

European data protection laws, including the GDPR, also restrict the transfer of personal information from Europe, including the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, to the U.S. and most other countries unless the parties to the transfer have implemented specific safeguards to protect the transferred personal information. One of the primary safeguards allowing U.S. companies to import personal information from Europe has been certification to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union adopted a decision in July 2020 invalidating the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. The same decision also raised questions about whether one of the primary alternatives to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, namely, the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, can lawfully be used for personal information transfers from Europe to the U.S. or most other countries. Authorities in Switzerland also have issued guidance raising similar questions about the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield and the Standard Contractual Clauses.

The failure to comply with any of these laws or regulatory requirements may result in possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in significant penalties, including administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, fines, imprisonment, disgorgement, injunctions, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, integrity oversight and reporting obligations, requests for recall, seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals or refusal to allow a firm to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts. Any action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Prohibitions or restrictions on sales or withdrawal of future products marketed by us could materially affect our business in an adverse way.

U.S. Health Care Reform

Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (1) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (2) additions or modifications to product labeling; (3) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (4) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business. Further, the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of healthcare-related legislative initiatives that have significantly affected the healthcare industry. For example, there remain judicial challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On December 14, 2018, a U.S. District Court Judge in the

12

Northern District of Texas, ruled that the individual mandate is a critical and inseverable feature of the ACA, and therefore, because it was Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the Tax Act), the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid as well. Additionally, on December 18, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the District Court ruling that 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 United States Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case, but it is unknown when a decision will be reached. Although the United States Supreme Court has yet ruled on the constitutionality of the ACA, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through May 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructs certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is unclear how the United States Supreme Court ruling, other such litigation, and the healthcare form measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business. 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 federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. For example, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Further, on November 20, 2020, CMS issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. On December 28, 2020, the United States District Court in Northern California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the interim final rule. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will work to reverse these measures or pursue similar policy initiatives. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

U.S. Patent-Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA approval of any future product candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits restoration of the patent term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and FDA regulatory review process. Patent-term restoration, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent-term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA or BLA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA or BLA and the approval of that application, except that the review period is reduced by any time during which the applicant failed to exercise due diligence. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug is eligible for the extension and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we may apply for restoration of patent term for our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of the relevant NDA or BLA.

Market exclusivity provisions under the FDCA also can delay the submission or the approval of certain applications. The FDCA provides a five-year period of non-patent marketing exclusivity within the United States to the first applicant to gain approval of a 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 accept for review an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA, or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company for another version of such drug 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. The FDCA also provides three years of marketing exclusivity for a NDA, 505(b)(2) 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 conditions of use associated with the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs for drugs containing the original active agent. 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 all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

13

A reference biological product is granted twelve years of data exclusivity from the time of first licensure of the product, and the FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was licensed in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously licensed product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

European Union Drug Development

As in the United States, medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained.

Similar to the United States, the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the European Union are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC has sought to harmonize the EU clinical trials regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to significant variations in the member state regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted by two distinct bodies: the National Competent Authority, or NCA, and one or more Ethics Committees, or ECs. Under the current regime all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

The EU clinical trials legislation currently is undergoing a transition process mainly aimed at harmonizing and streamlining clinical-trial authorization, simplifying adverse-event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials and increasing their transparency. Recently enacted Clinical Trials Regulation EU No 536/2014 ensures that the rules for conducting clinical trials in the EU will be identical. In the meantime, Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC continues to govern all clinical trials performed in the EU.

European Union Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area, or EEA, which is comprised of the 27 Member States of the European Union (including Norway and excluding Croatia), Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a Marketing Authorization, or MA. There are two types of marketing authorizations.

14

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.

People’s Republic of China Drug Regulation

China heavily regulates the development, approval, manufacturing and distribution of drugs, including biologics. The legal framework for the administration of pharmaceutical products in China was established by the Drug Administration Law of the PRC (DAL). The DAL applies to entities and individuals engaged in the development, production, trade, clinical use, as well as supervision and administration of pharmaceutical products by regulatory agencies and provides a framework for regulating pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmaceutical trading companies, medical institutions, and the research, development, manufacturing, distribution, packaging, pricing, and advertisement activities related to pharmaceutical products. The DAL was revised in 2019 (rDAL) and reflects the regulatory trend of strengthening the lifecycle management of drugs, balancing the development of innovative drugs and generic drugs, and enhancing drug review and enforcement. It also represents legislative efforts to address prominent problems of the pharmaceutical industry, such as high drug prices and counterfeit and substandard drugs.

The rDAL contains a dedicated chapter on the Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system. Subject to approval by the NMPA, MAHs will be allowed to transfer their marketing authorizations, although it is uncertain whether the transferability of MAH will offer more flexibility in structuring cross-border transactions. In addition, the implementation of the MAH system was accompanied by a range of new requirements for the MAHs, such as establishing a quality assurance system and being responsible for the whole process including all aspects of preclinical research, clinical trials, manufacturing and distribution, post-marketing research, adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting.

The rDAL also requires MAHs, manufacturers, distributors, and medical institutions to establish and implement drug track and trace systems. A drug pharmacovigilance system will also be established to monitor, identify, evaluate and control adverse drug reactions and other possible drug-related problems. The NMPA will issue related standards and regulations regarding drug track and trace system.

The rDAL no longer requires the certification for good clinical practice (GCP), good supply practice (GSP), and GMP. Drug manufacturers and drug distributors must still comply with current requirements and the NMPA and its local counterparts are directed to strengthen their surveillance, including through regular and continuous site inspections, to ensure their compliance.

The rDAL creates an expanded access pathway for investigational drugs under which a company sponsor of a clinical trial in China can apply to establish an expanded access treatment program for patients with life-threatening disease who otherwise do not satisfy the inclusion criteria of a clinical trial. To qualify for expanded access: (1) the drug must be used for life-threatening diseases that lack effective treatment; (2) the drug must have demonstrated its potential efficacy based on medical observations; (3) such use is in line with ethical principles; (4) such expanded use has been reviewed and approved (although the approval pathway not clear), and has obtained patients’ informed consent; and (5) the drug must be used within the clinical trial institution and used on patients with similar conditions.

The rDAL also significantly increases and expands penalties for violations. Depending on various types of violations, the DAL imposes different penalties, including warnings, confiscation of illegal gains, fines of up to 5 million RMB (about $725,000) or up to 30 times of illegal gains, revocation of required business and operating licenses, certificates or approval documents for drugs, suspension of business, temporary (10 years) or permanent debarment of companies, institutions and responsible persons, and criminal liabilities in the case of serious violations.

There are still uncertainties with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the rDAL. We plan to monitor the implementation of the rDAL in China.

Regulatory Authorities and Recent Government Reorganization

In China, the NMPA is the primary regulator for pharmaceutical products and businesses. The agency was formed from the prior China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) in 2018 as part of a complete government reorganization. The NMPA is no longer an independent agency and its parent agency is now the newly formed State Administration of Market Regulation (SAMR), into which agencies responsible for, among other areas, consumer protection, advertising, anticorruption, antitrust, fair competition and intellectual property have been merged.

15

Like the CFDA, the NMPA is still the chief drug regulatory agency and implements the same laws, regulations, rules, and guidelines as the CFDA. The agency regulates almost all of the key stages of the lifecycle of pharmaceutical products, including nonclinical studies, clinical trials, marketing approvals, manufacturing, advertising and promotion, distribution, and pharmacovigilance (i.e., post-marketing safety reporting obligations). The Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE), which remains under the NMPA, conducts the technical evaluation of each drug and biologic application for safety and efficacy.

The National Health Commission (NHC), formerly known as Ministry of Health (MOH) and National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC), is China’s chief healthcare regulator. It is primarily responsible for overseeing the operation of medical institutions, which also serve as clinical trial sites, and regulating the licensure of hospitals and other medical personnel. Furthermore, the NHC and its local counterparts also oversee and organize public medical institutions’ centralized bidding and procurement process for pharmaceutical products. This is the primary way that public hospitals and their internal pharmacies procure drugs and the NHC plays a significant role in drug reimbursement.

Pre-Clinical and Clinical Development

The NMPA requires preclinical data to support registration applications for new drugs, which includes safety assessment studies that meet the GLP standards, issued in 2003 and amended in 2017. The rDAL requires the NMPA to accredit GLP labs, and that nonclinical studies of chemical drug substances and preparations and biologics that are not yet marketed in China be conducted in GLP-certified labs. There are no approvals required from the NMPA to conduct preclinical studies.

Registration Categories

An applicant will need to determine the registration category for its drug candidate, prior to engaging with the NMPA on research and development and approval, which will determine the requirements for its clinical trial and marketing application. There are five categories for small molecule drugs: Category 1 (innovative drugs) refers to drugs that have a new chemical entity that has not been marketed anywhere in the world, Category 2 (improved new drugs) refers to drugs with a new indication, dosage form, route of administration, combination, or certain formulation changes not approved in the world, Categories 3 and 4 are for generics that reference an innovator drug (or certain well-known generic drugs) marketed either abroad or in China, respectively, and Category 5 refers to innovative or generic drugs that have already been marketed abroad but are not yet approved in China (i.e., imported drugs).

The categories are similar for therapeutic biologics, with Category 1 for new and innovative biologics that have not been approved inside or outside of China. Biosimilars are under Category 3. KSI-301 is classified as Category 1 based on the defined registration category by the NMPA.

Expedited Programs – Priority Evaluation and Approval Programs to Encourage Innovation

The NMPA has adopted several expedited review and approval mechanisms since 2009 and created additional expedited programs in recent years that are intended to encourage innovation. Applications for these expedited programs can be submitted after the CTA is admitted for review by the CDE. The NMPA’s Drug Registration Rules effective from July 1, 2020 (DRR) provides certain categories of drugs that may be eligible for priority status. If admitted to one of these expedited programs, an applicant will be entitled to more frequent and timely communication with reviewers at the CDE, expedited review and approval, and more agency resources throughout the approval process.

Clinical Trials and Marketing Approval

Upon completion of pre-clinical studies, a sponsor typically needs to conduct clinical trials in China for registering a new drug in China. The materials required for this application and the data requirements are determined by the registration category. The NMPA has taken a number of steps to increase efficiency for approving CTAs, and it has also significantly increased monitoring and enforcement of GCP to ensure data integrity.

Trial Approval

All clinical trials conducted in China for the purpose of seeking marketing approvals must be approved by the NMPA and conducted at hospitals satisfying GCP requirements. In addition to a standalone China trial to support development, imported drug applicants may establish a site in China that is part of an international multicenter trial (IMCT). Domestically manufactured drugs are not subject to foreign approval requirements, and in contrast to prior practice, the NMPA has decided to permit those drugs to conduct development via an IMCT as well.

16

The rDAL has now also adopted an implied approval system for clinical trials of new drugs. Trials can proceed if after 60 business days, the applicant has not received any objections from the CDE, as opposed to the lengthier previous clinical trial pre-approval process in which the applicant had to wait for affirmative approval. In addition, by abolishing the GCP accreditation system, the rDAL also expanded the number of trial sites and simplified the notification procedure followed by trial sites.

Clinical Trial Register

Clinical trials conducted in China must be registered and published through the Drug Clinical Trial Information Platform (http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn). Applicants are required to pre-register the trial information within one month after trial approval to obtain the unique trial registration number and to complete registration of certain information before the first subject is enrolled. If the foregoing pre-registration and registration is not obtained within one year after obtaining the clinical trial approval, the applicant shall submit an explanation, and if the procedure is not completed within three years, the clinical trial approval automatically expires.

Human Genetic Resources Regulation

The Regulation on the Administration of Human Genetic Resources (HGR Regulation) became effective on July 1, 2019. The HGR Regulation applies to all human genetic resources (HGR)-related activities for R&D purposes, including sampling, biobanking, use of HGR materials and associated data in China, and the provision or sharing of such materials or data with foreign parties.

The HGR Regulation applies to foreign parties, including foreign entities and entities established or controlled by foreign entities and individuals. Such foreign parties seeking access to China’s HGRs for scientific research, including clinical trials intended to support marketing approval of drugs and medical devices in China, must engage in collaborations with Chinese parties, such as Chinese hospitals. The HGR Regulation prohibits foreign parties from independently sampling or biobanking any China HGR in China and requires approval for the sampling of certain HGR and biobanking of all HGR by Chinese parties. Any cross-border transfer of the HGR materials, either under an international collaboration or as a direct export, must be on an as-needed basis and requires approval. In addition, providing HGR data to foreign parties requires a record filing.

The HGR Regulation retains the provision in the Interim Measures for the Administration of Human Genetic Resources issued in 1998 (the Interim Measures) that parties should jointly apply for and own the patent rights arising from the results generated from international collaborations that utilize China HGR. Subject to approval, the parties may contractually agree on how to dispose of their patent rights and non-patent proprietary rights arising from the collaboration. As the joint ownership requirement is rather broad, it is unclear how this requirement will be implemented in practice.

The HGR Regulation also significantly increases and expands penalties for various violations, including warnings, disgorgement of illegal gains, confiscation of illegal HGR, fines up to 10 million RMB($1,450,000) or 5-10 times of illegal gains in the event such illegal gains exceed 1 million RMB ($145,000), and temporary (1-5 years) or permanent debarment of companies, institutions and responsible persons from future HGR projects regulated by the HGR Regulation.

Clinical Trial Process and Good Clinical Practices

As in other parts of the world, clinical trials in China typically have three phases. Phase 1 refers to the initial clinical pharmacology and human safety evaluation studies. Phase 2 refers to the preliminary evaluation of a drug candidate’s therapeutic efficacy and safety for target indication(s) in patients. Phase 3 (often the pivotal study) refers to clinical trials to further verify the drug candidate’s therapeutic efficacy and safety on patients with target indication(s) and ultimately provide sufficient evidence for the review of a drug registration application. The NMPA requires that the different phases of clinical trials in China receive ethics committee approval and comply with GCP. The NMPA conducts inspections on clinical trials conducted in China to assess GCP compliance and may refuse to approve the drug if it finds substantial issues in the trials. In addition, upon granting the drug registration certificate, NMPA may, at its sole discretion, require a Phase 4 trial to be conducted by MAH within a specified period of time so as to further monitor and obtain safety and efficacy data of the drug.

Pursuant to GCP, sponsors of clinical trials are responsible for proper packaging and labeling of drugs used for clinical trials, including that investigational drugs shall be consistent with the control drug or placebo in appearance, odor, packaging, labeling, and certain other features in double-blinded clinical trials. Pharmaceutical packaging must comply with national and professional standards or obtain approval from the provincial administration for medical products or bureau of standards if these standards are not available and need to be developed and implemented by the sponsors. Changes in such approved packaging standards need to be re-approved. Drugs of which the packaging standards are not approved shall not be released or marketed in China, except for those specifically supplied to the military.

17

Acceptance of Foreign Clinical Trial Studies

The NMPA may be flexible on the requirements of trials and data generated in China, dependent on the drug and the existing data. The NMPA has granted waivers for all or part of trials and has stated that it will accept data generated abroad (even if not part of a global study), including early phase data, that meets its requirements. In 2018, the NMPA issued the Technical Guidance Principles on Accepting Foreign Drug Clinical Trial Data (the Guidance Principles), as one of the implementing rules for the Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Evaluation and Approval Systems and Encouraging Innovation on Drugs and Medical Devices (the Innovation Opinion). According to the Guidance Principles, data from foreign clinical trials must meet authenticity, completeness and accuracy requirements and such data must be obtained in compliance with the relevant requirements under the GCP of the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). Sponsors must be attentive to ethnic differences in the subject population that could be potentially meaningful.

New Drug Application (NDA) and Approval

Upon completion of clinical trials, a sponsor may submit clinical trial data to support marketing approval for the drug. For domestically manufactured drugs, NDA sponsors must submit data derived from the submitted drugs in support of their approval. Under the rDAL, upon approval of the registration application, the NMPA will issue a drug registration certificate to the applicant which is in fact the marketing approval of the drug, and the applicant is no longer required to be equipped with relevant manufacturing capability.

Manufacturing and Distribution

All facilities that manufacture drugs in China must receive a drug manufacturing license with an appropriate “scope of manufacturing” from the local drug regulatory authority. This license must be renewed every five years, and the manufacturing facility is also required to be in compliance with GMP.

New Drug Monitoring Period

Previously, new varieties of domestically produced drugs approved under Categories 1 or 2 in China could be placed under a monitoring period for three to five years. Category 1 innovative drugs were monitored for five years. During the monitoring period, the NMPA would not approve another CTA from another applicant for the same type of drug, except if another sponsor had an approved CTA at the time that the monitoring period was initiated, it could proceed with its trial and once approved become another drug that was part of the monitoring period. The DRR has abolished these new drug monitoring period programs; however, drugs that had been placed under a monitoring period before the DRR took effect are still entitled to exclusivity before the monitoring periods end.

Post-Marketing Surveillance

Under the rDAL, the MAH of a drug is ultimately responsible for pharmacovigilance, including quality assurance, adverse reaction reporting and monitoring, and product recalls. Distributors and user entities (e.g., hospitals) are also required to report, in their respective roles, adverse reactions of the products they sell or use, and assist the MAH with any product recalls. An MAH for a drug that is currently under the new drug monitoring period must report all adverse drug reactions (as opposed to just serious adverse reactions) for that period.

Advertising and Promotion of Pharmaceutical Products

China has a strict regime for the advertising of approved medicines. No unapproved medicines may be advertised. The definition of an advertisement is very broad and does not expressly exclude scientific exchange. It can be any media that directly or indirectly introduces the product to end users. There is no clear line between advertising and any other type of promotion.

Regulatory Intellectual Property Protections

In January 2020, the United States and China signed the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of America and the PRC (the Trade Agreement), in which, among other things, China agreed to provide effective protection and enforcement of pharmaceutical-related intellectual property rights, such as patents and undisclosed test or other data submitted as a condition of marketing approval. These provisions of the Trade Agreement will need to be implemented in China. In October 2020, amendments to the PRC Patent Law (the Amended PRC Patent Law) were adopted, effective June 1, 2021, which contains both patent term extension and a mechanism for early resolution of patent disputes, that may be comparable to patent linkage in the United States. There is uncertainty around the scope and implementation of the patent term extension and the early resolution mechanism as the provisions are unclear and/or remain subject to the approval of implementing regulations that are still in draft form or have not yet been proposed.

18

Regulatory Data Protection

The Innovation Opinion provided a foundation for regulatory data protection to protect innovative drugs and will be available for undisclosed clinical trial data of drugs within the following categories: innovative drugs, innovative therapeutic biologics, drugs that treat orphan diseases, pediatric drugs, and drugs for which there has been a successful patent challenge. According to the Trade Agreement, China has committed to providing for effective protection of undisclosed clinical trial or other data submitted as a condition of marketing approval.

The NMPA has published draft regulations for public comment that would set regulatory data protection for innovative small molecule drugs at six years and for innovative therapeutic biologics at 12 years; pediatric and orphan drugs would receive six years to run concurrently from their approval dates. Full terms of protection would require reliance on local trials or sites of multi-center trials in China and simultaneous submissions of marketing applications in China and other countries. Submissions in China that are up to six years later than those abroad would result in the term being reduced to 1-5 years and submissions over six years later in China may not receive protection.

Patent Linkage

The Innovation Opinion also established the basic elements of a patent linkage system to protect innovators. A follow-on applicant would be required to identify patents that are relevant to its application and notify those relevant patent right holders (including, innovators) within a specified period after filing an application, permitting the patent holders the ability to protect their rights. The system will require that the NMPA continue to review the potentially infringing follow-on application during any lawsuit by the innovator and that the NMPA may not approve the follow-on application pending resolution of the patent litigation in favor of the follow-on application or for a specified period of time, whichever is shorter. Similarly, the Trade Agreement also adopted certain elements of a patent linkage system (notice to the patent right holder of the follow-on application, time and opportunity for that right holder to sue or to seek expeditious remedies, obtain a timely resolution of the patent dispute) but did not explicitly mention a stay of marketing approval of the follow-on application.

The Amended PRC Patent Law provides a cause of action to allow a patent holder to initiate a declarative action during the regulatory review process of a drug to determine whether the drug falls within the patent scope, that may be comparable to the patent linkage system in the United States. There is uncertainty around the scope and implementation of the early resolution mechanism as the provisions are unclear and/or remain subject to the approval of implementing regulations that are still in draft form or have not yet been proposed.

Patent Term Extension

In early 2019, pursuant to the Innovation Opinion, the National People’s Congress issued a proposal for patent term extension as part of a proposed amendment to the Patent Law. The Amended PRC Patent Law provides that the China National Intellectual Property Administration shall provide patent term extension, similar to the United States, for the patent term lost during the regulatory review process of a new drug upon the patent holder’s request. The extended term shall not exceed five years, and the total patent term after market entry of the new drug shall not exceed 14 years. The Trade Agreement also provides for patent term extension to compensate for unreasonable delay that occurs during pharmaceutical product marketing approvals. There is uncertainty around the scope and implementation of the patent term extension as the provisions are unclear and/or remain subject to the approval of implementing regulations that are still in draft form or have not yet been proposed.

Other PRC national- and provincial-level laws and regulations

Pharmaceutical companies operating in China are subject to changing regulations under many other laws and regulations administered by governmental authorities at the national, provincial and municipal levels, some of which are or may become applicable to our business. For example, regulations control the confidentiality of patient medical information and the circumstances under which patient medical information may be released for inclusion in our information systems or released by us to third parties. These laws and regulations governing both the disclosure and the use of confidential patient medical information may become more restrictive in the future, including restrictions on transfer of healthcare data. The Cybersecurity Law that took effect in 2017 designates healthcare as a priority area that is part of critical information infrastructure, and China’s cyberspace administration is working to finalize a draft rule on cross-border transfer of personal information.

19

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which our products will be covered by third-party payors, such as government health programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations. In the United States no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug or biological products exists. Accordingly, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided for any of our products will be made on a payor-by-payor basis. 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 products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.

The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid health care costs, including price-controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs. For example, the ACA contains provisions that may reduce the profitability of drug products through increased rebates for drugs reimbursed by Medicaid programs, extension of Medicaid rebates to Medicaid managed care plans, mandatory discounts for certain Medicare Part D beneficiaries and annual fees based on pharmaceutical companies’ share of sales to federal health care programs. Adoption of general controls and measures, coupled with the tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for pharmaceutical drugs.

The Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to enter into and have in effect a national rebate agreement with the Secretary of HHS as a condition for states to receive federal matching funds for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs furnished to Medicaid patients. The ACA made several changes to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, including increasing pharmaceutical manufacturers’ rebate liability by raising the minimum basic Medicaid rebate on most branded prescription drugs from 15.1% of average manufacturer price, or AMP, to 23.1% of AMP and adding a new rebate calculation for “line extensions” (i.e., new formulations, such as extended release formulations) of solid oral dosage forms of branded products, as well as potentially impacting their rebate liability by modifying the statutory definition of AMP. The ACA also expanded the universe of Medicaid utilization subject to drug rebates by requiring pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay rebates on Medicaid managed care utilization and by enlarging the population potentially eligible for Medicaid drug benefits. CMS has proposed to expand Medicaid rebate liability to the territories of the United States as well.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, or the MMA, established the Medicare Part D program to provide a voluntary prescription drug benefit to Medicare beneficiaries. Under Part D, Medicare beneficiaries may enroll in prescription drug plans offered by private entities that provide coverage of outpatient prescription drugs. Unlike Medicare Part A and B, Part D coverage is not standardized. While all Medicare drug plans must give at least a standard level of coverage set by Medicare, Part D prescription drug plan sponsors are not required to pay for all covered Part D drugs, and each drug plan can develop its own drug formulary that identifies which drugs it will cover and at what tier or level. However, Part D prescription drug formularies must include drugs within each therapeutic category and class of covered Part D drugs, though not necessarily all the drugs in each category or class. Any formulary used by a Part D prescription drug plan must be developed and reviewed by a pharmacy and therapeutic committee. Government payment for some of the costs of prescription drugs may increase demand for products for which we receive marketing approval. However, any negotiated prices for our products covered by a Part D prescription drug plan likely will be lower than the prices we might otherwise obtain. Moreover, while the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private payors often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own payment rates. Any reduction in payment that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from non-governmental payors.

For a drug product to receive federal reimbursement under the Medicaid or Medicare Part B programs or to be sold directly to U.S. government agencies, the manufacturer must extend discounts to entities eligible to participate in the 340B drug pricing program. The required 340B discount on a given product is calculated based on the AMP and Medicaid rebate amounts reported by the manufacturer. In 2010, the ACA expanded the types of entities eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing, although, under the current state of the law, with the exception of children’s hospitals, these newly eligible entities will not be eligible to receive discounted 340B pricing on orphan drugs. In addition, as 340B drug prices are determined based on AMP and Medicaid rebate data, the revisions to the Medicaid rebate formula and AMP definition described above could cause the required 340B discount to increase.

As noted above, the marketability of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale may suffer if the government and third-party payors fail to provide adequate coverage and reimbursement. An increasing emphasis on cost containment measures in the United States has increased and we expect will continue to increase the pressure on pharmaceutical pricing. Coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products for which we receive regulatory approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

20

In addition, in most foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing and reimbursement vary widely from country to country. For example, the European Union provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the European Union do not follow price structures of the United States and generally prices tend to be significantly lower.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights. We seek to protect our proprietary position by, among other methods, filing patent applications in the United States and in jurisdictions outside of the United States related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements, and product candidates that are important to the development and implementation of our business. We also rely on trade secrets and know-how relating to our proprietary technology and product candidates and continuing innovation to develop, strengthen, and maintain our proprietary position in the field. Although we are not party to any material in-license agreements as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we may in the future pursue in-licensing opportunities to strengthen our proprietary position in the field. We additionally rely on data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions when available, and may seek and rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations. Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for our technology, inventions, and improvements; to preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; to defend and enforce our proprietary rights, including our patents; and to operate without infringing the valid and enforceable patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

We have prosecuted numerous patents and patent applications and possess know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of our ABC Platform and product candidates, including related manufacturing processes and technology. As of December 31, 2021, we were the assignee of record for approximately eight U.S. issued patents, and approximately 12 U.S. pending patent applications directed to certain of our proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements and our most advanced product candidates, as well as 34 patents issued in jurisdictions outside of the United States and 62 patent applications pending in jurisdictions outside of the United States that, in many cases, are counterparts to the foregoing U.S. patents and patent applications. We also have two pending PCT application. For example, these patents and patent applications include claims directed to:

21

The following patents and patent applications (including anticipated 20-year expiration dates, which could be altered by, for example, a disclaimer, patent term adjustment or patent term extension) relate to KSI-301 and/or ABC Platform:

In the normal course of business, we intend to pursue, when possible, composition, method of use, dosing and formulation patent protection, as well as manufacturing and drug development processes and technology. The patents and patent applications we have filed outside of the United States are in Europe, Japan, and various other jurisdictions.

Individual patents extend for varying periods of time, depending upon the date of filing of the patent application, the date of patent issuance, and the legal term of patents in the countries in which they are obtained. Generally, patents issued for applications filed in the United States are effective for 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. In addition, in certain instances, a patent term can be extended to recapture a portion of the term effectively lost as a result of the FDA regulatory review period. The restoration period cannot be longer than five years and the total patent term, including the restoration period, must not exceed 14 years following FDA approval. The duration of patents outside of the United States varies in accordance with provisions of applicable local law, but typically is also 20 years from the earliest effective filing date.

22

Our issued U.S. patents will expire on dates ranging from 2027 to 2036. If patents are issued on our pending patent applications, the resulting patents are projected to expire on dates ranging from 2027 to 2041. However, the actual protection afforded by a patent varies on a product-by-product basis, from country-to-country, and depends upon many factors, including the type of patent, the scope of its coverage, the availability of regulatory-related extensions, the availability of legal remedies in a particular country, and the validity and enforceability of the patent.

As of December 31, 2021, we have a total of 26 pending trademark applications and issued trademark registrations. These include two trademark registrations and two pending trademark applications in the United States, and 18 trademark registrations and four pending trademark applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States. Of the trademark registrations in jurisdictions outside of the United States, 12 are in China and one is in each of Canada, the European Union, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Of the pending trademark applications in jurisdictions outside of the United States, three are in China and one is in India. We also may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our technology and product candidates, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with those who have access to our confidential information, including our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators, and advisors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. Although we have confidence in these individuals, organizations, and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or may be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, contractors, consultants, collaborators, and advisors use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our proprietary technology, inventions, improvements and products, please see the section on “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

We are also a party to an assignment and license agreement with a former collaborator, whereby we were assigned and non-exclusively licensed certain intellectual property relating to KSI-201 and related technology. Under this agreement, we agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize KSI-201, and will owe milestone payments to our former collaborator upon the achievement of certain milestones related to KSI-201, as well as a low single digit percentage royalty on net sales of KSI-201. The assignment and license agreement includes customary termination provisions, including the right of the company to terminate for convenience and the right of either party to terminate for cause.

Human Capital Management

As of December 31, 2021, we had 93 employees worldwide, of whom 11 were based outside of the United States. Of these employees, 72 employees were engaged in or support research, development and clinical activities, 26 of whom hold a Ph.D. degree or M.D. (or equivalent) degree. None of our employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Given our expanding operations and need to further grow our headcount to support our business, we continually assess employee turnover, recruitment initiatives, compensation and benefits programs, safety in performing critical laboratory work, diversity and other matters relevant to human capital management, and we review results with our Board of Directors on a periodic basis. We aim to offer competitive compensation (including salary, incentive bonus, and equity) and benefits packages in each of our locations and in each of employee groups at each level around the globe as assessed with internal and external benchmarking data. We aim to build a pipeline for talent to create more opportunities for workplace diversity and to support greater representation within our company.

Legal Proceedings

As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we are not a party to any material legal proceedings. In the normal course of business, we may be named as a party to various legal claims, actions and complaints. We cannot predict whether any resulting liability would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Additional Information

We maintain an internet website at the following address: https://kodiak.com. The information on our website is not incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or in any other filings we make with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.

23

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. In addition, the SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

24

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

You should consider carefully the following risk factors, together with all the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto. The occurrence of any events described in the following risk factors and the risks described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could harm our business, operating results, financial condition, and/or growth prospects or cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements that we have made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and those may make from time to time. You should consider all of the risk factors described when evaluating our business.

Risks Related to the Discovery, Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our prospects are heavily dependent on our KSI-301 product candidate, which is currently in clinical development for multiple indications.

KSI-301 is our only product candidate currently in clinical trials. It may be years before a registrational-type trial is completed, if at all. Further, we cannot be certain that either KSI-301 or any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials.

Our early preclinical and Phase 1/1b clinical trial results for KSI-301 in the respective indications are not necessarily predictive of the results of our ongoing or future discovery programs or any future preclinical or clinical studies. Our ability to demonstrate efficacy, safety and clinical durability in pivotal studies may be affected by the patient populations sampled and the design of our pivotal studies. Many companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in late-stage clinical studies after achieving positive results in early-stage development, including early-stage clinical studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. These setbacks have been caused by, among other things, preclinical findings made while clinical studies were underway or safety or efficacy observations made in preclinical studies and clinical studies, including previously unreported or unobserved adverse events as more patients are treated with KSI-301 and followed for longer periods of time.

For example, we recently announced top-line results from our randomized, double-masked, active comparator-controlled Phase 2b/3 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy, durability and safety of KSI-301 in treatment-naïve subjects with neovascular wet AMD. The results show that KSI-301 did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of showing non-inferior visual acuity gains for subjects dosed on extended regimens compared to aflibercept given every eight weeks.

There can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different clinical studies of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in study procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the clinical study protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical study participants. Moreover, preclinical and clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in preclinical studies and clinical studies nonetheless failed to obtain FDA approval. If approved, KSI-301 clinical study designs and data are not necessarily predictive of KSI-301’s final marketed product label. FDA may not approve a label for a particular dosing frequency, even if we believe the data demonstrate support for that dosing.

We may in the future advance product candidates into clinical trials and terminate such trials prior to their completion. While we have certain preclinical programs such as KSI-501 and KSI-601 in development and intend to develop other product candidates, it will take additional investment and time for such programs to reach the same stage of development as KSI-301.

A failure of KSI-301 in clinical development may require us to discontinue development of other product candidates based on our ABC Platform.

If KSI-301 fails in development as a result of any underlying problem with our platform, then we may discontinue development of some or all of our product candidates that are based on our ABC Platform. If we discontinue development of KSI-301, or if KSI-301 were to fail to receive regulatory approval or were to fail to receive regulatory approval in one or more of our four planned key clinical indications or were to fail to achieve sufficient market acceptance, we could be prevented from or significantly delayed in achieving profitability.

Research and development of biopharmaceutical products is inherently risky. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory, including marketing, approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized.

We are at an early stage of development of our product candidates. Our future success is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and then successfully commercialize our product candidates, and we may fail to do so for many reasons, including the following:

25

If any of these events occurs, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a product candidate or candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations. Failure of a product candidate may occur at any stage of preclinical or clinical development, and, because our product candidates and our ABC Platform are in development, there is a relatively higher risk of failure and we may never succeed in developing marketable products or generating product revenue.

We may not be successful in our efforts to further develop our ABC Platform and current product candidates in time to meet the current and identified market opportunity. We are not permitted to market or promote any of our product candidates before we receive regulatory approval from the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, and we may never receive such regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. Each of our product candidates is in the early stages of development and will require significant additional clinical development, management of preclinical, clinical, and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval, adequate manufacturing supply, a commercial organization, and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales, if at all. Any clinical studies that we may conduct may not demonstrate the efficacy and safety necessary to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates. If the results of our ongoing or future clinical studies are inconclusive with respect to the efficacy of our product candidates or if we do not meet the clinical endpoints with statistical significance or if there are safety concerns or adverse events associated with our product candidates, we may be prevented or delayed in obtaining marketing approval for our product candidates.

If any of our product candidates successfully completes clinical trials, we generally plan to seek regulatory approval to market our product candidates in the United States, the EU, and in additional foreign countries where we believe there is a viable commercial opportunity. We have never commenced, compiled or submitted an application seeking regulatory approval to market any product candidate. We may never receive regulatory approval to market any product candidates even if such product candidates successfully complete clinical trials, which would adversely affect our viability. To obtain regulatory approval in countries outside the United States, we must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such other countries regarding safety, efficacy, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, clinical trials, commercial sales, pricing, and distribution of our product candidates. We may also rely on our collaborators or partners to conduct the required activities to support an application for regulatory approval, and to seek approval, for one or more of our product candidates. We cannot be sure that our collaborators or partners will conduct these activities successfully or do so within the timeframe we desire. Even if we (or our collaborators or partners) are successful in obtaining approval in one jurisdiction, we cannot ensure that we will obtain approval in any other jurisdictions. If we are unable to obtain approval for our product candidates in multiple jurisdictions, our revenue and results of operations could be negatively affected.

26

Even if we receive regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, we cannot assure you that any such product candidate will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. That approval may be for indications, dosage and administration or patient populations that are not as broad as intended or desired or may require labeling that includes significant use or distribution restrictions or safety warnings. We may also be required to perform additional or unanticipated clinical studies to obtain approval or be subject to additional post-marketing testing requirements to maintain regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory authorities may withdraw their approval of a product or impose restrictions on its distribution, such as in the form of a modified Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS. The failure to obtain timely regulatory approval of product candidates, any product marketing limitations or a product withdrawal would negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Investment in biopharmaceutical product development involves significant risk that any product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate efficacy or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval, and become commercially viable. We cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of our product candidates through the development process or, if approved, successfully commercialize any of our product candidates.

We may encounter substantial delays in our clinical trials, or may not be able to conduct or complete our clinical trials on the timelines we expect, if at all.

Clinical testing is expensive, time consuming, and subject to uncertainty. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND application or a clinical trial application, or CTA, will result in the FDA, European Medicines Agency, or EMA, China National Medical Products Administration, or NMPA, or any other regulatory authority as applicable, allowing clinical trials to begin in a timely manner, if at all. Moreover, even if these trials begin, issues may arise that could suspend or terminate such clinical trials. A failure of one or more clinical trials can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical trials may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely initiation or completion of clinical trials include:

27

Any inability to successfully initiate or complete clinical trials could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may be required to or we may elect to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions. Clinical trial delays could also shorten any periods during which our products have patent protection and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, which could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and may harm our business and results of operations.

We could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the data safety monitoring board for such trial or by the FDA, EMA, NMPA or any other regulatory authority, or if the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted suspend or terminate the participation of their clinical investigators and sites subject to their review. 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, EMA, NMPA 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 product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. We may also face delays if we are unable to reach agreement with the FDA, EMA, NMPA or other regulatory authorities regarding CMC matters, including methodologies for, and assessment of, comparability of manufacturing procedures and lots.

Delays in the commencement or completion of any clinical trial of our product candidates will increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and approval process and delay or potentially jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. 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 product candidates.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could halt their clinical development, prevent their regulatory approval, limit their commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

Adverse events or other undesirable side effects caused by our product 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, EMA, NMPA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

During the conduct of clinical trials, patients report changes in their health, including illnesses, injuries, and discomforts, to their study doctor. Often, it is not possible to determine whether or not the product candidate being studied caused these conditions. It is possible that as we test our product candidates in larger, longer and more extensive clinical trials, or as use of these product candidates becomes more widespread if they receive regulatory approval, illnesses, injuries, discomforts and other adverse events that were not observed in earlier trials, as well as conditions that did not occur or went undetected in previous trials, will be reported by patients. Many times, side effects are only detectable after investigational products are tested in large-scale Phase 3 clinical trials or, in some cases, after they are made available to patients on a commercial scale after approval. If additional clinical experience indicates that any of our product candidates has side effects or causes serious or life-threatening side effects, the development of the product candidate may fail or be delayed, or, if the product candidate has received regulatory approval, such approval may be revoked, which would severely harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. For example, the safety profile we have observed in the Phase 1a/1b study of KSI-301 and in the recently completed Phase 2b/3 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy, durability and safety of KSI-301 in treatment-naïve subjects with neovascular wet AMD may not be representative of the safety profile in additional studies. We may still observe significant safety events that may negatively impact the KSI-301 program and the ABC platform. A safety profile for KSI-301 in line with today’s standard of care agents may not be sustained when administered to 100,000s of patients at varying dose intervals after commercialization.

28

Our most advanced product candidate, KSI-301, is an anti-VEGF biologic that we are studying in wet AMD, DME/DR and RVO. There are some potential side effects associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF therapies such as intraocular hemorrhage, intraocular pressure elevation, retinal detachment, inflammation, vasculitis, artery occlusion or infection inside the eye and over-inhibition of VEGF, as well as the potential for potential systemic side effects such as heart attack, stroke, wound healing problems, and high blood pressure.

Recent trends in the development of anti-VEGF therapies have favored increased molar dosages, as compared to currently marketed treatments. To date these heightened dosages have not exhibited a safety profile significantly worse than that of current treatments, as attributable to molar dose. However, anti-VEGF product candidates featuring higher molar dosages, including KSI-301, may heighten the risk of adverse effects associated with anti-VEGF treatments generally, both in the eye and in the rest of the body. There are risks inherent in the intravitreal injection procedure of drugs like KSI-301 which can cause injury to the eye and other complications including conjunctival hemorrhage, punctate keratitis, eye pain, conjunctival hyperemia, intra-ocular inflammation, and endophthalmitis. KSI-301 is also being explored clinically with higher frequency dosing, which may increase the risk of potential adverse events. Any additional toxicology signal observed, be it real or perceived, may negatively impact perceptions of utilization of KSI-301 in broader populations and impact clinical trial enrollment, regulatory approval and commercial success.

Drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment, the ability of enrolled patients to complete the study and/or result in potential product liability claims. We may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could cause our stock price to decline and, if judgments exceed our insurance coverage, could adversely affect our results of operations and business. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in impairment of our business reputation, withdrawal of clinical trial participants, costs due to related litigation, distraction of management’s attention from our primary business, initiation of investigations by regulators, substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants, the inability to commercialize our product candidates and decreased demand for our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale.

Additionally, if one or more of our product candidates receives marketing approval, and we or others later identify undesirable side effects or adverse events caused by such products, a number of potentially significant negative consequences could result, including but not limited to:

Any of these events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and could significantly harm our business, results of operations, and prospects.

We may encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, and our clinical development activities could thereby be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

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 trial until its conclusion. We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including:

29

For example, because patients with early stages of DR often lack symptoms, it may be challenging to identify and enroll patients at early stages of disease that may be required for a clinical trial. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for our clinical trials could result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. Enrollment delays in our clinical trials may result in increased development costs for our product candidates, delay or halt the development of and approval processes for our product candidates and jeopardize our ability to commence sales of and generate revenues from our product candidates, which may harm our business and results of operation.

Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate substantial evidence of the safety and efficacy or durability of our product candidates, which would prevent, delay or limit the scope of regulatory approval and commercialization.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any of our product candidates, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. For those product candidates that are subject to regulation as biological drug products, we will need to demonstrate that they are safe, pure, and potent for use in their target indications. Each product candidate must demonstrate an adequate risk versus benefit profile in its intended patient population and for its intended use. This is especially true for anti-VEGF biologic agents, where Lucentis, Eylea and Avastin are established products with accepted safety profiles.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. The results of preclinical studies of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of early-stage or later-stage clinical trials, and results of early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. The results of clinical trials in one set of patients or disease indications may not be predictive of those obtained in another. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety, efficacy or durability results between different clinical trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial procedures set forth in protocols, differences in the size and type of the patient populations, changes in and adherence to the dosing regimen and other clinical trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety, efficacy and durability profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. For example, in our recently completed Phase 2b/3 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy, durability and safety of KSI-301 in treatment-naïve subjects with neovascular wet AMD, KSI-301 did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of showing non-inferior visual acuity gains for subjects dosed on extended regimens compared to aflibercept given every eight weeks. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that begin clinical trials are never approved by regulatory authorities for commercialization.

We may be unable to design and execute clinical trials that support marketing approval. We cannot be certain that our planned clinical trials or any other future clinical trials will be successful. Additionally, any safety concerns observed in any one of our clinical trials in our targeted indications could limit the prospects for regulatory approval of our product candidates in those and other indications, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

30

In addition, even if such clinical trials are successfully completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials or trials of a different design could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. Our KSI-301 pivotal study program relies on a single active arm in each study at a single dose (5mg), such that if a safety observation is observed there is no fallback position at a lower dose to rely on. To the extent that the results of the trials are not satisfactory to the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities for support of a marketing application, we may be required to expend significant resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates. Even if regulatory approval is secured for any of our product candidates, the terms of such approval may limit the scope and use of our product candidate, which may also limit its commercial potential. Even if trial results are successful at the primary endpoint, clinical trial results may be different or worse in the extended treatment periods following the primary endpoint, and such data may negatively impact perceptions by regulatory authorities, the clinical community or commercial payors of the benefits of our product candidates.

The top-line results from our Phase 2b/3 pivotal study of KSI-301 in wet AMD may lead to study design modifications in our other ongoing pivotal studies and may impact the timeline of completion and likelihood of success of these pivotal studies.

We recently announced that our Phase 2b/3 pivotal study of KSI-301 in wet AMD did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of non-inferiority in visual acuity gains for KSI-301 treated patients on extended regimens of every 12-, 16-, or 20- weeks compared to patients treated with aflibercept every eight weeks. In light of these results, we may decide to modify the design of our other ongoing pivotal studies in order to reduce the risk of similar undertreatment of patients, which may lead to potential delays in trial readouts and may impact the likelihood of trial success, which may in turn harm our business and operations and adversely affect our stock price.

We may not be successful in our efforts to continue to create a pipeline of product candidates or to develop commercially successful products. If we fail to successfully identify and develop additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity may be limited.

One of our strategies is to identify and pursue clinical development of additional product candidates through our ABC Platform. Our ABC Platform may not produce a pipeline of viable product candidates, or our competitors may develop platform technologies that render our ABC Platform obsolete or less attractive. Our research methodology may be unsuccessful in identifying potential product candidates, or our potential product candidates may be shown to have harmful side effects or may have other characteristics that may make them unmarketable or unlikely to receive marketing approval. Identifying, developing, obtaining regulatory approval and commercializing additional product candidates for the treatment of retinal diseases will require substantial additional funding and is prone to the risks of failure inherent in drug development. If we are unable to successfully identify, acquire, develop and commercialize additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity may be limited.

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and there is a possibility that our competitors may retain their market share with existing drugs, or achieve regulatory approval before us or develop therapies that are safer, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may negatively impact our ability to successfully market or commercialize any product candidates we may develop and ultimately harm our financial condition.

The development and commercialization of new drug products is highly competitive. We may face competition with respect to any product candidates that we seek to develop or commercialize in the future from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, and biotechnology companies worldwide. Potential competitors also include academic institutions, government agencies, and other public and private research organizations that conduct research, seek patent protection, and establish collaborative arrangements for research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization.

There are a number of large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are currently pursuing the development of products for the treatment of the retinal disease indications for which we have product candidates, including wet AMD, DME/DR, and RVO. Certain of our competitors have commercially approved products for the treatment of retinal diseases that we are pursuing or may pursue in the future, including Roche, Regeneron and Novartis for the treatment of wet AMD, DME/DR, and RVO. These drugs are well established therapies and are widely accepted by physicians, patients and third-party payors, which may make it difficult to educate these parties on the benefits of switching to KSI-301. Companies that we are aware are developing therapeutics in the retinal disease area include large companies with significant financial resources, such as Roche, Novartis, Bayer and Regeneron, AbbVie/Allergan, Mylan, Momenta, and Samsung Bioepis. In addition to competition from other companies targeting retinal indications, any products we may develop may also face competition from other types of therapies, such as gene-editing therapies and drug delivery devices.

31

The first Lucentis biosimilar was approved this year in the United States and its approval may impact market dynamics and payor policies negatively for KSI-301. Roche’s product candidate, Vabysmo (faricimab) received FDA approval for the treatment of wet AMD and DME in January 2022 and is currently enrolling pivotal studies in RVO. We believe faricimab’s clinical profile together with physician enthusiasm for a new branded anti-VEGF will make it an important product in the marketplace. Even if KSI-301 presents a compelling clinical profile, we may not be able to market our product candidates as effectively as our competitors. For example, entrenched franchises may seek to impede adoption of KSI-301 through significant discounts or rebates.

Many of our current or potential competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and marketing approved products than we do. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical 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 product candidates. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient, or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Furthermore, currently approved products could be discovered to have application for treatment of retinal disease indications, which could give such products significant regulatory and market timing advantages over any of our product candidates. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, EMA, NMPA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours. Additionally, products or technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing any product candidates we may develop against competitors.

In addition, we could face litigation or other proceedings with respect to the scope, ownership, validity and/or enforceability of our patents relating to our competitors’ products and our competitors may allege that our products infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate their intellectual property. For more information regarding potential disputes concerning intellectual property, see the subsection of this Annual Report on Form 10-K titled “Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

The manufacture of our product candidates is highly complex and requires substantial lead time to produce.

Manufacturing our product candidates involves complex processes, including developing cells or cell systems to produce the biologic, growing large quantities of such cells, and harvesting and purifying the biologic produced by them. These processes require specialized facilities, highly specific raw materials and other production constraints. As a result, the cost to manufacture a biologic is generally far higher than traditional small molecule chemical compounds, and the biologics manufacturing process is less reliable and is difficult to reproduce. Because of the complex nature of our products, we need to oversee the manufacture of multiple components that require a diverse knowledge base and specialized personnel. Commercial manufacturing scale-up timelines may be negatively affected by material shortages, construction delays and supply chain challenges due to, among other factors, global supply chain shortages due to COVID-19 or other reasons.

Moreover, unlike chemical pharmaceuticals, the physical and chemical properties of a biologic such as our product candidates generally cannot be adequately characterized prior to manufacturing the final product. As a result, an assay of the finished product is not sufficient to ensure that the product will perform in the intended manner. Accordingly, we expect to employ multiple steps to attempt to control our manufacturing process to assure that the process works, and the product or product candidate is made strictly and consistently in compliance with the process

Manufacturing biologics is highly susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure, improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, improper storage or transfer, inconsistency in yields and variability in product characteristics. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing, distribution or storage processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. Some of the raw materials required in our manufacturing process are derived from biological sources. Such raw materials are difficult to procure and may also be subject to contamination or recall. A material shortage, contamination, recall or restriction on the use of biologically derived substances in the manufacture of our product candidates could adversely impact or disrupt commercialization. Production of additional drug substance and drug product for any of our product candidates may require substantial lead time. For example, currently any new large-scale batches of KSI-301 would require at least 12 months to manufacture. In the event of significant product loss and materials shortages, we may be unable to produce adequate amounts of our product candidates or products for our operational needs.

32

Further, as product candidates are developed through preclinical studies to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives, and any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials.

We rely on third parties for raw materials needed for manufacturing KSI-301. We may not be able to obtain adequate amounts in the future. These challenges are magnified by the international nature of our supply chain, which, for KSI-301, requires drug substance and drug product sourced from single source suppliers from China, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and Switzerland. For example, the effects of health epidemics, including the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting shelter-in-place, travel or similar restrictions may impact the timing of clinical resupply facing and BLA facing manufacturing activities.

We have no experience manufacturing any of our product candidates at a commercial scale. If we or any of our third-party manufacturers encounter difficulties in production, or fail to meet rigorously enforced regulatory standards, our ability to provide supply of our product candidates for clinical trials and regulatory applications or our products for patients, if approved, could be delayed or stopped, or we may be unable to establish a commercially viable cost structure.

In order to conduct clinical trials of our product candidates, or supply commercial products, if approved, we will need to manufacture them in small and large quantities. Our third-party manufacturer has made only a limited number of lots of KSI-301 to date and has not made any commercial lots. The manufacturing processes for KSI-301 have never been tested at commercial scale and the process validation requirement (the requirement to consistently produce the active pharmaceutical ingredient used in KSI-301 in commercial quantities and of specified quality on a repeated basis and document its ability to do so) has not yet been satisfied. Our manufacturing partners may be unable to successfully increase the manufacturing capacity for any of our product candidates in a timely or cost-effective manner, or at all. In addition, quality issues may arise during scale-up activities. If our manufacturing partners are unable to successfully scale up the manufacture of our product candidates in sufficient quality and quantity, the development, testing and clinical trials of our product candidates may be delayed or become infeasible, and regulatory approval or commercial launch of any resulting product may be delayed or not obtained, which could significantly harm our business. The same risks would apply to any internal manufacturing facilities, should we in the future decide to build internal manufacturing capacity.

In addition, the manufacturing process for any products that we may develop is subject to FDA, EMA, NMPA and foreign regulatory authority approval processes and continuous oversight. We will need to contract with manufacturers who can meet all applicable FDA, EMA, NMPA and foreign regulatory authority requirements, including complying with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, on an ongoing basis. If we or our third-party manufacturers are unable to reliably produce products to specifications acceptable to the FDA, EMA, NMPA or other regulatory authorities, we may not obtain or maintain the approvals we need to commercialize such products. Even if we obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, there is no assurance that either we or our CMOs will be able to manufacture the approved product to specifications acceptable to the FDA, EMA, NMPA or other regulatory authorities, to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the potential launch of the product, or to meet potential future demand. Our manufacturers are also engaged in the manufacturing of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutic treatments, and the success of and demand for these vaccines and therapeutic treatments means we and our programs are competing for scarce manufacturing resources. We aim to distribute KSI-301 in a prefilled syringe early in our commercial rollout. We may not be able to complete our prefilled syringe activities in a timely manner, or we may fail technically to design and develop a prefilled syringe for KSI-301. If we require large volumes of glass vials, we may not be able to secure a sufficient supply due to COVID-19-related shortages of glass and vials. Any of these challenges could delay completion of clinical trials, require bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidate, impair commercialization efforts, increase our cost of goods, and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

If, in the future, we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties to sell and market any product candidates we may develop, we may not be successful in commercializing those product candidates if and when they are approved.

We do not have a sales or marketing infrastructure and have no experience in the sale, marketing or distribution of pharmaceutical products. To achieve commercial success for any approved product for which we retain sales and marketing responsibilities, we must either develop a sales and marketing organization or outsource these functions to third parties. In the future, we may choose to build a focused sales, marketing and commercial support infrastructure to sell, or participate in sales activities with our collaborators for, some of our product candidates if and when they are approved.

33

There are risks involved with both establishing our own commercial capabilities and entering into arrangements with third parties to perform these services. For example, recruiting and training a sales force or reimbursement specialists is expensive and time consuming and could delay any product launch. If the commercial launch of a product candidate for which we recruit a sales force and establish marketing and other commercialization capabilities is delayed or does not occur for any reason, we would have prematurely or unnecessarily incurred these commercialization expenses. This may be costly, and our investment would be lost if we cannot retain or reposition our commercialization personnel.

Factors that may inhibit our efforts to commercialize any approved product on our own include:

If we enter into arrangements with third parties to perform sales, marketing, commercial support and distribution services, our product revenue or the profitability of product revenue may be lower than if we were to market and sell any products we may develop ourselves. In addition, we may not be successful in entering into arrangements with third parties to commercialize our product candidates or may be unable to do so on terms that are favorable to us. We may have little control over such third parties, and any of them may fail to devote the necessary resources and attention to sell and market our products effectively. If we do not establish commercialization capabilities successfully, either on our own or in collaboration with third parties, we will not be successful in commercializing our product candidates if approved.

Even if any product candidates we develop receive marketing approval, they may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

The commercial success of any of our product candidates will depend upon its degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Even if any product candidates we may develop receive marketing approval, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, healthcare payors, and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidates we may develop, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

34

If any product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue, and we may not become profitable.

Even if we are able to commercialize any product candidates, such products may become subject to unfavorable pricing regulations, third-party reimbursement practices or healthcare reform initiatives, which would harm our business.

Drug pricing and access policies in the United States and internationally may change and negatively impact KSI-301’s commercial viability. Proposed policy changes, including the potential for Medicare to negotiate with drug manufacturers, may limit our ability to competitively price KSI-301, if approved. Further, commercial insurers may limit patient access to KSI-301, if approved and other branded therapies. The regulations that govern marketing approvals, pricing and reimbursement for new drugs vary widely from country to country. In the United States, recently enacted legislation may significantly change the approval requirements in ways that could involve additional costs and cause delays in obtaining approvals. Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we might obtain marketing approval for a product in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay our commercial launch of the product, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue we are able to generate from the sale of the product in that country. Adverse pricing limitations may hinder our ability to recoup our investment in one or more product candidates, even if any product candidates we may develop obtain marketing approval.

Our ability to successfully commercialize any products that we may develop also will depend in part on the extent to which reimbursement for these products and related treatments will be available from government health administration authorities, private health insurers, and other organizations. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which medications they will pay for and establish reimbursement levels. A primary trend in the U.S. healthcare industry and elsewhere is cost containment. Government authorities and third-party payors have attempted to control costs by limiting coverage and the amount of reimbursement for particular medications. Government authorities currently impose mandatory discounts for certain patient groups, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Affairs, or VA, hospitals, and may seek to increase such discounts at any time. Future regulation may negatively impact the price of our products, if approved. Increasingly, third-party payors are requiring that drug companies provide them with predetermined discounts from list prices and are challenging the prices charged for medical products. We cannot be sure that reimbursement will be available for any product candidate that we commercialize and, if reimbursement is available, that the level of reimbursement will be sufficient.

Reimbursement may impact the demand for, or the price of, any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In order to get reimbursement, physicians may need to show that patients have superior treatment outcomes with our products compared to standard of care drugs, including lower-priced generic versions of standard of care drugs. If reimbursement is not available or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any product candidate for which we obtain marketing approval. In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors and coverage and reimbursement levels 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 may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance.

35

There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the medicine is approved by the FDA, EMA, NMPA or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for reimbursement does not imply that any drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale, and distribution. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also not be sufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Third-party payors often rely upon Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement policies. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. Our inability to promptly obtain and maintain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products we may develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize product candidates, and our overall financial condition.

Our product candidates may face competition from biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with our product candidates sooner than anticipated.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The law is complex and is still being interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning are subject to uncertainty.

We believe that any of our product candidates approved as a biological product under a BLA should qualify for the 12-year period of exclusivity. However, there is a risk that this exclusivity could be shortened due to congressional action or otherwise, or that the FDA will not consider our product candidates to be reference products for competing products, potentially creating the opportunity for generic competition sooner than anticipated. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. Moreover, the extent to which a biosimilar, once approved, will be substituted for any one of our reference products in a way that is similar to traditional generic substitution for non-biological products is not yet clear, and will depend on a number of marketplace and regulatory factors that are still developing.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability as a result of the clinical testing of our product candidates and will face an even greater risk when and if we commercialize any products. For example, we may be sued if our product candidates cause or are perceived to cause injury or are 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 or a breach of warranties. 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 testing and commercialization of our product candidates. Even successful defense would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

36

Our inability to obtain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of products we develop, alone or with collaborators. Our insurance policies may have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We may 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 capital to pay such amounts. Even if our agreements with any future corporate collaborators entitle us to indemnification against losses, such indemnification may not be available or adequate should any claim arise.

Risks Related to Regulatory Approval and Other Legal Compliance Matters

The regulatory approval processes of the FDA, EMA, NMPA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities are lengthy, time consuming, and inherently unpredictable. If we are ultimately unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates, we will be unable to generate product revenue and our business will be substantially harmed.

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA, EMA, NMPA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities is unpredictable, typically takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and depends upon numerous factors, including the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. We have not submitted for or obtained regulatory approval for any product candidate, and it is possible that none of our existing product candidates or any product candidates we may seek to develop in the future will ever obtain regulatory approval.

Applications for our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including but not limited to the following:

This lengthy approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical trials, may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, results of operations, and prospects.

37

We plan to conduct clinical trials for our product candidates outside the United States (or the respective jurisdictions of other regulatory authorities), and the FDA, (or EMA, NMPA and applicable foreign regulatory authorities may not accept data from such trials.

We plan to conduct one or more of our clinical trials outside the United States, including Europe, China and other foreign countries. The acceptance of study data from global clinical trials by the FDA, EMA, NMPA or applicable foreign regulatory authority may be subject to certain conditions. In cases where data from foreign clinical trials are intended to serve as the basis for marketing approval in the United States, the FDA will generally not approve the application on the basis of foreign data alone unless (1) the data are applicable to the U.S. population and U.S. medical practice and (2) the trials were performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence and pursuant to cGCP regulations. Additionally, the FDA’s clinical trial requirements, including sufficient size of patient populations and statistical powering, must be met. Many foreign regulatory bodies have similar approval requirements. In addition, such foreign trials would be subject to the applicable local laws of the foreign jurisdictions where the trials are conducted. There can be no assurance that the FDA, EMA, NMPA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority will accept data from trials conducted outside of their respective jurisdiction. If the FDA, EMA, NMPA or any applicable foreign regulatory authority does not accept such data, it would result in the need for additional trials, which would be costly and time-consuming, would delay aspects of our business plan and which may result in our product candidates not receiving approval or clearance for commercialization in the applicable jurisdiction.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in other jurisdictions.

Obtaining and maintaining regulatory approval of our product candidates in one jurisdiction does not guarantee that we will be able to obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction, but 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, EMA or NMPA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, we would not be permitted to manufacture, market or promote the product candidate in other countries unless and until comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions had approved the candidate for use in their countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials. There can be no assurance that any clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction will be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions.

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 products in certain countries. If we or any collaborator we work with fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets or fail to receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate, our products will remain subject to extensive regulatory scrutiny.

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-market information, including both federal and state requirements in the United States and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive requirements imposed by the FDA, EMA, NMPA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, including ensuring that quality control and manufacturing procedures conform to cGMP regulations. As such, we and our contract manufacturers will be subject to continual review and inspections to assess compliance with cGMP and adherence to commitments made in any BLA or marketing authorization application, or MAA. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

38

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates will be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed and promoted or to the conditions of approval (including the requirement to implement a REMS), or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing. We will be required to report certain adverse reactions and production problems, if any, to the FDA, EMA, NMPA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization, or increased costs to assure compliance. The FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. We will have to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do not have approval. The holder of an approved BLA or MAA must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. We could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical trials to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets. If original marketing approval was obtained via the accelerated approval pathway, we could be required to conduct a successful post-marketing clinical trial to confirm clinical benefit for our products. An unsuccessful post-marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval.

If a regulatory agency discovers previously unknown problems with a product, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, or disagrees with the promotion, marketing or labeling of a product, such regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or us, including requiring withdrawal of the product from the market. If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, a regulatory agency or enforcement authority may, among other things:

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 products. If regulatory sanctions are applied or if regulatory approval is withdrawn, the value of our company and our operating results will be adversely affected.

Healthcare legislative measures aimed at reducing healthcare costs may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain international jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 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, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addressed a 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, increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, subjected manufacturers to annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

39

Since the ACA’s enactment, there have been numerous challenges to the ACA. For example, President Trump signed several Executive Orders and other directives designed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the ACA. Concurrently, Congress considered legislation that would repeal or repeal and replace all or part of the ACA. While Congress has not passed comprehensive repeal legislation, it has enacted laws that modify certain provisions of the ACA such as removing penalties, starting January 1, 2019, for not complying with the ACA’s individual mandate to carry health insurance and delaying the implementation of certain ACA-mandated fees. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on procedural grounds that argued that the ACA is unconstitutional in its entirety because the individual mandate was repealed by Congress. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, on January 28, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that initiated a special enrollment period for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA. It is possible that the ACA will be subject to judicial or Congressional challenges in the future. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the Biden administration will impact the ACA and our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect in 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, will remain in effect through 2031 unless additional Congressional action is taken. However, COVID-19 relief support legislation suspended the 2% Medicare sequester from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022. Under current legislation the actual reduction in Medicare payments will vary from 1% in 2022 to up to 3% in the final fiscal year of this sequester. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. Further, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap for single source and innovator multiple source drugs, beginning January 1, 2024. In addition, Congress is considering additional health reform measures, such as capping the costs for prescription drugs covered by Medicare Part D and by setting the annual out-of-pocket limit at $2,000 beginning in 2024, as part of other health reform initiatives.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. We cannot predict the initiatives that may be adopted in the future. The continuing efforts of the government, insurance companies, managed care organizations and other payors of healthcare services to contain or reduce costs of healthcare and/or impose price controls may adversely affect:

40

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny in the United States of pharmaceutical pricing practices in light of the rising cost of prescription drugs and biologics. Such scrutiny has resulted in several recent congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies. At the federal level, the Trump administration used several means to propose or implement drug pricing reform, including through federal budget proposals, executive orders and policy initiatives. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, the Trump administration announced several executive orders related to prescription drug pricing that attempt to implement several of the administration’s proposals. The FDA concurrently released a final rule and guidance in September 2020, implementing a portion of the importation executive order providing pathways for states to build and submit importation plans for drugs from Canada. Further, on November 20, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The implementation of the rule has been delayed by the Biden administration from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2023 in response to ongoing litigation. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers, the implementation of which have also been delayed until January 1, 2023. On November 20, 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, issued an interim final rule implementing President Trump’s Most Favored Nation, or MFN, executive order, which would tie Medicare Part B payments for certain physician-administered drugs to the lowest price paid in other economically advanced countries, effective January 1, 2021. As a result of litigation challenging the MFN Model, on December 27, 2021, CMS published a final rule that rescinded the MFN Model interim final rule. In July 2021, the Biden administration released an executive order, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” with multiple provisions aimed at prescription drugs. In response to Biden’s executive order, on September 9, 2021, HHS released a Comprehensive Plan for Addressing High Drug Prices that outlines principles for drug pricing reform and sets out a variety of potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue as well as potential administrative actions HHS can take to advance these principles. No legislation or administrative actions have been finalized to implement these principles. It is unclear whether these or similar policy initiatives will be implemented in the future. At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented 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.

We expect that the ACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, more rigorous coverage criteria, lower reimbursement and new payment methodologies. This could lower the price that we receive for any approved product. Any denial in coverage or reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar denial or reduction in payments from private payors, which may prevent us from being able to generate sufficient revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our product candidates, if approved. Further, it is possible that additional governmental action is taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements or insider trading violations, which could significantly harm our business.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud, misconduct or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the laws of the FDA, EMA, NMPA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA, EMA, NMPA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities; comply with manufacturing standards we have established; comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws in the United States and similar foreign fraudulent misconduct laws; or report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. If we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our potential exposure under such laws will increase significantly, and our costs associated with compliance with such laws are also likely to increase. In particular, research, sales, marketing, education and other business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws designed to prevent fraud, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, educating, marketing and promotion, sales and commission, certain customer incentive programs and other business arrangements generally. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of patient recruitment for clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of, including improper trading based upon, information obtained in the course of clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation.

41

We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics that applies to all our employees, including management, and our directors. However, it is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and third parties, 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 be in compliance with such laws. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

If we fail to comply with healthcare laws, we could face substantial penalties and our business, operations and financial conditions could be adversely affected.

Our current and future arrangements with healthcare providers, third-party payors, customers, and others may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we research, as well as, sell, market and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. The laws that may impact our operations include:

42

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could, despite our efforts to comply, be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements will comply with applicable healthcare laws may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental and enforcement authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law interpreting applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, imprisonment, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. In addition, the approval and commercialization of any of our product candidates outside the United States will also likely subject us to foreign equivalents of the healthcare laws mentioned above, among other foreign laws.

Our business is subject to complex and evolving U.S. and foreign laws and regulations relating to privacy and data protection. These laws and regulations are subject to change and uncertain interpretation, and could result in claims, changes to our business practices, or monetary penalties, and otherwise may harm our business.

A wide variety of provincial, state, national, and foreign laws and regulations, as well as policies, contracts and other obligations apply to the collection, use, retention, protection, disclosure and transfer of personal data. These data protection and privacy-related laws and regulations are evolving and may result in ever-increasing regulatory and public scrutiny and escalating levels of enforcement and sanctions.

For example, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, which took effect on May 25, 2018, imposes stringent data protection requirements and provides for material penalties for noncompliance. The GDPR applies to processing operations carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment in the European Economic Area, or EEA, and any processing relating to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA and/or the monitoring of their behavior in the EEA. Also, notwithstanding the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, by operation of the so-called UK GDPR, the GDPR continues to apply in substantially equivalent form to processing operations carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment in the United Kingdom and any processing relating to the offering of goods or services to individuals in the United Kingdom and/or monitoring of their behavior in the United Kingdom—so, when we refer to the GDPR in this section, we are also making reference to the UK GDPR in the context of the United Kingdom, unless the context requires otherwise. These laws may apply in the context of our processing of personal data related to the conduct of clinical trials in the EEA and/or UK.

The GDPR requires organizations to give detailed disclosures about how they collect, use and share personal information; in certain cases, obtain explicit consent to process special categories of personal data, such as the health or genetic information referred to above; contractually require vendors to meet data protection requirements; maintain adequate data security measures; notify regulators and affected individuals of certain data breaches; meet extensive privacy governance and documentation requirements; and honor individuals’ data protection rights, including their rights to access, correct and delete their personal information.

43

European data protection laws, including the GDPR, also restrict transfers of personal data from Europe, including the EEA, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, to the United States and most other countries unless the parties to the transfer have implemented specific safeguards to protect the transferred personal data. One of the primary safeguards that allowed U.S. companies to import personal data from Europe had been certification to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield frameworks administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. However, the Court of Justice of the European Union, or CJEU, adopted a decision in July 2020 that invalidated the EU U.S. Privacy Shield. Following this decision, the United Kingdom government has similarly invalidated use of the EU U.S. Privacy Shield as a mechanism for lawful personal data transfers from the United Kingdom to the United States under the UK GDPR; and the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner announced that the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield does not provide adequate safeguards for the purposes of personal data transfers from Switzerland to the United States. The CJEU’s decision in this case also raised questions about whether one of the primary alternatives to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, namely, the European Commission’s Standard Contractual Clauses, can lawfully be used for personal data transfers from Europe to the United States or other third countries that are not the subject of an adequacy decision of the European Commission. While the CJEU upheld the adequacy of the Standard Contractual Clauses in principle, it made clear that reliance on the Standard Contractual Clauses alone may not necessarily be sufficient in all circumstances. Despite updated forms of the Standard Contractual Clauses having been issued by the European Commission following this case, use of the Standard Contractual Clauses must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the context of any given transfer, where the legal regime applicable in the destination country may or does conflict with the intended operation of the Standard Contractual Clauses and/or applicable European data protection laws, the CJEU’s decision in this case, subsequent guidance from the European Data Protection Board, or EDPB, and those updated Standard Contractual Clauses, would require the parties to that transfer to implement supplementary technical, organizational and/or contractual measures in order to rely on the Standard Contractual Clauses as a compliant ‘transfer mechanism.’ However, the EDPB draft guidance appears to conclude that no combination of supplementary measures could be sufficient to allow effective reliance on the Standard Contractual Clauses in the context of transfers of personal data ‘in the clear’ to recipients in countries where the power granted to public authorities to access the transferred personal data goes beyond that which is ‘necessary and proportionate in a democratic society’ – which may, following the CJEU’s conclusions in this case on relevant powers of United States public authorities and commentary in that EDPB guidance, include the United States in certain circumstances. At present, there are few, if any, viable alternatives to the Standard Contractual Clauses.

On June 28, 2021, the European Commission issued an adequacy decision under the GDPR which allows transfers (other than those carried out for the purposes of United Kingdom immigration control) of personal data from the EEA to the United Kingdom to continue without restriction for a period of four years ending June 27, 2025. After that period, the adequacy decision may be renewed only if the United Kingdom continues to ensure an adequate level of data protection. During these four years, the European Commission will continue to monitor the legal situation in the United Kingdom and could intervene at any point if the United Kingdom deviates from the level of data protection in place at the time of issuance of the adequacy decision. If the adequacy decision is withdrawn or not renewed, transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United Kingdom will require a valid ‘transfer mechanism’ and we may be required to implement new processes and put new agreements in place, such as Standard Contractual Clauses, to enable transfers of personal data from the EEA to the United Kingdom to continue, which could disrupt our operations.

If we are unable to implement a valid solution for personal data transfers from Europe, including, for example, obtaining individuals’ explicit consent to transfer their personal data from Europe to the United States or other countries, we will face increased exposure to regulatory actions, substantial fines and injunctions against processing personal data from Europe. Inability to import personal data from Europe, including the EEA, United Kingdom or Switzerland, may also (i) restrict our activities in Europe; (ii) limit our ability to collaborate with partners as well as other service providers, contractors and other companies subject to European data protection laws; or (iii) require us to increase our data processing capabilities in Europe at significant expense or otherwise cause us to change the geographical location or segregation of our relevant systems and operations—any or all of which could adversely affect our financial results.

Additionally, other countries outside of Europe have enacted or are considering enacting similar cross-border data transfer restrictions and laws requiring local data residency, which could increase the cost and complexity of operating our business. The type of challenges we face in Europe will likely also arise in other jurisdictions that adopt laws similar in construction to the GDPR or regulatory frameworks of equivalent complexity.

44

As noted above, the GDPR also provides for more robust regulatory enforcement and greater penalties for noncompliance than previously applicable data protection laws, including fines of up to €20 million or 4% of an undertaking’s total worldwide annual turnover for the preceding financial year, whichever is higher. In addition to administrative fines, supervisory authorities have extensive audit and inspection rights, and powers to order temporary or permanent bans on all or some processing of personal data carried out by noncompliant actors. The GDPR also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associations to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. Additionally, as noted above, the United Kingdom has transposed the GDPR into the laws of the United Kingdom, which could expose us to two parallel regimes, each of which potentially authorizes similar fines, with the UK GDPR permitting fines of up to the higher of £17.5 million or 4% of global annual revenue of any noncompliant organizations for the preceding financial year, as well as other potentially divergent enforcement actions for certain violations.

Privacy laws in the U.S. are also increasingly complex and changing rapidly. For example, the California legislature enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, which took effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA requires covered companies to provide new disclosures to California residents, and honor their requests to access, delete and opt-out of certain sharing of their personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations. Since the enactment of the CCPA, new privacy and data security laws have been proposed in more than half of the states and in the U.S. Congress, reflecting a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the U.S. The CCPA itself will expand substantially as a result of California voters approving a November 2020 ballot measure that adopted the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, or CPRA, which will, among other things, create a new administrative agency to implement and enforce California’s privacy laws effective January 1, 2023. While certain clinical trial activities are exempt from the CCPA’s requirements, other personal information that we handle may be subject to the CCPA, which may increase our compliance costs, exposure to regulatory enforcement action and other liabilities.

The GDPR, CCPA and many other laws and regulations relating to privacy and data protection are still being tested in courts, and they are subject to new and differing interpretations by courts and regulatory officials. We are working to comply with the privacy and data protection laws and regulations that apply to us, and we anticipate needing to devote significant additional resources to complying with these laws and regulations. It is possible that the GDPR, CCPA or other laws and regulations relating to privacy and data protection may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction or inconsistent with our current policies and practices.

Our actual or perceived failure to adequately comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, contracts and other obligations relating to privacy and data protection, or to protect personal data and other data we process or maintain, could result in regulatory fines and bans on processing personal information, investigations and enforcement actions, penalties and other liabilities, interruptions to our development process, claims for damages by affected individuals, and damage to our reputation, any of which could materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

If we or any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage fail to comply with environmental, health, and safety laws and regulations, we could become subject to fines or penalties or incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

We and any contract manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health, and safety laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination or injury from these materials. In the event of contamination or injury resulting from our use of hazardous materials, we could be held liable for any resulting damages, and any liability could exceed our resources. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. We also could incur significant costs associated with civil or criminal fines and penalties.

Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and current or future environmental laws and regulations may impair our research, product development and manufacturing efforts. In addition, we cannot entirely eliminate the risk of accidental injury or contamination from these materials or wastes. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not carry specific biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage, and our property, casualty, and general liability insurance policies specifically exclude coverage for damages and fines arising from biological or hazardous waste exposure or contamination. Accordingly, in the event of contamination or injury, we could be held liable for damages or be penalized with fines in an amount exceeding our resources, and our clinical trials or regulatory approvals could be suspended, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

45

Our business activities may be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, and similar anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws.

Our business activities may be subject to the FCPA and similar anti-bribery or anti-corruption laws, regulations or rules of other countries in which we operate or may operate in the future, including the UK Bribery Act. The FCPA generally prohibits offering, promising, giving or authorizing others to give anything of value, either directly or indirectly, to a non-U.S. government official in order to influence official action, or otherwise obtain or retain business. The FCPA also requires public companies to make and keep books and records that accurately and fairly reflect the transactions of the corporation and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls. Our business is heavily regulated and therefore involves significant interaction with public officials, including officials of non-U.S. governments. Additionally, in many other countries, the health care providers who prescribe pharmaceuticals are employed by their government, and the purchasers of pharmaceuticals are government entities; therefore, our dealings with these prescribers and purchasers are subject to regulation under the FCPA. Recently the SEC and Department of Justice have increased their FCPA enforcement activities with respect to biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. There can be no assurance that all of our employees, agents, contractors or collaborators, or those of our affiliates, will comply with all applicable laws and regulations, particularly given the high level of complexity of these laws. Violations of these laws and regulations could result in fines, criminal sanctions against us, our officers, or our employees, the closing down of our facilities, requirements to obtain export licenses, cessation of business activities in sanctioned countries, implementation of compliance programs and prohibitions on the conduct of our business. Any such violations could include prohibitions on our ability to offer our products in one or more countries and could materially damage our reputation, our brand, our ability to attract and retain employees, and our business, prospects, operating results, and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials and some aspects of our research and preclinical testing, and those third parties may not perform satisfactorily, including failing to meet deadlines for the completion of such trials, research or testing.

We currently rely and expect to continue to rely on third parties, such as CROs, clinical data management organizations, medical institutions and clinical investigators, to conduct some aspects of our research, preclinical testing and clinical trials. Any of these third parties may terminate their engagements with us or be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it would delay our product development activities.

Our reliance on these third parties for research and development activities reduces our control over these activities, but does not relieve us of our responsibilities. For example, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the general investigational plan and protocols for the trial. Moreover, the FDA requires us to comply with cGCPs for conducting, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials to assure that data and reported results are credible, reproducible and accurate and that the rights, integrity and confidentiality of trial participants are protected. We are also required to register ongoing clinical trials and to post the results of completed clinical trials on a government-sponsored database within certain timeframes. Failure to do so can result in fines, adverse publicity and civil and criminal sanctions.

If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our clinical trials in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated protocols, we will not be able to obtain, or may be delayed in obtaining, marketing approvals for any product candidates we may develop and will not be able to, or may be delayed in our efforts to, successfully commercialize our medicines.

We also expect to rely on other third parties to store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. Any performance failure on the part of our distributors could delay clinical development or marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop or commercialization of our medicines, producing additional losses and depriving us of potential product revenue.

We contract with third parties for the manufacture of materials for our product candidates and preclinical studies and clinical trials and for commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. This reliance on third parties carries and may increase the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of such materials, product candidates or any medicines that we may develop and commercialize, or that such supply will not be available to us at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not have any manufacturing facilities. We currently rely exclusively on a third-party manufacturer, Lonza AG, for the manufacture of our materials for preclinical studies and clinical trials and expect to continue to do so for preclinical studies, clinical trials and for commercial supply of any product candidates that we may develop.

46

We may be unable to establish any further agreements with third-party manufacturers or to do so on acceptable terms. Even if we are able to establish agreements with third-party manufacturers, reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including:

Third-party manufacturers may not be able to comply with cGMP regulations or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in clinical holds on our trials, sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocations, seizures or recalls of product candidates or medicines, operating restrictions, and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our medicines and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Any medicines that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us.

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply for any of our product candidates. If any one of our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace that manufacturer and may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement. Furthermore, securing and reserving production capacity with contract manufacturers may result in significant costs.

Our current and anticipated future reliance upon others for the manufacture of any product candidates we may develop or medicines may adversely affect our future profit margins and our ability to commercialize any medicines that receive marketing approval on a timely and competitive basis.

Reliance on third parties requires us to share our trade secrets, which increases the possibility that a competitor will discover them or that our trade secrets will be misappropriated or disclosed.

Reliance on third parties to conduct clinical trials, assist in research and development and to manufacture our product candidates, will at times require us to share trade secrets with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology by in part entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our advisors, employees, third-party contractors and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information, including our trade secrets. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others, or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know-how and trade secrets, a competitor’s independent discovery of our trade secrets or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business.

We rely on third-party suppliers for key raw materials used in our manufacturing processes, and the loss of these third-party suppliers or their inability to supply us with adequate raw materials could harm our business.

We rely on third-party suppliers for the raw materials required for the production of our product candidates. Our reliance on these third-party suppliers and the challenges we may face in obtaining adequate supplies of raw materials involve several risks, including limited control over pricing, availability, quality and delivery schedules. As a small company, our negotiation leverage is limited and we are likely to get lower priority than our competitors who are larger than we are. We cannot be certain that our suppliers will continue to provide us with the quantities of these raw materials that we require or satisfy our anticipated specifications and quality requirements. Any supply interruption in limited or sole sourced raw materials could materially harm our ability to manufacture our product candidates until a new source of supply, if any, could be identified and qualified. We may be unable to find a sufficient alternative supply channel in a reasonable time or on commercially reasonable terms. Any performance failure on the part of our suppliers could delay the development and potential commercialization of our product candidates, including limiting supplies necessary for clinical trials and regulatory approvals, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.

47

We may depend on collaborations with third parties for the research, development and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we may develop. If any such collaborations are not successful, we may not be able to realize the market potential of those product candidates.

We may seek third-party collaborators for the research, development and commercialization of certain of the product candidates we may develop. Our likely collaborators for any other collaboration arrangements include large and mid-size pharmaceutical companies, regional and national pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and academic institutions. If we enter into any such arrangements with any third parties, we will likely have shared or limited control over the amount and timing of resources that our collaborators dedicate to the development or potential commercialization of any product candidates we may seek to develop with them. Our ability to generate revenue from these arrangements with commercial entities will depend on our collaborators’ abilities to successfully perform the functions assigned to them in these arrangements. We cannot predict the success of any collaboration that we enter into.

Collaborations involving our product candidates we may develop, pose the following risks to us:

48

We may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborations. Recent business combinations among biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies have resulted in a reduced number of potential collaborators. In addition, the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to negotiate collaborations on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all. If we are unable to do so, we may have to curtail the development of the product candidate for which we are seeking to collaborate or delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to increase our expenditures to fund development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we do not have sufficient funds, we may not be able to further develop product candidates or bring them to market and generate product revenue.

If we enter into collaborations to develop and potentially commercialize any product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we or our collaborator elect not to exercise the rights granted under the agreement or if we or our collaborator are unable to successfully integrate a product candidate into existing operations and company culture. In addition, if our agreement with any of our collaborators terminates, our access to technology and intellectual property licensed to us by that collaborator may be restricted or terminate entirely, which may delay our continued development of our product candidates utilizing the collaborator’s technology or intellectual property or require us to stop development of those product candidates completely. We may also find it more difficult to find a suitable replacement collaborator or attract new collaborators, and our development programs may be delayed or the perception of us in the business and financial communities could be adversely affected. Any collaborator may also be subject to many of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval, and commercialization described in this “Risk Factors” section, and any negative impact on our collaborators may adversely affect us.

49

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for any product candidates we develop or for our ABC Platform, our competitors could develop and commercialize products or technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize any product candidates we may develop, and our technology may be adversely affected.

Our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the United States and other countries with respect to our ABC Platform and any proprietary product candidates and other technologies we may develop. We seek to protect our proprietary position by in-licensing intellectual property and filing patent applications in the United States and abroad relating to our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies that are important to our business. Given that the development of our technology and product candidates is at an early stage, our intellectual property portfolio directed to certain aspects of our technology and product candidates is also at an early stage. We have filed or intend to file patent applications on core aspects of our technology and product candidates; however, there can be no assurance that any such patent applications will issue as granted patents. Furthermore, in some cases, we only have filed provisional patent applications on certain aspects of our technology and product candidates, and none of these provisional patent applications is eligible to become an issued patent until, among other things, we file a non-provisional patent application within 12 months of the filing date of the applicable provisional patent application. Any failure to file a non-provisional patent application within this timeline could cause us to lose the ability to obtain patent protection for the inventions disclosed in the associated provisional patent applications. Furthermore, in some cases, we may not be able to obtain issued claims covering compositions relating to our ABC Platform and product candidates, as well as other technologies that are important to our business, and instead may need to rely on filing patent applications with claims covering a method of use and/or method of manufacture for protection of such ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies. There can be no assurance that any such patent applications will issue as granted patents, and even if they do issue, such patent claims may be insufficient to prevent third parties, such as our competitors, from utilizing our technology. Any failure to obtain or maintain patent protection with respect to our ABC Platform and product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

If any of our patent applications does not issue as a patent in any jurisdiction, we may not be able to compete effectively.

Changes in either the patent laws or their interpretation in the United States and other countries may diminish our ability to protect our inventions, and obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights and, more generally, could affect the value of our intellectual property or narrow the scope of our owned and licensed patents. We cannot predict whether the patent applications we are currently pursuing will issue as patents in any particular jurisdiction or whether the claims of any issued patents will provide sufficient protection from competitors or other third parties.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output in time to obtain patent protection. Although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to confidential or patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. In addition, our ability to obtain and maintain valid and enforceable patents depends on whether the differences between our inventions and the prior art allow our inventions to be patentable over the prior art. In addition, our own fixed applications may become prior art against our current or future patent applications. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, and in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

If the scope of any patent protection we obtain is not sufficiently broad, or if we lose any of our patent protection, our ability to prevent our competitors from commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates would be adversely affected.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies or that effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates.

50

Moreover, the coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. Even if patent applications we license or own currently or in the future issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Any patents may be challenged, narrowed, circumvented, rendered unenforceable or invalidated by third parties. Consequently, we do not know whether our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies will be protectable or remain protected by valid and enforceable patents. Our competitors or other third parties may be able to circumvent our patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. We may be subject to a third party preissuance submission of prior art to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or become involved in opposition, derivation, revocation, reexamination, post-grant and inter partes review, or interference proceedings or other similar proceedings challenging our patent rights. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate or render unenforceable, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to manufacture or commercialize products without infringing third-party patent rights. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the USPTO to determine priority of invention or in post-grant challenge proceedings, such as oppositions and other challenges in a foreign patent office or administrative tribunal, that challenge our or our licensor’s priority of invention or other features of patentability with respect to our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications. Such challenges may result in loss of patent rights, loss of exclusivity, or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated, or held unenforceable, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and products, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies. Such proceedings also may result in substantial cost and require significant time from our scientists and management, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us.

In addition, given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. As a result, our intellectual property may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents relating to our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and the laws of foreign countries may not protect our rights to the same extent as U.S. laws. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products, 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, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology products, which could make it difficult, costly or impossible for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property and proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our intellectual property and proprietary 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, could put 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 and proprietary rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Many countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. 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.

51

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on patents and applications will be due to be paid to the USPTO and various government patent agencies outside of the United States over the lifetime of our owned or licensed patents and applications. The USPTO and various non-U.S. government agencies require compliance with several procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. In some cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. Payment within these late fee windows may be employed in order to simplify the payment of these fees generally. There are situations, however, in which non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in a partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, potential competitors might be able to enter the market with similar or identical products or technology, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, while not relevant for KSI-301, if we rely on a different product, its development could involve the use of government funds, which can require additional compliance aspects to make certain all rights are transferred to or remain with us.

Issued patents may be challenged or invalidated, and recent changes in U.S. patent law have diminished and may further diminish the value of patents in general. We rely on patents to protect our products, and any diminishment in the scope or value of our patents would adversely affect our business.

If we initiated legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed to our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies, the defendant could allege that such patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include alleged failures to meet any of several statutory requirements, including obviousness, lack of novelty, lack of written description, or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability challenge include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld material information from the USPTO with an intent to deceive the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The filing of a legal proceeding could also result in the third party challenging the patent at the USPTO, such as in post-grant and inter partes review.

Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents. For patent filings beginning in March 2013, the United States employs a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. Under the current patent laws, a third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (1) file any patent application related to our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies or (2) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

Changes to U.S. patent laws since 2011 also include allowing third party submissions of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution and additional procedures for attacking the validity of a patent through USPTO administered post-grant proceedings, including re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, interference proceedings and derivation proceedings. Some of these changes apply to patents issued prior to 2011. These and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings) could result in the revocation of, cancellation of or amendment to our patents in such a way that they no longer cover our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standards applied in United States federal courts that apply to actions seeking to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if challenged in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not otherwise have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.

As compared to intellectual property-reliant companies generally, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. These rulings have created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, even once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

52

In addition, the patent positions of companies in the development and commercialization of biologics and pharmaceuticals are particularly uncertain. Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. This combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity and enforceability of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that could have a material adverse effect on our existing patent portfolio and our ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property in the future.

Any future changes to patent laws could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our owned or in-licensed patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our owned or in-licensed issued patents. If a third party were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies. Increased uncertainty with respect to, or loss of, patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we do not obtain patent term extension and data exclusivity for any product candidates we may develop, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of any FDA marketing approval of any product candidates we may develop, one or more of our owned or in-licensed U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A 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 may be extended and only those claims covering the approved drug, a method for using it, or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Similar extensions as compensation for patent term lost during regulatory review processes are also available in certain foreign countries and territories, such as in Europe under a Supplementary Patent Certificate. Patent term extension in the United States and/or foreign countries and territories may not be available if, among other things, 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 the expiration of relevant patents, or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension received is shorter than what we request, our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship 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 owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor or owner or co-owner. For example, we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of employees, collaborators, consultants or others who are involved in developing our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or our ownership of our owned or in-licensed patents, trade secrets or other intellectual property. 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, intellectual property that is important to our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies. 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. Any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our trade secrets, our business and competitive position would be harmed.

In addition to seeking patents for our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies, we also rely on trade secrets and confidentiality agreements to protect our unpatented know-how, technology and other proprietary information and to maintain our competitive position. Trade secrets and know-how can be difficult to protect. Over time, we expect our trade secrets and know-how to be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles describing the methodology and the movement of personnel from academic to industry scientific positions.

53

We seek to protect these trade secrets and other proprietary technology, in part, by entering into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to them, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into confidentiality and invention or patent assignment agreements with our employees and consultants, train our employees not to bring or use proprietary information or technology from former employers to us or in their work and remind former employees when they leave their employment of their confidentiality obligations to us. We cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes. Despite our efforts, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to contain such breaches or disclosures or 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. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed without the protection of a confidentiality agreement found unenforceable by relevant courts or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, our competitive position would be materially and adversely harmed.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or advisors have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their current or former employers or claims asserting ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Many of our employees, consultants and advisors are currently or were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors and potential competitors. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and advisors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or these individuals have improperly used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such individual’s current or former employer. 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 or personnel. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees 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. The assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing, or the assignment agreements may be breached, and 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. Such claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Where post-filing date patent assignments are not executed by an inventor, it is our practice to employ and record the assignment provision that can be found in the employee’s employment agreement. This is done when possible, and when the intellectual property is of interest to us.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, misappropriation or other violation against us or our collaborators may prevent or delay the development and commercialization of our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies.

The field of discovering treatments for retinal diseases is highly competitive and dynamic. Due to the focused research and development that is taking place in this field by several companies, including us and our competitors, the intellectual property landscape is in flux, and it may remain uncertain in the future. As such, there may be significant intellectual property related litigation and proceedings relating to our owned, and other third party, intellectual property and proprietary rights in the future.

Our commercial success depends in part on our and our collaborators’ ability to avoid infringing, misappropriating and otherwise violating the patents and other intellectual property rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of complex litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, as well as administrative proceedings challenging patents, including interference, derivation and reexamination proceedings before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. As discussed above, due to changes in U.S. law referred to as patent reform, new procedures including inter partes review and post-grant review have been implemented. As stated above, this reform adds uncertainty to the possibility of challenge to our patents in the future.

54

Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications owned by third parties exist relating to ABC technology and in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies may give rise to claims of infringement of the patent rights of others. We cannot assure you that our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies that we have developed, are developing or may develop in the future will not infringe existing or future patents owned by third parties. We may not be aware of patents that have already been issued or that a third party, including a competitor in the fields in which we are developing our ABC Platform, product candidates and other technologies, might assert are infringed by our current or future ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies. Such a dispute may concern claims to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods of use or treatment that cover our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies. It is also possible that patents owned by third parties of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies, could be found to be infringed by our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies. In addition, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that later result in issued patents that our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies may infringe.

Third parties may have patents or obtain patents in the future and claim that the manufacture, use or sale of our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies infringes these patents. If a third party alleges that we infringe their patents or that we are otherwise employing their proprietary technology without authorization and initiates litigation against us, a court of competent jurisdiction could hold that such patents are valid, enforceable and infringed by our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies, even if we believe such claims are without merit. In that event, the successful plaintiff may be able to impede our ability to commercialize the applicable product candidate or technology unless we obtain a license under the applicable patents, or such patents expire or are finally determined to be invalid or unenforceable. Such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license would likely obligate us to pay license fees, royalties or both. Any license granted to us might be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, we may be unable to commercialize our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies, or our commercialization efforts may be significantly delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business.

We are aware of a number of patents and applications that are directed to one or more aspects of KSI-301. Our intent is to maintain our development efforts under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(e)(1) (which provides a safe harbor from patent infringement claims related to certain drug development activities) through to at least the launch of any KSI-301 product. As such, we do not intend to launch KSI-301 when any valid patent is still in force. We are aware of at least one pending application with claims that are directed to some aspect of KSI-301, and that could, if issued, result in a patent term beyond our intended launch date of KSI-301. If this were to occur, we may challenge the validity of the claims, obtain a license, modify KSI-301, or delay launch.

If we choose to further the pipeline and develop a different product, such a product would be delayed until the expiration of any valid patent that is still in force on such product. Alternatively, our options for addressing any such patents relating to these non-KSI-301 products would include the following: challenge the validity of the claims, obtain a license, or modify the non-KSI-301 product.

Defending against infringement claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense, would be a substantial diversion of management and other employee resources from our business and may adversely impact our reputation. We may be subject to an injunction that prevents or delays us from commercializing our ABC Platform technology, product candidates or other technologies during ongoing litigation even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation proceedings or the litigation is settled in our favor. We may be subject to an injunction that prevents or delays us from commercializing our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies during ongoing litigation even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation proceedings or the litigation is settled in our favor. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may be enjoined from further developing or commercializing our infringing ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies. In addition, we may have to pay substantial damages (including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement) obtain one or more licenses from third parties, pay royalties and/or redesign our infringing product candidates or technologies, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. If we were unable to further develop and commercialize our ABC Platform, product candidates or other technologies, it would harm our business significantly.

Engaging in litigation to defend against third parties alleging that we have infringed, misappropriated or otherwise violated their patents or other intellectual property rights is very expensive, particularly for a company of our size, and time-consuming. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of litigation or administrative proceedings more effectively than we can because of greater financial resources. Patent litigation and other proceedings may also absorb significant management time. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings against us could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace. The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

55

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and other intellectual property rights, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensing partners, or we may be required to defend against claims of infringement. If we assert our intellectual property against others, it could increase the likelihood that our patents or the patents of our licensing partners become involved in inventorship, priority or validity disputes. As discussed above, countering or defending against such claims can be expensive and time consuming. In an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent owned or in-licensed by us is invalid or unenforceable, the other party’s use of our patented technology falls under the safe harbor to patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1), or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our owned and in-licensed patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation proceeding could put one or more of our owned or in-licensed patents at risk of being invalidated, rendered unenforceable or interpreted narrowly. 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.

Even if we prevail in asserting our intellectual property, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to intellectual property claims may cause us to incur significant expenses and could distract our 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 substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or 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 or to assert all claims we believe to be viable. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources and more mature and developed intellectual property portfolios. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our ability to compete in the marketplace.

If our trademarks and trade names are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected.

We rely on trademarks, service marks, tradenames and brand names. We cannot assure you that our trademark applications will be approved. During trademark registration proceedings, we may receive rejections. Although we are given an opportunity to respond to those rejections, we may be unable to overcome such rejections. In addition, any registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names that we currently have or may in the future acquire may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential partners or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors or other third parties may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other registered trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. We own a registered trademark for the mark “KODIAK” and “KODIAK SCIENCES” in the United States. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We engage a third party watching service to monitor use by third parties of names that are identical or similar to our name. We have identified at least two companies that are using names that we continue to monitor. We have sent cease and desist letters to two companies and filed a trademark opposition proceeding against one company. If we deem it appropriate, we may decide to take further action with respect to those companies. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Intellectual property rights do not necessarily address all potential threats.

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:

56

Should any of these events occur, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Operations

We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting, motivating and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Developing and commercializing new medicines is a challenging exercise and requires diverse expertise in a variety of scientific, clinical, manufacturing, commercial, financial, people and legal functions. Failure to adequately develop these functions will hurt our ability to compete effectively.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, particularly our Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Victor Perlroth, and our scientific and medical personnel. The loss of the services provided by any of our executive officers, other key employees, and other scientific and medical advisors, and our inability to find suitable replacements, could result in delays in the development of our product candidates and harm our business.

We conduct our U.S. operations at our facilities in Palo Alto, California, in a region that is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel is intense and the turnover rate can be high, which may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all. We expect that we may need to recruit talent from outside of our region and doing so may be costly and difficult.

To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided restricted stock and stock option grants, including early exercise stock options exercisable for restricted stock that vest over time. The value to employees of these equity grants that vest over time may be significantly affected by movements in our stock price that are beyond our control and may at any time be insufficient to counteract more lucrative offers from other companies. Although we have employment agreements with our key employees, these employment agreements provide for at-will employment, which means that any of our employees could leave our employment at any time, with or without notice. We do not maintain “key man” insurance policies on the lives of all of these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. If we are unable to attract, incentivize and retain quality personnel on acceptable terms, or at all, it may cause our business and operating results to suffer.

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

As of December 31, 2021, we had 93 employees, all of whom were full-time. As our development plans and strategies develop, and as we continue operating as a public company, we must add a significant number of additional managerial, operational, financial and other personnel. Future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:

57

Our future financial performance and our ability to continue to develop and, if approved, commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth. Our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to manage these growth activities.

We currently rely, and for the foreseeable future will continue to rely, in substantial part on certain independent organizations, advisors and consultants to provide certain services. There can be no assurance that the services of these independent organizations, advisors and consultants will continue to be available to us on a timely basis when needed, or that we can find qualified replacements. In addition, if we are unable to effectively manage our outsourced activities or if the quality or accuracy of the services provided by consultants is compromised for any reason, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed, or terminated, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates or otherwise advance our business. There can be no assurance that we will be able to manage our existing consultants or find other competent outside contractors and consultants on economically reasonable terms, if at all.

If we are not able to effectively expand our organization by hiring new employees and expanding our groups of consultants and contractors, we may not be able to successfully implement the tasks necessary to further develop our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development, and commercialization goals.

If we engage in acquisitions, in-licensing or strategic partnerships, this may increase our capital requirements, dilute our stockholders, cause us to incur debt or assume contingent liabilities and subject us to other risks.

We may engage in various acquisitions and strategic partnerships in the future, including licensing or acquiring complementary products, intellectual property rights, technologies or businesses. Any acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

In addition, if we undertake such a transaction, we may incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense.

58

If our security measures, or those maintained on our behalf by CROs, service providers or other third parties, are compromised now, or in the future, or the security, confidentiality, integrity or availability of our information technology, software, services, networks, communications or data is compromised, limited or fails, this could result in significant fines or other liability, interrupt our development programs, harm our reputation, or otherwise adversely affect our business.

In the course of our business, we collect, store and transmit proprietary, confidential and sensitive information, including personal information. The information and data processed and stored in our technology systems, and those of our research collaborators, CROs, contractors, consultants, and other third parties on which we depend to operate our business, may be vulnerable to security breaches, loss, damage, corruption, unauthorized access, use or disclosure, or misappropriation. Such incidents may also result from errors or malfeasance by our personnel or the personnel of the third parties with which we work, malware, viruses, software vulnerabilities, hacking, denial of service attacks, social engineering (including phishing), ransomware, credential stuffing or other cyberattacks, including attacks by state-sponsored organizations or sophisticated groups of hackers.

While we have developed systems and processes designed to protect the integrity, confidentiality and security of the confidential and personal information under our control, we cannot assure you that our security measures or those of the third parties we depend on will be effective in preventing cybersecurity incidents. There are many different and rapidly evolving cybercrime and hacking techniques, and we may be unable to anticipate attempted security breaches, identify them before our information is exploited, or react in a timely manner.

Additionally, as a result of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, certain employees remain in a remote work environment and outside of our corporate network security protection boundaries, which imposes additional risks to our business, including increased risk of industrial espionage, phishing and other cybersecurity attacks, and unauthorized dissemination of proprietary or confidential information, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may be required to expend significant resources, fundamentally change our business activities and practices, or modify our operations, including our clinical trial activities, or information technology in an effort to protect against security breaches and to mitigate, detect and remediate actual or potential vulnerabilities. Although to our knowledge, we have not experienced a material system failure or cybersecurity incident to date, if such an event were to occur, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed, ongoing or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on third-party research institution collaborators, CROs, other contractors and consultants for many aspects of our business, including research and development activities and manufacturing of our product candidates, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business.

Cybersecurity incidents and any unauthorized access or disclosure of our information or intellectual property could also compromise our intellectual property, expose sensitive business information, expose the personal information of our employees, require us to incur significant remediation costs, disrupt key business operations and divert attention of management and key information technology resources. Such incidents could also subject us to significant liability, harm our competitive position and delay the further development and commercialization of our product candidates.

Additionally, applicable data protection requirements, including, without limitation, laws, regulations, guidance as well as our internal and external policies and our contractual obligations, may require us to notify relevant stakeholders of security breaches, including affected individuals, partners, collaborators, regulators, law enforcement agencies, and others. Such disclosures are costly, and the disclosure or the failure to comply with such requirements could lead to litigation or other liability, fines, harm to our reputation, significant costs, or other materially adverse effects. Any limitations or exclusions of liability in our contracts may not be enforceable or adequate or protect us from liability or damages.

Our insurance coverage may not be adequate for cybersecurity liabilities, may not continue to be available to us on economically reasonable terms, or at all, and insurers could deny coverage as to any future claim. The successful assertion of one or more large claims against us that exceed available insurance coverage, or the occurrence of changes in our insurance policies, including premium increases or the imposition of large deductible or co-insurance requirements, could adversely affect our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

59

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our CROs, CMOs, suppliers, and other contractors and consultants, could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are partly uninsured. In addition, we rely on our third-party research institution collaborators for conducting research and development of our product candidates, and they may be affected by government shutdowns or withdrawn funding. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. For example, in connection to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the various 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 adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations by limiting our ability to manufacture product, forcing temporary closure of facilities that we rely upon or increasing the costs associated with obtaining clinical supplies of our product candidates. The extent to which the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic impacts our results will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be accurately predicted, including new information which may emerge concerning the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and the actions to contain the coronavirus or treat its impact, among others.

Our operations are located at facilities in Palo Alto, California and Switzerland. Damage or extended periods of interruption to our corporate, development or research facilities due to fire, natural disaster, power loss, communications failure, unauthorized entry or other events could cause us to cease or delay development of some or all of our product candidates. Although we maintain property damage and business interruption insurance coverage on these facilities, our insurance might not cover all losses under such circumstances and our business may be seriously harmed by such delays and interruption.

We implemented a new enterprise resource planning, or ERP, system as well as other systems as part of our ongoing technology and process improvements. Our ERP system is critical to our ability to accurately maintain books and records and prepare our financial statements. If we encounter unforeseen problems with our ERP system or other systems and infrastructure, our business, operations, and financial results could be adversely affected.

Our business is subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. Some of our suppliers and collaborative relationships are located outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

60

Following the result of a referendum in 2016, the United Kingdom, or UK, left the European Union, or EU, on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit. Pursuant to the formal withdrawal arrangements agreed between the UK and the EU, the UK was subject to a transition period until December 31, 2020, or the Transition Period, during which EU rules continued to apply. A trade and cooperation agreement, or the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, that outlines the future trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union applied provisionally from January 1, 2021, and formally entered into force on May 1, 2021.

Since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework in the UK, is derived from EU directives and regulations, Brexit may have a material impact upon the regulatory regime applicable to our operations, including with respect to our ability to obtain regulatory approvals of our product candidates in the EU. For example, Great Britain is no longer covered by the centralized procedures for obtaining EU-wide marketing authorization from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and a separate marketing authorization will be required to market our product candidates in Great Britain. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any marketing approvals, would restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability.

While the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides for the tariff-free trade of medicinal products between the UK and the EU there are additional non-tariff costs to such trade which did not exist prior to the end of the Transition Period. Further, should the UK diverge from the EU from a regulatory perspective in relation to medicinal products, tariffs could be put into place in the future. We could therefore, both now and in the future, face significant additional expenses (when compared to the position prior to the end of the Transition Period) to operate our business, which could significantly and materially harm or delay our ability to generate revenues or achieve profitability of our business. Any further changes in international trade, tariff and import/export regulations as a result of Brexit or otherwise may impose unexpected duty costs or other non-tariff barriers on us. These developments, or the perception that any of them could occur, may significantly reduce global trade and, in particular, trade between the impacted nations and the UK It is also possible that Brexit may negatively affect our ability to attract and retain employees, particularly those from the EU.

These and other risks associated with our planned international operations may materially adversely affect our ability to attain profitable operations.

Our business is currently affected and could be materially and adversely affected in the future by the effects of disease outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics, including the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact our business and could materially and adversely affect our operations, as well as the business or operations of our manufacturers, CROs or other third parties with whom we conduct business.

Our business could be materially and adversely affected by health epidemics in regions where we have concentrations of clinical trial sites or other business operations and could cause significant disruption in the operations of third-party manufacturers and CROs upon whom we rely. For example, in March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. In response, we delayed initiation of the next set of KSI-301 pivotal studies by one quarter from June to September 2020 in order to assess how best to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on clinical trial conduct. We implemented and continue to implement various enhancements into our ongoing study execution to help ensure the safety of patients, physicians, study site staff and Kodiak operations team members during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of remote study monitoring.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold and we will continue to monitor our operations in response. We continue to observe government recommendations. Quarantines for COVID-19 or other viruses could impact personnel at third party manufacturing facilities, or the availability or cost of materials, which would disrupt our supply chain. While many of these materials may be obtained by more than one supplier, port closures and other restrictions resulting from the coronavirus outbreak in the region may disrupt our supply chain or limit our ability to obtain sufficient materials for our drug products. As we work towards commercial scale-up and manufacturing activities to support BLA submission, there is increasing competition with COVID-19 vaccine and therapeutic programs for manufacturing related (i) materials such as resins, filters, sterile tubesets, pipette tips; (ii) personnel such as facility engineering and construction as well as plant engineers and workers; and (iii) production slots in cGMP facilities.

61

In addition, our current and future clinical trials may be materially and adversely affected by the COVID-19 outbreak in the future. Site initiation and patient enrollment may be further delayed due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the COVID-19 outbreak. Some patients may not be able to comply with clinical trial protocols if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Our ability to recruit and retain patients and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, and may adversely impact our clinical trial operations. Kodiak staff and/or our CRO partners may not be able to travel to study sites, impacting further site initiations and in-person monitoring of study data quality. Other Kodiak vendors on whom we depend, such as supply chain and logistics partners and our image reading centers may be disrupted, and our operations could be affected. Our clinical studies enroll patients who have underlying risk factors such as advanced age, hypertension and/or diabetes which could lead to higher than expected study discontinuation rates and/or missed visit rates if these patients are adversely affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. To date, we continue to see low levels of patient missed visits. Additionally, the pandemic could result in delayed recruitment in some or all of our clinical studies that are currently recruiting patients, for example if as a consequence of the pandemic patients are not willing to be seen by their physician as frequently as our study protocols require.

The global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to rapidly evolve. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 outbreak or a similar health epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change.

The extent to which the risks and evolving effects of the COVID-19 pandemic impact our business and our clinical development and regulatory efforts will depend on future developments that are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate duration and severity of the pandemic, government actions, such as travel restrictions, quarantines and social distancing requirements, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and in other countries to contain and treat the disease, including the effectiveness and timing of vaccine programs in the United States and worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic may also have the effect of heightening many of the other risks described in this “Risk Factors” section.

Our ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

As of December 31, 2021, the Company had $57.5 million of federal and $395.4 million of state net operating loss, or NOLs, that may be available to offset future taxable income. A portion of the federal NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2035 and the state NOL carryforwards begin to expire in 2035, if not utilized. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50-percentage-point cumulative change (by value) in the equity ownership of certain stockholders over a rolling three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change NOL carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change taxable income or taxes may be limited. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership, some of which are outside our control. As a result, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset post-change taxable income or taxes may be subject to limitation.

The Tax Act, as modified by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) enacted in March 2020, among other things, includes changes to U.S. federal tax rates and the rules governing NOL carryforwards. Federal NOLs arising in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017 are permitted to be carried forward indefinitely, but carryback of such NOLs is generally permitted to the prior five taxable years only for NOLs arising in taxable years beginning before 2021. In addition, under the Tax Act, as modified by the CARES Act, the deductibility of federal NOLs incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 is limited in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020. For state income tax purposes, there may be periods during which the use of net operating loss carryforwards is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. For example, California imposed temporary limits on the usability of California state net operating losses and certain tax credits to offset California taxable income and taxes. The new limitations on use of NOLs may significantly impact our ability to utilize our NOLs to offset taxable income in the future.

62

Changes in tax laws or regulations that are applied adversely to us or our customers may have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations.

New income, sales, use or other tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be enacted at any time, which could adversely affect our business operations and financial performance. Further, existing tax laws, statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances could be interpreted, changed, modified or applied adversely to us. For example, the Tax Act enacted many significant changes to the U.S. tax laws. Future guidance from the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities with respect to the Tax Act may affect us, and certain aspects of the Tax Act could be repealed or modified in future legislation. For example, the CARES Act, modified certain provisions of the Tax Act and proposals have recently been made in Congress (which have not yet been enacted) to make tax law changes that could have a material adverse impact on us. In addition, it is uncertain if and to what extent various states will conform to the Tax Act, the CARES Act or any newly enacted federal tax legislation. Changes in corporate tax rates, the realization of net deferred tax assets relating to our operations, the taxation of foreign earnings, and the deductibility of expenses under the Tax Act or future reform legislation could have a material impact on the value of our net deferred tax assets, could result in significant one-time charges, and could increase our future U.S. tax expense.

Risks Related to Our Business, Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We are in the clinical stage of drug development and have a very limited operating history and no products approved for commercial sale, which may make it difficult to evaluate our current business and predict our future success and viability.

We are a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company committed to researching, developing and commercializing transformative therapeutics to treat high prevalence retinal diseases. We commenced operations in June 2009, have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue. Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. Except for KSI-301, we have not initiated clinical trials for any of our other product candidates. To date, we have not completed a pivotal clinical trial, obtained marketing approval for any product candidates, manufactured a commercial scale product, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful product commercialization. Our limited operating history as a company and early stage of drug development make any assessment of our future success and viability subject to significant uncertainty. We will encounter risks and difficulties frequently experienced by early-stage biopharmaceutical companies in rapidly evolving fields, and we have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome such risks and difficulties. If we do not address these risks and difficulties successfully, our business will suffer.

We have incurred significant net losses in each period since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant and increasing net losses for the foreseeable future.

We have incurred net losses in each reporting period since our inception, including net losses of $267.0 million, $133.1 million and $47.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $558.2 million.

We have invested significant financial resources in research and development activities, including for our product candidates and our ABC Platform. We do not expect to generate revenue from product sales for several years, if at all. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the level of our future expenditures and our ability to generate revenue. Moreover, our net losses may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter and year to year, such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance.

We expect to continue to incur significant and increasingly higher expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future. We anticipate that our expenses will increase substantially if and as we:

63

Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital. In any particular quarter or quarters, our operating results could be below the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Drug development is a highly uncertain undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We have never generated any revenue from product sales, and we may never generate revenue or be profitable.

We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. We do not anticipate generating any revenue from product sales until after we have successfully completed clinical development and received regulatory approval for the commercial sale of a product candidate, if ever.

Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends significantly on many factors, including:

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with drug development, we are unable to predict the timing or amount of our expenses, or when we will be able to generate any meaningful revenue or achieve or maintain profitability, if ever. In addition, our expenses could increase beyond our current expectations if we are required by the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies, to perform studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate, or if there are any delays in any of our or our future collaborators’ clinical trials or the development of any of our product candidates. Even if one or more of our product candidates is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate and ongoing compliance efforts.

64

Even if we are able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable, and we will need to obtain additional funding through one or more debt or equity financings in order to continue operations. Revenue from the sale of any product candidate for which regulatory approval is obtained will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the accepted price for the product, the ability to get reimbursement at any price and whether we own the commercial rights for that territory. If the number of addressable patients is not as significant as we anticipate, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect, or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Our failure to become and remain profitable could decrease the value of our company and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, maintain our research and development efforts, diversify our pipeline of product candidates or continue our operations and cause a decline in the value of our common stock, all or any of which may adversely affect our viability.

If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and, if approved, commercialization of our product candidates.

Our operations have required substantial amounts of cash since inception. To date, we have funded our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities. Developing our product candidates is expensive, and we expect to continue to increase our spending as we conduct the Phase 3 clinical trials for our KSI-301 product candidate. Even if we are successful in developing our product candidates, obtaining regulatory approvals and launching and commercializing any product candidate will require substantial additional funding.

Our estimate as to how long we expect our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities to be available to fund our operations is based on assumptions that may prove inaccurate, and we could deplete our available capital resources sooner than we currently expect. In addition, changing circumstances may cause us to increase our spending significantly faster than we currently anticipate, and we may need to spend more money than currently expected because of circumstances beyond our control. We may need to raise additional funds sooner than we anticipate if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate.

We will require additional capital for the further development and, if approved, commercialization of our product candidates. Additional capital may not be available when we need it, on terms acceptable to us or at all. For example, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted world financial markets, negatively impacted US market conditions, increased the volatility of trading prices for biopharmaceutical companies, and may reduce opportunities for us to seek out additional funding when needed. We currently have no committed source of additional capital. If adequate capital is not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue our research and development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates, if approved, or be unable to continue or expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our business, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our product candidates, and depending on our ability to access capital, we must prioritize development of certain product candidates. Moreover, we may expend our limited resources on product candidates that do not yield a successful product and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Due to the significant resources required for the development of our product candidates, we must decide which product candidates and indications to pursue and advance and the amount of resources to allocate to each. Our decisions concerning the allocation of research, development, collaboration, management and financial resources toward particular product candidates or therapeutic areas may not lead to the development of any viable commercial product and may divert resources away from better opportunities. Similarly, our potential decisions to delay, terminate or collaborate with third parties in respect of certain product candidates 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 product candidates or misread trends in the biopharmaceutical industry, in particular for retinal diseases, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. As a result, we may fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities, be required to forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product 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 product 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 sole development and commercialization rights.

65

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock may be volatile, which could result in substantial losses for investors purchasing shares.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile. For example, the closing price of our common stock from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021 ranged from a low of $77.20 to a high of $164.47 and from January 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022 ranged from a low of $8.82 to a high of $89.45. As a result, you may not be able to sell your common stock at or above the price that you paid for such shares. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate include:

In recent years, the stock market in general, and the market for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in particular, has experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to changes in the operating performance of the companies whose stock is experiencing those price and volume fluctuations. Broad market and industry factors may seriously affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. Following periods of such volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been brought against that company. Because of the potential volatility of our stock price, we may become the target of securities litigation in the future. Securities litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management’s attention and resources from our business.

66

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

We will seek additional capital through one or a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances or licensing arrangements. We, and indirectly, our stockholders, will bear the cost of issuing and servicing such securities. Because our decision to issue debt or equity securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of any future offerings. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. Additionally, any future collaborations we enter into with third parties may provide capital in the near term but limit our potential cash flow and revenue in the future. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies or product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us.

Our principal stockholders own a significant percentage of our common stock, which could limit your ability to affect the outcome of key transactions, including a change of control.

Our directors, executive officers, significant holders of outstanding common stock and their respective affiliates beneficially own a significant amount of our common stock. As a result, these stockholders, if they act together, will be able to influence our management and affairs and all matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company and might affect the market price of our common stock.

Delaware law and provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws might discourage, delay, or prevent a change in control of our company or changes in our management and, therefore, depress the trading price of our common stock.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage, delay, or prevent a merger, acquisition, or other change in control that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares of our common stock. These provisions may also prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our management. Therefore, these provisions could adversely affect the price of our common stock. Among other things, our charter documents:

In addition, Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, or DGCL, prohibits a publicly-held Delaware corporation from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder, generally a person which together with its affiliates owns, or within the last three years has owned, 15% of our voting stock, for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person became an interested stockholder, unless the business combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Any provision of our certificate of incorporation, bylaws, or Delaware law that has the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control could limit the opportunity for our stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of our capital stock and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock.

67

Our bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the federal district courts of the United States of America will be the exclusive forums for substantially all disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or employees.

Our bylaws provide that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will be the exclusive forum for:

Our bylaws further provide that the U.S. federal district courts will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

These exclusive-forum provisions may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers, or other employees, which may discourage lawsuits against us and our directors, officers, and other employees. If a court were to find either exclusive-forum provision in our bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving the dispute in other jurisdictions, which could seriously harm our business. Our bylaws further provide that unless we otherwise consent in writing, the U.S. federal district courts will be the exclusive forum for resolving any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act. While the Delaware courts have determined that such choice of forum provisions are facially valid, a stockholder may nevertheless seek to bring a claim in a venue other than those designated in the exclusive forum provisions. In such instance, we would expect to vigorously assert the validity and enforceability of the exclusive forum provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation. This may require significant additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions and there can be no assurance that the provisions will be enforced by a court in those other jurisdictions.

General Risk Factors

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they publish negative evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will rely in part on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts covering our business downgrade their evaluations of our stock, the price of our stock could decline. If one or more of these analysts cease to cover our stock, we could lose visibility in the market for our stock, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

Future sales of our common stock in the public market could cause our share price to decline, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales might occur, could depress the market price of our common stock and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. We are unable to predict the effect that sales, particularly sales by our directors, executive officers and significant stockholders, may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock. All of our outstanding shares of common stock are available for sale in the public market, subject only to the restrictions of Rule 144 under the Securities Act in the case of our affiliates. In addition, the shares of common stock subject to outstanding options under our equity incentive plans and the shares reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plans, as well as shares issuable upon vesting of restricted stock unit awards, will become eligible for sale in the public market in the future, subject to certain legal and contractual limitations. In addition, certain holders of our common stock have the right, subject to various conditions and limitations, to request we include their shares of our common stock in registration statements we may file relating to our securities. If any of these additional shares are sold, or if it is perceived that they will be sold, in the public market, the market price of our common stock could decline.

68

A failure to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting could result in material misstatements of our financial statements in future periods and may impair our ability to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements applicable to public companies. Furthermore, our business, financial position, and results of operations could be adversely affected.

As a public company, we are subject to reporting and other obligations under the Exchange Act, including the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") Section 404, which require annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to determine that our internal control over financial reporting is effective are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation to meet the detailed standards under the rules. During the course of its testing, our management may identify material weaknesses or deficiencies which may not be remedied in time to meet the deadline imposed by SOX. These reporting and other obligations place significant demands on our management and administrative and operational resources, including accounting resources.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of annual or interim consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Any failure to maintain effective internal controls could also have an adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

69

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Our corporate offices are located in Palo Alto, California, where we lease approximately 155,000 square feet of office, research and development, engineering and laboratory space pursuant to lease agreements commending in June 2020. The initial lease term for 1200 Page Mill Road is 6.5 years and 13 years for 1250 Page Mill Road.

We continue to lease office and laboratory space at 2631 Hanover Street in Palo Alto, California, which commenced in January 2013. In March 2016, we executed a third lease amendment agreement that became effective March 31, 2016 and extended the lease term until October 31, 2023. The facilities in Palo Alto, California houses substantially all of our personnel.

In April 2020, we entered into a lease agreement for office and laboratory space at Rottenstrasse 5 in Visp, Switzerland. The space is approximately 1,000 square meters. The initial lease term is 5 years, with automatic renewals every 5 years for a maximum lease term of 15 years.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings at this time. From time to time, we may be subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe we are party to any claim or litigation the outcome of which, if determined adversely to us, would individually or in the aggregate be reasonably expected to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

None.

70

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Market under the trading symbol “KOD”.

Holders of Common Stock

As of February 18, 2022, there were approximately 22 holders of record of our common stock. The approximate number of holders is based upon the actual number of holders registered in our records at such date and excludes holders in “street name” or persons, partnerships, associations, corporations, or other entities identified in security positions listings maintained by depository trust companies.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchases

None.

ITEM 6. RESERVED

Not applicable.

71

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion and analysis and other parts of this Annual Report on Form 10-K contain forward-looking statements based upon current beliefs, plans and expectations related to future events and our future financial performance that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, such as statements regarding our intentions, plans, objectives, expectations, forecasts and projections. Our actual results and the timing of selected events could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of several factors, including those set forth under the section titled “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Overview

Kodiak Sciences (we or the Company) is a biopharmaceutical company committed to researching, developing and commercializing transformative therapeutics to treat high prevalence retinal diseases in the United States and additional international markets. We are bringing new science to the design and development of next generation retinal medicines. Our ABC PlatformTM uses molecular engineering to merge the fields of antibody-based and chemistry-based therapies and is at the core of Kodiak’s discovery engine. Our lead product candidate, KSI-301, is a novel anti-VEGF antibody biopolymer conjugate being investigated in multiple pivotal studies in retinal vascular diseases including wAMD, DME, RVO and non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Our hope with KSI-301 is to meaningfully extend treatment intervals for all patients with retinal vascular diseases. Our pipeline, including product candidates KSI-501 and KSI-601, aims to bring a similar ethos of drug development to other unmet needs in retina such as dry AMD and glaucoma.

Our goal is to prevent and treat the major causes of blindness by developing next-generation therapeutics for chronic, high-prevalence retinal diseases. Our overall objective is to develop our product candidates, seek FDA and worldwide health authority marketing authorization approvals, and ultimately commercialize our product candidates.
 

KSI-301 Phase 2b/3 Pivotal Study in Wet AMD Top-line Readout

We recently announced top-line results from our randomized, double-masked, active comparator-controlled Phase 2b/3 clinical trial evaluating the efficacy, durability and safety of KSI-301, a novel antibody biopolymer conjugate, in treatment-naïve subjects with neovascular (wet) age-related macular degeneration (“wet AMD”).

The trial randomized 559 participants, approximately 80% of whom were enrolled in the United States. The study had two treatment arms: KSI-301 5mg on a flexible long-interval regimen and aflibercept 2mg on a fixed short-interval regimen. In the study, three monthly loading doses were administered to all subjects at 0-, 4- and 8-weeks. Subjects on aflibercept were then treated at fixed two month intervals. Subjects on KSI-301 were assessed starting three months after the completion of the loading phase (i.e. beginning at 20 weeks) and, based on predefined disease activity criteria, were treated every three-, four-, or five-months. As a result, patients in the KSI-301 group did not receive dosing more frequently than every three months at any point in the study after the loading phase. The primary endpoint of the study was the average change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) score (a measure of the best vision a person can achieve when reading letters on an eye chart, including with correction such as glasses) from baseline at year one. For the assessment of the primary efficacy endpoint, KSI-301 patients in all three groups (dosed every three, four or five months) were pooled together and their BCVA was compared as a group to the aflibercept group (dosed every two months).

The results show that KSI-301 did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of showing non-inferior visual acuity gains for subjects dosed on extended regimens compared to aflibercept given every eight weeks.

A pre-specified secondary analysis at year 1 assessing durability showed 59% of patients in the KSI-301 arm achieved five-month dosing with visual acuity gains and anatomic improvements comparable to the overall aflibercept group.

KSI-301 was well-tolerated in the study, with no new safety signals identified.

Intraocular inflammation occurred in 3.2% of KSI-301 treated patients as compared to 0.0% of patients treated with aflibercept. Recent wet AMD studies have reported intraocular inflammation rates with aflibercept of 1–4.5%. In all cases reported in the Phase 2b/3 study, the clinical finding of inflammation resolved, and no cases of intraocular inflammation with vascular occlusions were observed. We believe that these safety data coupled with the safety observations across the ongoing Phase 3 studies continue to suggest a safety profile for KSI-301 comparable to today’s existing standard of care agents.

72

We believe allowing treatment with KSI-301 no more often than every twelve weeks after the loading phase for every patient was insufficient. Nonetheless, we believe the results demonstrate a clear anti-VEGF effect, strong durability and a reassuring safety profile. We believe these data continue to support the potential of KSI-301 and our ABC Platform to significantly extend treatment intervals in retinal disorders in a safe and convenient manner.

KSI-301 Regulatory Plan and Outlook

If successful, we intend to include data from the BEACON, GLEAM/GLIMMER, and DAYLIGHT studies in a single initial BLA, and would seek labeling at launch that is supportive of a range of dosing intervals. We continue to expect that data from our GLEAM and GLIMMER studies will serve as the primary basis for our anticipated BLA submission in DME. Data from our BEACON study is intended to serve as the basis for our anticipated BLA submission in RVO. In wet AMD, we believe that the DAYLIGHT study may clarify the ability of KSI-301 when dosed more frequently to effectively treat a broader population of patients with wet AMD. If successful, we believe that data from our DAYLIGHT study could form the basis of our anticipated BLA submission in wet AMD, with monthly dosing. We believe that, over time, we may be able to generate additional data to support longer-interval dosing in wet AMD in certain patient populations. We are not planning for results of the GLOW study to be included in our initial BLA filing, given our expectations for a longer recruitment timeframe. We may include the results of the GLOW study in NPDR without DME in a supplemental BLA following our planned initial BLA submission.
 

Financial Operations Overview

Since inception in June 2009, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to discovering and developing product candidates and manufacturing processes, building our ABC Platform and assembling our core capabilities in drug development for ophthalmic disease. We plan to continue to use third-party contract research organizations, or CROs, to carry out our preclinical and clinical development. We rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to manufacture and supply our preclinical and clinical materials to be used during the development of our product candidates. We are evaluating investments in commercial manufacturing capacity. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any product revenue since inception.

We have funded our operations primarily through the sale and issuance of equity securities. In October 2018, we completed our initial public offering, or IPO. In December 2019, we completed a follow-on offering. In November 2020, we completed a second follow-on offering.

We have incurred significant operating losses to date and expect that our operating losses will increase significantly as we advance our product candidates, particularly KSI-301, through preclinical and clinical development, seek regulatory approval, prepare for and, if approved, proceed to commercialization; broaden and improve our platform; acquire, discover, validate and develop additional product candidates; obtain, maintain, protect and enforce our intellectual property portfolio; and hire additional personnel. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. Our net loss was $267.0 million, $133.1 million and $47.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $558.2 million.

Our ability to generate product revenue will depend on the successful development and eventual commercialization of one or more of our product candidates. Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from sales of our product candidates, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through the sale of equity, debt financings or other capital sources, including potential collaborations with other companies or other strategic transactions. Adequate funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise capital or enter into such agreements as, and when, needed, we may have to significantly delay, scale back, or discontinue the development and commercialization of KSI-301 for wet AMD, RVO, DME or NPDR or delay our efforts to advance and expand our product pipeline.

In November 2020, we filed an automatic shelf registration statement (File No. 333-250109), which became effective upon filing. The shelf registration statement allows us to issue certain securities, including shares of our common stock, from time to time. In November 2020, we completed a follow-on offering pursuant to the automatic shelf registration and issued and sold 5,972,222 shares of common stock, including the underwriters’ full exercise of their over-allotment option, at a price to the public of $108.00 per share under our shelf registration statement. The gross proceeds from this offering were $645.0 million, resulting in aggregate net proceeds of $612.0 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $731.5 million.

73

Components of Operating Results

Operating Expenses

Research and Development Expenses

Substantially all of our research and development expenses consist of expenses incurred in connection with the development of our ABC Platform and product candidates. These expenses include certain payroll and personnel expenses, including stock-based compensation, for our research and product development employees; laboratory supplies and facility costs; consulting costs; contract manufacturing and fees paid to CROs to conduct certain research and development activities on our behalf; and allocated overhead, including rent, equipment, depreciation and utilities. We expense both internal and external research and development expenses as they are incurred. Costs of certain activities, such as manufacturing and preclinical and clinical studies, are generally recognized based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks. Nonrefundable payments made prior to the receipt of goods or services that will be used or rendered for future research and development activities are deferred and capitalized. The capitalized amounts are recognized as expense as the goods are delivered or the related services are performed.

We are focusing substantially all of our resources and development efforts on the development of our product candidates, in particular KSI-301. We expect our research and development expenses to increase substantially during the next few years as we conduct our Phase 3 clinical studies, complete our clinical program, pursue regulatory approval of our drug candidates and prepare for a possible commercial launch. Predicting the timing or the final cost to complete our clinical program or validation of our commercial manufacturing and supply processes is difficult and delays may occur because of many factors, including factors outside of our control. For example, if the FDA or other regulatory authorities were to require us to conduct clinical trials beyond those that we currently anticipate, or if we experience significant delays in enrollment in any of our clinical trials, we could be required to expend significant additional financial resources and time on the completion of clinical development. Furthermore, we are unable to predict when or if our drug candidates will receive regulatory approval with any certainty.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist principally of payroll and personnel expenses, including stock-based compensation; professional fees for legal, consulting, accounting and tax services; allocated overhead, including rent, equipment, depreciation and utilities; and other general operating expenses not otherwise classified as research and development expenses.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase as a result of increased personnel costs, including stock-based compensation, expanded infrastructure and higher consulting, legal and accounting services associated with maintaining compliance with requirements of the stock exchange listing and Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, investor relations costs and director and officer insurance premiums associated with being a public company.

Interest Income

Interest income consists primarily of interest income earned on our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net consists primarily of tax provisions and amortized issuance costs from the liability related to the future sale of royalties to BBA in 2019, net of accretion income and amortization expense on marketable debt securities.

74

Results of Operations

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the periods indicated (in thousands, except percentages) :

* Percentage is not meaningful

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses increased $110.0 million, or 102%, during the year ended December 31, 2020 as compared to the year ended December 31, 2021.

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses for the periods indicated (in thousands):

KSI-301 program expenses increased $79.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020. The increase was primarily due to clinical trial costs to support ongoing trials, as well as manufacturing progress for KSI-301. We initiated two pivotal Phase 3 clinical studies in DME (GLEAM and GLIMMER) and one pivotal Phase 3 clinical study in RVO (BEACON) in the third quarter of 2020. In June 2021, we randomized the first patients into an additional Phase 3 study in wet AMD (DAYLIGHT) designed to broaden KSI-301’s product labeling.

KSI-501 program expenses increased $3.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020, primarily due to increased research and development activities for KSI-501.

ABC Platform external expenses increased $4.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020. The increase was primarily driven by manufacturing runs to support our product candidate pipeline.

Payroll and personnel expenses increased $20.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020, due to increased headcount and stock-based compensation expense. We recorded an incremental stock-based compensation expense of $8.3 million relating to the long-term performance incentive plan program in the fourth quarter of 2021. Furthermore, the research and development headcount increased 38% during the year ended December 31, 2021.

Facilities and other research and development expenses increased $3.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020, primarily due to lease costs for our Palo Alto and Switzerland facilities expansion.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses increased $21.1 million, or 74%, during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020, primarily driven by increased headcount and stock-based compensation expense, professional services related to consulting, legal and accounting, and lease costs for Palo Alto facilities expansion. We recorded an incremental stock-based compensation expense of $5.9 million relating to the long-term performance incentive plan program in the fourth quarter of 2021.

75

Interest Income

Interest income decreased $2.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020, which was mainly attributable to interest income earned on increased cash equivalent balances from our follow-on offering in December 2019 and November 2020.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net decreased $0.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2021 as compared to 2020, which was mainly attributable to issuance costs from the liability related to the future sale of royalties to BBA in December 2019.

Liquidity and Capital Resources; Plan of Operations

Sources of Liquidity

We have funded our operations primarily through the sale and issuance of common stock, redeemable convertible preferred stock, convertible notes and warrants. As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $731.5 million.

Follow-On Offering

In December 2019, we completed a follow-on offering pursuant to the shelf registration on Form S-3 and issued and sold 6,900,000 shares of common stock at a price to the public of $46.00 per share. The gross proceeds from this offering were $317.4 million, resulting in aggregate net proceeds of $297.6 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs payable by us.

In November 2020, we completed a follow-on offering pursuant to the shelf registration on Form S-3 and issued and sold 5,972,222 shares of common stock at a price to the public of $108.00 per share. The gross proceeds from this offering were $645.0 million, resulting in aggregate net proceeds of $612.0 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs.

Future Funding Requirements

We have incurred net losses since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020 and 2019, we had net losses of $267.0 million, $133.1 million, and $47.4 million, respectively, and we expect to continue to incur additional losses in future periods. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $558.2 million.

We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could deplete our available capital resources sooner than we expect. Because of the risks and uncertainties associated with research, development and commercialization of product candidates, we are unable to estimate the exact amount of our working capital requirements. Our future funding requirements will depend on and could increase significantly as a result of many factors.

To date, we have not generated any product revenue. We do not expect to generate any product revenue unless and until we obtain regulatory approval of and commercialize any of our product candidates or enter into collaborative agreements with third parties, and we do not know when, or if, either will occur. We expect to continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect our losses to increase as we continue the development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, and begin to commercialize any approved products. We are subject to all of the risks typically related to the development of new product candidates, and we may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. Moreover, we expect to continue incurring additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

76

We have based these estimates on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could deplete our capital resources sooner than we expect. The timing and amount of our operating expenditures and capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

A change in the outcome of any of these or other variables with respect to the development of any of our product candidates could significantly change the costs and timing associated with the development of that product candidate. Furthermore, our operating plans may change in the future, and we will continue to require additional capital to meet operational needs and capital requirements associated with such operating plans. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience dilution. Any future debt financing into which we enter may impose upon us additional covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, repurchase our common stock, make certain investments and engage in certain merger, consolidation or asset sale transactions. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, reduce, or terminate some or all of our development programs and clinical trials. We may also be required to sell or license rights to our product candidates in certain territories or indications to others that we would prefer to develop and commercialize ourselves.

The significant uncertainties caused by the evolving effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may also negatively impact our operations and capital resources. We and our key clinical and manufacturing partners have been able to continue to advance our operations, and we continue to monitor the impact of COVID-19 on our ability to continue the development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, and begin to commercialize any approved products. This pandemic may ultimately have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and operating plans, although we are unable to make any prediction with certainty given the spread and rapidly changing nature of the pandemic and the evolving global actions taken to contain and treat the novel coronavirus.

Adequate additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed could have a negative impact on our financial condition and our ability to pursue our business strategies. See the section titled “Risk Factors” for additional risks associated with our substantial capital requirements.

Summary Statement of Cash Flows

The following table sets forth the primary sources and uses of cash for each of the periods presented below:

77

Cash Flows from Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was $182.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021. Cash used in operating activities was primarily driven by the increase in net loss during this period due to increased payroll and personnel expenses and manufacturing and clinical trial costs to support overall growth. Cash used in operating activities was also driven by changes in operating assets and liabilities.

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities was $38.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and primarily related to deposit on manufacturing equipment, as well as purchases of property and equipment.

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities was $8.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2021, which consisted primarily due to the proceeds from stock option exercises and proceeds from issuances of common stock pursuant to employee stock purchase plans.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

Operating Leases

Operating lease payments represent our commitment for future minimum rent made under non-cancelable leases for our corporate offices in Palo Alto, California, and office and laboratory space in Visp, Switzerland. The total future payments for our operating lease obligations as of December 31, 2021 is $123.7 million, of which $7.3 million is due in the next twelve months.

Embedded Lease

Embedded lease payment represent our commitment for future minimum payment made under the manufacturing agreement with Lonza Ltd. for the clinical and commercial supply of drug substance in a custom-built manufacturing facility. The total future payments relating to our embedded lease, including capital contribution payments, as of December 31, 2021 is approximately 189.5 million Swiss Francs, of which 53.0 million Swiss Francs is expected to be due in the next twelve months.

Manufacturing Agreements

The Company has entered into service and equipment purchase agreements in the normal course of business with various providers, which can contain minimum commitments or other noncancelable obligations. As of December 31, 2021, the total amount of contractual obligations related to these manufacturing agreements that are subject to cancellation fees, including accrued amounts, was $69.5 million, of which $59.7 million is expected to be due in the next twelve months.

For further information on our leases and manufacturing agreements, refer to Note 7 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Clinical Agreements

The Company may incur potential contingent payments upon our achievement of clinical, regulatory and commercial milestones, as applicable. Due to the uncertainty of the achievement and timing of the events requiring payment under these agreements, the amount to be paid by us are not fixed or determinable at this time.

Critical Accounting Policies, Significant Judgments and Use of Estimates

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, as well as the reported expenses incurred during the reporting periods. The impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve. Our estimates are based on our historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We believe that the accounting policies discussed below are critical to understanding our historical and future performance, as these policies relate to the more significant areas involving management’s judgments and estimates.

78

Accrued Research and Development

Our accrued research and development costs are estimated based on the level of services performed, including the phase or completion of events, and contracted costs. Accrued clinical trial and related costs are estimated using data such as patient enrollment, clinical site activations or information provided by outside service providers regarding their actual costs incurred. Management determined accrual estimates through reports from and discussions with clinical personnel and outside service providers as to the progress of trials, or the services completed. The estimated costs of research and development provided, but not yet invoiced, are included in accrued liabilities and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from the original estimates, we will adjust the accrual accordingly. Payments made to third parties under these arrangements in advance of the performance of the related services are recorded as prepaid expenses and other assets until the services are rendered.

Stock-Based Compensation Expense

We measure and recognize compensation expense for all stock‑based awards made to employees, directors and non‑employees, based on estimated fair values of the awards on the grant date and recognized using the straight‑line method over the requisite service period.

The fair value of options is estimated on the grant date using the Black‑Scholes option valuation model or Monte Carlo simulation model. The calculation of stock‑based compensation expense requires that we make certain assumptions and judgments about a number of complex and subjective variables used in the valuation model, including the expected term, expected volatility of the underlying common stock and risk‑free interest rate. Our stock-based awards are subject to either service, performance-based or market-based vesting conditions. We evaluate whether achievement of the performance conditions is probable and record expense over the appropriate service period based on this assessment.

Changes in these assumptions can materially affect the fair value and ultimately how much stock-based compensation expense is recognized. These inputs are subjective and generally require significant analysis and judgment to develop.

Income Taxes

We provide for income taxes under the asset and liability method. Current income tax expense or benefit represents the amount of income taxes expected to be payable or refundable for the current year. Deferred income tax assets and liabilities are determined based on differences between the financial statement reporting and tax bases of assets and liabilities and net operating loss, or NOLs, and credit carryforwards, and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when such items are expected to reverse. Deferred income tax assets are reduced, as necessary, by a valuation allowance when management determines it is more likely than not that some or all of the tax benefits will not be realized.

We assess all material positions taken in any income tax return, including all significant uncertain positions, in all tax years that are still subject to assessment or challenge by relevant taxing authorities. Assessing an uncertain tax position begins with the initial determination of the position’s sustainability and is measured at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than fifty percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement.

As of each balance sheet date, unresolved uncertain tax positions must be reassessed, and we will determine whether (1) the factors underlying the sustainability assertion have changed and (2) the amount of the recognized tax benefit is still appropriate. The recognition and measurement of tax benefits requires significant judgment. Judgments concerning the recognition and measurement of a tax benefit might change as new information becomes available. Our policy is to recognize interest and penalties related to the underpayment of income taxes as a component of income tax expense or benefit. To date, there have been no interest or penalties charged in relation to the unrecognized tax benefits. As of December 31, 2021 and 2020, none of the unrecognized tax benefits would affect income tax expense with consideration of our valuation allowance. We do not expect that our uncertain tax positions will materially change in the next twelve months.

NOLs and tax credit carryforwards are subject to review and possible adjustment by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and may become subject to an annual limitation in the event of certain cumulative changes in the ownership interest of significant shareholders over a three-year period in excess of 50% as defined under Sections 382 and 383 in the Internal Revenue Code, which could limit the amount of tax attributes that can be utilized annually to offset future taxable income or tax liabilities. The amount of the annual limitation is determined based on our value immediately prior to the ownership change. We have completed a Section 382 study through December 31, 2020 which concluded no such ownership change had occurred through December 31. 2020. Subsequent ownership changes since the most recent study may further affect the limitation in future years.

79

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

A description of recently issued accounting pronouncements that may potentially impact our financial position and results of operations is discussed under Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

80

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURE ABOUT MARKET RISK

We are exposed to market risk related to changes in interest rates. As of December 31, 2021, we had cash and cash equivalents of $731.5 million, primarily invested in money market funds. As of December 31, 2020, we had cash and cash equivalents of $969.0 million, primarily invested in money market funds, U.S. treasury securities and corporate notes. Changes in the general level of interest rates can affect the fair value of our investment portfolio. If market interest rates were to increase immediately and uniformly by 100 basis points, or one percentage point, from levels at December 31, 2021, the net fair value of our interest-sensitive marketable securities would have resulted in a hypothetical decline of less than $0.1 million.

We do not believe that other market risks, like foreign currency exchange rate risk, had a significant impact on our results of operations for any periods presented herein.

81

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

82

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Kodiak Sciences Inc.

Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Kodiak Sciences Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, of stockholders’ equity and of cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2021, including the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). We also have audited the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2021 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2021, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the COSO.

Basis for Opinions

The Company's management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

83

Critical Audit Matters

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (i) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (ii) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Accrued Clinical Trial and Related Costs

As described in Notes 2 and 4 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company recorded $21.8 million in accrued clinical trial and related costs as of December 31, 2021. Accrued clinical trial and related costs are estimated using data such as patient enrollment, clinical site activations or information provided by outside service providers regarding their actual costs incurred. Management determined accrual estimates through reports from and discussions with clinical personnel and outside service providers as to the progress of trials, or the services completed.

The principal considerations for our determination that performing procedures relating to accrued clinical trial and related costs is a critical audit matter are the judgment by management in evaluating the data used in developing the accrued clinical trial and related cost estimates, which in turn led to a high degree of auditor judgment and effort in performing procedures to evaluate audit evidence obtained related to patient enrollment, clinical site activations and services rendered by outside service providers used by management in developing the estimates.

Addressing the matter involved performing procedures and evaluating audit evidence in connection with forming our overall opinion on the consolidated financial statements. These procedures included testing the effectiveness of controls relating to the completeness and accuracy of clinical trial accruals, including controls relating to the reliability of data used in the development of the estimates. These procedures also included, among others, (1) testing management’s process for developing the estimated accrued clinical trial and related costs, (2) evaluating the appropriateness of the approach used by management to develop the estimates, (3) testing the completeness and accuracy of the data used in developing the estimates, including data related to patient enrollment, clinical site activations and services rendered by outside service providers, (4) confirming clinical costs and contracted fees with the clinical vendors on a test basis, and (5) examining clinical vendor contracts on a test basis to evaluate the completeness of costs considered in the estimates.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California

March 1, 2022

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2016.

84

Kodiak Sciences Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)