Item 1A. Risk Factors
An investment in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors, as well as the other information in this report, before deciding whether to purchase, hold or sell shares of our common stock. The occurrence of any of the following risks could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects or cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements we have made in this report and those we may make from time to time. You should consider all of the risk factors described when evaluating our business. The risk factors set forth below that are marked with an asterisk (*) contain changes to the similarly titled risk factors included in Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2016
, or Annual Report, which has been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.
Risks Related to Our Business and Industry
We have incurred net losses in every year since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses in the future.*
We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. Investment in biopharmaceutical product development is highly speculative because it entails substantial upfront capital expenditures and significant risk that any potential product candidate will fail to demonstrate adequate effect or an acceptable safety profile, gain regulatory approval and become commercially viable. We have no products approved for commercial sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales to date, and we continue to incur significant research and development and other expenses related to our ongoing operations. As a result, we are not profitable and have incurred losses in each period since our inception in June 2009. For the years ended
December 31, 2016
and
2015
, we reported a net loss of
$267.1 million
and
$101.7 million
, respectively. For the
six
months ended
June 30, 2017
and
2016
, we reported a net loss of
$200.2 million
and
$108.2 million
, respectively. As of
June 30, 2017
, we had an accumulated deficit of
$626.9 million
. We expect to continue to incur significant expenditures for the foreseeable future, and we expect these expenditures to increase as we plan for the potential commercial launch of our lead product candidate, KTE-C19, and as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, product candidates based on our engineered autologous cell therapy. Even if we succeed in commercializing one or more of our product candidates, we will continue to incur substantial research and development and other expenditures to develop and market additional product candidates. We may encounter unforeseen expenses, difficulties, complications, delays and other unknown factors that may adversely affect our business. The size of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue. Our prior losses and expected future losses have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ equity and working capital.
Our engineered autologous cell therapy represents a novel approach to cancer treatment that creates significant challenges for us.
Our therapy involves (1) harvesting T cells from the patient’s blood, (2) engineering T cells to express cancer-specific receptors, (3) increasing the number of engineered T cells and (4) infusing the functional cancer-specific T cells back into the patient. Advancing this novel and personalized therapy creates significant challenges for us, including:
|
|
•
|
educating medical personnel regarding the potential side effect profile of our therapy, such as the potential adverse side effects related to cytokine release syndrome, or CRS, neurotoxicity and B-cell aplasia;
|
|
|
•
|
using medicines to manage adverse side effects of our therapy, such as tocilizumab and corticosteroids, which may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment;
|
|
|
•
|
sourcing clinical and, if approved, commercial supplies for the materials used to manufacture and process our product candidates;
|
|
|
•
|
developing a robust and reliable process, while limiting contamination risks, for engineering a patient’s T cells
ex vivo
and infusing the engineered T cells back into the patient;
|
|
|
•
|
conditioning patients with chemotherapy in advance of administering our product candidates, which may increase the risk of adverse side effects;
|
|
|
•
|
obtaining regulatory approval, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, and other regulatory authorities have limited experience with commercial development of T cell therapies for cancer; and
|
|
|
•
|
establishing sales and marketing capabilities upon obtaining any regulatory approval to gain market acceptance of a novel therapy.
|
In addition, we use manufacturing and processing approaches to produce engineered T cells that are based on the original approach used by our collaborator, the National Cancer Institute, or NCI. While the NCI has and is expected to use CAR- and TCR-based therapies in clinical trials that we are funding under Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, or CRADAs, we cannot be sure that our engineered T cell therapy will obtain the same safety and efficacy results as those obtained or may be obtained by the NCI using its own original production methods.
Our business is highly dependent on the success of KTE-C19, our lead product candidate. If we are unable to obtain approval for KTE-C19 and effectively commercialize KTE-C19 for the treatment of patients in its approved indications, our business would be significantly harmed.*
Our business and future success depends on our ability to obtain regulatory approval of and then successfully commercialize our lead product candidate, KTE-C19. We completed a Biologics License Application, or BLA, submission to the FDA in March 2017 for the approval of KTE-C19 as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL, who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant, or ASCT. If the FDA does not approve our BLA submission, our business would be significantly harmed.
If approved, KTE-C19 will be our only product approved for marketing and our ability to generate revenue from product sales is dependent on our ability to effectively commercialize KTE-C19. Our plans for commercial operations, marketing and account management, and access may fail and we may not be able to fully realize the commercial potential of KTE-C19 for a number of reasons, including:
|
|
•
|
we may not be able to obtain and maintain regulatory approval to market KTE-C19 for the indication we are seeking and for additional indications, such as relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma, or MCL, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL;
|
|
|
•
|
additional follow-up results from our ZUMA clinical trials or any required post-approval studies may fail to verify the clinical benefit of KTE-C19 in some or all of any approved indications, which could result in the withdrawal of KTE-C19 from the market;
|
|
|
•
|
the use of engineered T cells as a potential cancer treatment is a recent development and may not become broadly accepted by physicians, patients, hospitals, cancer treatment centers and others in the medical community;
|
|
|
•
|
we may not be able to establish or demonstrate in the medical community the safety and efficacy of KTE-C19 and its potential advantages over and side effects compared to existing and future therapeutics;
|
|
|
•
|
physicians may be reluctant to prescribe KTE-C19 until results from any required post-approval studies are available or other long term efficacy and safety data exists;
|
|
|
•
|
if the FDA does not accept our request for regular approval, but provides accelerated approval, pre-approval of promotional materials would be required, which could adversely impact how we market and sell KTE-C19;
|
|
|
•
|
the estimated incidence rate of new patients in any KTE-C19 approved indications may be lower than our projections;
|
|
|
•
|
new competitive therapies may be approved for marketing by regulatory authorities in KTE-C19’s labeled indications;
|
|
|
•
|
our commercial manufacturing facility may not pass pre-approval FDA inspection;
|
|
|
•
|
we may not be able to manufacture adequate commercial supplies of KTE-C19 or obtain raw materials to meet demand or at an acceptable cost;
|
|
|
•
|
we may be unable to scale our employee base to meet demands;
|
|
|
•
|
we may be unable to manage the logistics of providing patient-by-patient therapy on a commercial scale;
|
|
|
•
|
our Kite Konnect and associated technology platform, which will track orders from patient enrollment to the collection of the patient’s cells to infusion of KTE-C19, may not be sufficiently developed by the time of launch or may face technical issues post-launch;
|
|
|
•
|
we may be unable to develop an adequate in-house marketing organization and sales force;
|
|
|
•
|
if any approval is received sooner than expected, we may not be ready to launch KTE-C19 or meet demand;
|
|
|
•
|
KTE-C19 may receive adverse reimbursement and coverage policies from government and private payors such as Medicare, Medicaid, insurance companies, health maintenance organizations and other plan administrators or may be subject to pricing pressures enacted by industry organizations;
|
|
|
•
|
there may be changed or increased regulatory restrictions; and
|
|
|
•
|
we may not have adequate financial or other resources to effectively commercialize KTE-C19.
|
To ensure that any site collecting patient white blood cells, known as apheresis centers, is prepared to ship cells to our manufacturing facility, we plan to conduct quality certifications of each apheresis center. Accordingly, while our commercial
plan is to target over 70 key transplant and lymphoma centers over a 12-month period post-launch, the related apheresis centers may not participate in the certification or we may be unable to complete certification in a timely manner or at all.
In addition, because KTE-C19 is our most advanced product candidate, and because our other product candidates are based on similar technology, if KTE-C19 encounters safety, efficacy, manufacturing, regulatory or commercialization difficulties, our development plans and business would be significantly harmed.
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.*
Undesirable or unacceptable 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 or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Results of our trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects or unexpected characteristics.
In the ZUMA clinical trials, the most common severe or life threatening adverse events resulted from CRS and neurologic events, and have also included anemia, neutropenia, decreased neutrophil count, febrile neutropenia, decreased white blood cell count, thrombocytopenia, encephalopathy and decreased lymphocyte count. As reported, patients have died from adverse events related to KTE-C19 and future patients may also experience toxicity resulting in death. These adverse events may include, among others, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, cardiac arrest, severe CRS, and cerebral edema. As we treat a larger number of patients with KTE-C19 in the ZUMA clinical trials, and, if approved, commercially, new less common side effects may also emerge.
Patients in our clinical trial of KITE-718 and the NCI clinical trials of the TCR-based product candidates are expected to receive interleukin-2, or IL-2, which is associated with toxicities such as capillary leak syndrome, hypotension, impaired kidney and liver function, and mental status changes. While we believe we have optimized KITE-718 from the NCI's anti-MAGE A3/A6 TCR, our optimizations may have adverse outcomes for patients. For instance, we plan to shorten the manufacturing time to eight to ten days and use IL-7/IL-15 plus a protein kinase B (AKT) inhibitor. However, cell products manufactured using IL-7/IL-15 and AKT inhibitor have not been administered in humans to date and may have an adverse impact on efficacy or safety.
If unacceptable toxicities arise in the development of our product candidates, we or the NCI could suspend or terminate our trials or the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled subjects to complete the trial or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff, particularly outside of the NCI as toxicities resulting from personalized T cell therapy are not normally encountered in the general patient population and by medical personnel. We have trained and expect to have to train medical personnel using CAR- or TCR-based product candidates to understand the side effect profile of our product candidates for both our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient deaths. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.
The market opportunities for our product candidates may be limited to those patients who are ineligible for or have failed prior treatments and may be small.
The FDA often approves new therapies initially only for use in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic disease. We expect to initially seek approval of KTE-C19 and our other product candidates in this setting. Subsequently, for those products that prove to be sufficiently beneficial, if any, we would expect to seek approval in earlier lines of treatment and potentially as a first line therapy, but there is no guarantee that our product candidates, even if approved, would be approved for earlier lines of therapy, and, prior to any such approvals, we will have to conduct additional clinical trials.
Our projections of both the number of people who have the cancers we are targeting, as well as the subset of people with these cancers in a position to receive second or later lines of therapy, and who have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates, are based on our beliefs and estimates. These estimates have been derived from a variety of sources, including scientific literature, surveys of clinics, patient foundations, or market research, and may prove to be incorrect. Further, new studies may change the estimated incidence or prevalence of these cancers. The number of patients may turn out to be lower than expected. Additionally, the potentially addressable patient population for our product candidates may be limited or may not be amenable to treatment with our product candidates. For instance, we expect our lead product candidate,
KTE-C19, to initially target a small patient population that suffers from aggressive NHL and ALL. Even if we obtain significant market share for our product candidates, because the potential target populations are small, we may never achieve profitability without obtaining regulatory approval for additional indications.
Our clinical trials may fail to demonstrate adequately the safety and efficacy of any of our product candidates, which would prevent or delay regulatory approval and commercialization.
Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of our product candidates, including KTE-C19, we must demonstrate through lengthy, complex and expensive preclinical testing and clinical trials that our product candidates are both safe and effective for use in each target indication. 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 and early clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials, including in any post-approval studies of KTE-C19. We expect there may be greater variability in results for products processed and administered on a patient-by-patient basis, like engineered autologous cell therapy, than for “off-the-shelf” products, like many drugs. There is typically an extremely high rate of attrition from the failure of product candidates proceeding through clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy profile despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials due to lack of efficacy, insufficient durability of efficacy or unacceptable safety issues, notwithstanding promising results in earlier trials. Most product candidates that commence clinical trials are never approved as products.
We designed our Phase 1-2 (ZUMA-1) single-arm multicenter clinical trial of KTE-C19 primarily to assess safety and efficacy in patients with refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma, or DLBCL, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma, or PMBCL, and transformed follicular lymphoma, or TFL. The results from the primary analysis of ZUMA-1 as well as from the NCI clinical trials of anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy may not predict results for any required post-approval trial of KTE-C19 or in our other clinical trials of KTE-C19 in different indications. Our ongoing clinical trials of KTE-C19 may be halted prior to completion if there is an unacceptable safety risk for patients.
In addition, for ZUMA-1 and any future trials that may be completed, we cannot guarantee that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will interpret the results as we do, and more trials could be required before we submit our product candidates for approval. 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, approval of our product candidates may be significantly delayed, or we may be required to expend significant additional resources, which may not be available to us, to conduct additional trials in support of potential approval of our product candidates.
We may not be able to file investigational new drug applications, or INDs, to commence additional clinical trials on the timelines we expect, and even if we are able to, the FDA may not permit us to proceed.*
We expect to submit IND amendments for additional studies of KTE-C19 in 2017 and INDs for KITE-796 and KITE-439 in 2018. However, our timing of filing on the product candidates is dependent on further research. We cannot be sure that submission of an IND or IND amendment will result in the FDA allowing further clinical trials to begin, or that, once begun, issues will not arise that suspend or terminate such clinical trials. For instance, the FDA may not allow us to use the NCI clinical trial data to support our INDs. Additionally, even if such regulatory authorities agree with the design and implementation of the clinical trials set forth in an IND or clinical trial application, we cannot guarantee that such regulatory authorities will not change their requirements in the future.
We have limited experience as a company conducting clinical trials.*
While we are currently conducting multiple clinical trials of KTE-C19 and a clinical trial of KITE-718, we have limited experience as a company in conducting clinical trials. In part because of this lack of experience, we cannot be certain that our ongoing clinical trials will be completed on time or if the planned clinical trials will begin or be completed on time, if at all. Large-scale trials require significant financial and management resources, and reliance on third-party clinical investigators, contract research organizations, or CROs, or consultants. Relying on third-party clinical investigators or CROs may force us to encounter delays that are outside of our control.
Monitoring safety of patients receiving our product candidates is challenging, which could adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize.
For our ongoing clinical trials of KTE-C19 and in our planned sponsored multicenter clinical trials of KTE-C19 and other product candidates, we have and expect to contract with academic medical centers and hospitals experienced in the assessment and management of toxicities arising during clinical trials. Nonetheless, these centers and hospitals may have difficulty observing patients and treating toxicities, which may be more challenging due to personnel changes, inexperience, shift changes, house staff coverage or related issues. This could lead to more severe or prolonged toxicities or even patient deaths, which could result in us or the FDA delaying, suspending or terminating one or more of our clinical trials, and which could jeopardize regulatory approval. We also expect the centers using KTE-C19, if approved, on a commercial basis could similarly have difficulty in managing adverse events. Medicines used at centers to help manage adverse side effects of KTE-C19, such as tocilizumab and corticosteroids, may not adequately control the side effects and/or may have a detrimental impact on the efficacy of the treatment. Use of these medicines may increase with new physicians and centers administering our product candidates.
If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.
We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials for a variety of reasons. The timely completion of clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the study until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:
|
|
•
|
the patient eligibility criteria defined in the protocol;
|
|
|
•
|
the size of the patient population required for analysis of the trial’s primary endpoints;
|
|
|
•
|
the proximity of patients to study sites;
|
|
|
•
|
the design of the trial;
|
|
|
•
|
our ability to recruit clinical trial investigators with the appropriate competencies and experience;
|
|
|
•
|
our ability to obtain and maintain patient consents; and
|
|
|
•
|
the risk that patients enrolled in clinical trials will drop out of the trials before the manufacturing and infusion of our product candidates or trial completion.
|
In addition, our clinical trials will compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is limited, some of our clinical trial sites are also being used by some of our competitors, which may reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site. Moreover, because our product candidates represent a departure from more commonly used methods for cancer treatment, potential patients and their doctors may be inclined to use conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation, rather than enroll patients in any future clinical trial.
Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our ongoing clinical trial and planned clinical trials, which could prevent completion of these trials and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of our product candidates.
Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming and difficult to design and implement.
Human clinical trials are expensive and difficult to design and implement, in part because they are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements. Because our product candidates are based on new technology and engineered on a patient-by-patient basis, we expect that they will require extensive research and development and have substantial manufacturing and processing costs. In addition, costs to treat patients with relapsed/refractory cancer and to treat potential side effects that may result from our product candidates can be significant. Accordingly, our clinical trial costs are likely to be significantly higher than for more conventional therapeutic technologies or drug products. In addition, our proposed personalized product candidates involve several complex and costly manufacturing and processing steps, the costs of which will be borne by us.
KTE-C19 has received orphan drug status, but we may be unable to maintain or receive the benefits associated with orphan drug status, including market exclusivity.
Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug or biologic intended to treat a rare disease or condition or for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making available in the United States
a drug or biologic for a disease or condition will be recovered from sales in the United States for that drug or biologic. If a product that has orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other applications, including a full BLA to market the same biologic for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan drug exclusivity.
We have received orphan drug status for KTE-C19 for the treatment of DLBCL, PMBCL, ALL, MCL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or CLL, and follicular lymphoma, or FL, but exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be limited if we seek approval for an indication broader than the orphan designated indication and may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if we are unable to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. The European Commission has also granted KTE-C19 orphan drug designation for the treatment of DLBCL, PMBCL, ALL, MCL, CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and FL. The designation may provide 10 years of market exclusivity in Europe, but is subject to certain limited exceptions. Even though we have obtained orphan drug designation for KTE-C19 for certain indications, we may be unable to obtain orphan drug designation for our future product candidates and we may not be the first to obtain marketing approval for any particular orphan indication.
KTE-C19 has received breakthrough therapy designation in the United States for the treatment of refractory DLBCL, PMBCL and TFL and was granted access to Priority Medicines regulatory support in the European Union for the treatment of refractory DLBCL, but there can be no assurance that such designations will result in expedited review or approval.
Breakthrough therapy designation is granted by the FDA and is intended to expedite the development and review of products that treat serious or life-threatening conditions. Access to the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, initiative is granted by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, to support the development and accelerate the review of new therapies to treat patients with unmet medical need.
We have received breakthrough therapy designation for KTE-C19 for the treatment of refractory DLBCL, PMBCL and TFL and received access to PRIME for the treatment of refractory DLBCL, but there can be no assurance that such designations will result in expedited review or approval. The FDA may also rescind the breakthrough therapy designation for KTE-C19 if subsequent data no longer support the designation. Breakthrough therapy designation and access to PRIME does not change the standards for product approval. While we intend to seek breakthrough therapy designation and access to PRIME for other product candidates, we may never receive such designations.
Our product candidates may not achieve commercialization and our commercial opportunity may be limited.
In addition to KTE-C19, we have developed a broad pipeline of product candidates, including additional TCR- and CAR-based product candidates. However, further development and obtaining regulatory approval for and commercializing additional product candidates will require substantial additional funding and are prone to the risks of failure inherent in medical product development. We cannot provide you any assurance that we will be able to successfully advance any of these additional product candidates through the development process.
Even if we receive FDA approval to market additional product candidates for the treatment of cancer, we cannot assure you that any such product candidates will be successfully commercialized, widely accepted in the marketplace or more effective than other commercially available alternatives. If we are unable to successfully develop and commercialize additional product candidates, our commercial opportunity will be limited. Moreover, a failure in obtaining regulatory approval of additional product candidates may have a negative effect on the approval process of any other, or result in losing approval of any approved, product candidate.
We operate our own clinical manufacturing facility and intend to operate our own commercial manufacturing facility, which will require significant resources and we may fail to successfully operate either or both facilities, which could adversely affect our clinical trials and the commercial viability of our product candidates.
We have not yet manufactured our product candidates on a commercial scale, and may not be able to achieve commercial manufacturing and cell processing on our own, including on a patient-by-patient basis, to satisfy demands for any of our product candidates. While we believe the manufacturing and processing approaches are appropriate to support our clinical product development, we have limited experience in managing the T cell engineering process, and our processes may be more difficult or more expensive than the approaches taken by our competitors. We cannot be sure that the manufacturing processes employed by us will result in T cells that will be safe and effective, or have the same clinical properties as those used in any NCI-based T cell therapy.
We have leased approximately 18,000 square feet near our headquarters in Santa Monica, California, which we use as our primary clinical manufacturing facility and have also leased approximately 43,500 square feet in El Segundo, California to develop our commercial manufacturing facility. We are currently operating our clinical manufacturing facility, but our operations remain subject to review and oversight by the FDA and the FDA could object to our use of our clinical manufacturing facility. While we have completed construction of our commercial manufacturing facility, we must receive approval from the FDA prior to licensure to manufacture our product candidates, which we may never obtain. Even if approved, we would be subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMPs, and other government regulations. Our license to manufacture product candidates will be subject to continued regulatory review.
Our cost of goods development is at an early stage. The actual cost to manufacture and process our product candidates could be greater than we expect and could materially and adversely affect the commercial viability of our product candidates.
The manufacture of medical products is complex and requires significant expertise, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Manufacturers of cell therapy products often encounter difficulties in production, particularly in scaling out and validating initial production and ensuring the absence of contamination. These problems include difficulties with production costs and yields, quality control, including stability of the product, quality assurance testing, operator error, shortages of qualified personnel, as well as compliance with strictly enforced federal, state and foreign regulations. Furthermore, if contaminants are discovered in our supply of product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. We cannot assure you that any stability or other issues relating to the manufacture of our product candidates will not occur in the future.
We may fail to manage the logistics of collecting and shipping patient material to the manufacturing site and shipping the product candidate back to the patient. Logistical and shipment delays and problems caused by us, our vendors or other factors not in our control, such as weather, could prevent or delay the delivery of product candidates to patients. Additionally, we have to maintain a complex chain of identity and chain of custody with respect to patient material as it moves to the manufacturing facility, through the manufacturing process, and back to the patient. Failure to maintain chain of identity and chain of custody could result in patient death, loss of product or regulatory action.
We may also experience manufacturing difficulties due to resource constraints or as a result of labor disputes. If we were to encounter any of these difficulties, our ability to provide our product candidates to patients would be jeopardized.
We are partly reliant on the National Cancer Institute for research and development and early clinical testing of certain of our product candidates.*
A portion of our research and development has been conducted by the NCI under the CRADA entered into in August 2012. In January 2016 and June 2016, we entered into additional CRADAs for the research and clinical development of additional engineered T cell therapies, including a fully human CAR-based therapy directed against the CD19 antigen for the treatment of B cell lymphomas and leukemias and TCR-based therapies directed against the HPV-16 E7 oncoprotein and in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor in HPV-16 associated solid tumors.
The NCI, with Dr. Steven A. Rosenberg as the principal investigator, is responsible for conducting multiple clinical trials of engineered T cell therapy targeting various antigens in small numbers of patients under the 2012 CRADA. In April 2016, the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, announced that it had initiated an evaluation of all of its facilities producing sterile or infused products for administration to research participants. Preliminary findings identified the NCI cell therapy laboratory that makes products for the clinical trials under the 2012 CRADA as not in compliance with quality and safety standards, and not suitable for the production of sterile or infused products. According to the NIH, there is no evidence that any patients have been harmed, but a rigorous clinical review is being undertaken. The NCI has begun the screening and enrollment of new patients in affected trials.
While we expect to have the NCI, with Drs. James N. Kochenderfer and Christian Hinrichs as principal investigators, conduct additional clinical trials under the 2016 CRADAs that are unaffected by the NIH facility evaluation, we have limited control over the nature or timing of the NCI’s clinical trials and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to how they are providing and administering T cell therapy. For example, the research we are funding constitutes only a small portion of the NCI’s overall research. Additionally, other research being conducted by Dr. Rosenberg, Dr. Kochenderfer or Dr. Hinrichs may at times receive higher priority than research on our programs.
We are dependent on the NIH for licensing intellectual property rights to certain future product candidates.*
Under each CRADA, we have an exclusive option to negotiate commercial licenses from the NIH to intellectual property relating to CAR- and TCR-based product candidates developed in the course of the CRADA research plan. However, we would have to negotiate with the NIH for such a license. There can be no assurance that we would be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire. Further, to the extent we would like to negotiate a license to a patent filed before the relevant CRADA was entered into, another party may object to the NIH granting us a license during a 15-day public notification period, and the NIH may decide not to grant us the license.
Though each CRADA has a five-year term, the NIH review of NCI manufacturing facilities has not reached a final resolution and the NCI may unilaterally terminate any of the CRADAs at any time for any reason or for no reason upon at least 60 days prior written notice. We are also in the process of negotiating new agreements with the NCI to cover similar research programs as the 2012 CRADA, which we may be unable to complete prior to the 2012 CRADA expiration on August 30, 2017 or at all. If the NCI unilaterally terminates one or both of the 2016 CRADAs or the 2012 CRADA lapses without any extension, part or all of the research and development of engineered autologous cell therapy would be suspended, and we may be unable to research, develop and license future product candidates.
A variety of risks associated with conducting research and clinical trials abroad and marketing our product candidates internationally could materially adversely affect our business.*
We initiated a clinical program for KTE-C19 in Europe in the first half of 2017 and ultimately plan to seek regulatory approval of our product candidates outside of the United States. Accordingly, we expect that we will be subject to additional risks related to operating in foreign countries, including:
|
|
•
|
differing regulatory requirements in foreign countries;
|
|
|
•
|
unexpected changes in tariffs, trade barriers, price and exchange controls and other regulatory requirements;
|
|
|
•
|
increased difficulties in managing the logistics and transportation of collecting and shipping patient material to a manufacturing site in the United States and shipping the product candidate back to the patient abroad;
|
|
|
•
|
import and export requirements and restrictions;
|
|
|
•
|
economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;
|
|
|
•
|
compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;
|
|
|
•
|
foreign taxes, including withholding of payroll taxes;
|
|
|
•
|
foreign currency fluctuations, which could result in increased operating expenses and reduced revenue, and other obligations incident to doing business in another country;
|
|
|
•
|
difficulties staffing and managing foreign operations;
|
|
|
•
|
workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;
|
|
|
•
|
differing payor reimbursement regimes, governmental payors or patient self-pay systems, and price controls;
|
|
|
•
|
potential liability under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 or comparable foreign regulations;
|
|
|
•
|
challenges enforcing our contractual and intellectual property rights, especially in those foreign countries that do not respect and protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the United States;
|
|
|
•
|
production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and
|
|
|
•
|
business interruptions resulting from geo-political actions, including war and terrorism.
|
These and other risks associated with our international operations, including the operations of our European subsidiaries and of our joint venture in China with Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Industrial Development Co., Ltd., or Fosun Pharma, may materially adversely affect our ability to attain or maintain profitable operations.
We face significant competition from other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.*
The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by intense competition and rapid innovation. Our competitors may be able to develop other compounds or drugs that are able to achieve similar or better results. Our potential competitors include major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations and well-established sales forces. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. Competition may increase further as a result of advances in the commercial applicability of technologies and greater availability of capital for investment in these industries. Our competitors, either alone or with collaborative partners, may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis drug or biologic products that are more effective, safer, more easily commercialized or less costly than our product candidates or may develop proprietary technologies or secure patent protection that we may need for the development of our technologies and products. We believe the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of our product candidates are efficacy, safety, tolerability, reliability, convenience of use, price and reimbursement.
Specifically, engineered T cells faces significant competition in both the CAR and TCR technology space from multiple companies. Even if we obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates, the availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge for our product candidates. We may not be able to implement our business plan if the acceptance of our product candidates is inhibited by price competition or the reluctance of physicians to switch from existing methods of treatment to our product candidates, or if physicians switch to other new drug or biologic products or choose to reserve our product candidates for use in limited circumstances. For additional information regarding our competition, see "Item 1. Business-Competition" in our Annual Report.
We are highly dependent on our key personnel, and if we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.
Our ability to compete in the highly competitive biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel, including our President and Chief Executive Officer, our Executive Vice President of Research & Development and Chief Medical Officer, our Chief Operating Officer, our Chief Commercial Officer, our Executive Vice President of Technical Operations and our Chief Financial Officer. The loss of the services of 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 product development and harm our business. Our strong relationship with the NCI is bolstered by our President and Chief Executive Officer’s relationship with Dr. Rosenberg of the NCI. If we lose our President and Chief Executive Officer or if Dr. Rosenberg leaves the NCI, our relationship with the NCI may deteriorate and our business could be harmed. We conduct substantially all of our operations at our facilities in Southern California. This region is headquarters to many other biopharmaceutical companies and many academic and research institutions. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and may limit our ability to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms or at all.
To induce valuable employees to remain at our company, in addition to salary and cash incentives, we have provided stock options and restricted stock units, or RSUs, that vest over time. The value to employees of stock options or RSUs 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. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and development teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice. 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 these individuals or the lives of any of our other employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level and senior managers as well as junior, mid-level and senior scientific and medical personnel.
We have grown rapidly and will need to continue to grow the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth.
As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, and as we continue to transition into operating as a public company, we have rapidly expanded our employee base and expect to continue to add managerial, operational, sales, research and development, marketing, financial and other personnel. Current and future growth imposes significant added responsibilities on members of management, including:
|
|
•
|
identifying, recruiting, integrating, maintaining and motivating additional employees;
|
|
|
•
|
managing our internal development efforts effectively, including the clinical and FDA review process for our product candidates, while complying with our contractual obligations to contractors and other third parties; and
|
|
|
•
|
improving our operational, financial and management controls, reporting systems and procedures.
|
Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage our growth, and our management may also have to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities in order to devote a substantial amount of time to managing 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, including substantial aspects of regulatory approval, clinical management, manufacturing and preparation for potential commercial launch. There can be no assurance that the services of 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, or 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 and commercialize our product candidates and, accordingly, may not achieve our research, development and commercialization goals.
We may form or seek strategic alliances or enter into additional licensing arrangements in the future, and we may not realize the benefits of such alliances or licensing arrangements.
We may form or seek strategic alliances, create joint ventures or collaborations or enter into additional licensing arrangements with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts with respect to our product candidates and any future product candidates that we may develop. Any of these relationships may require us to incur non-recurring and other charges, increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing stockholders or disrupt our management and business. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking appropriate strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. Moreover, we may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates because they may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Any delays in entering into new strategic partnership agreements related to our product candidates could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates in certain geographies for certain indications, which would harm our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
If we license products or businesses, we may not be able to realize the benefit of such transactions if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. For instance, our research collaboration with Amgen Inc., our collaboration with bluebird bio, Inc., our license and research agreement with Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc. and our research collaboration and license agreement with Cell Design Labs, Inc. all require significant research and development commitments that may not result in the development and commercialization of additional product candidates. In addition, our collaboration with GE Global Research may not result in automation technologies that improve engineered T cell manufacturing. We cannot be certain that, following a strategic transaction or license, we will achieve the results, revenue or specific net income that justifies such transaction.
We may not realize the benefits of acquisitions or other strategic transactions.*
We acquired T-Cell Factory B.V., or TCF, on March 17, 2015 and renamed the acquired company Kite Pharma EU B.V. On January 10, 2017, KP EU C.V., our wholly owned indirect subsidiary, entered into a cooperative joint venture agreement with Fosun Pharma for the purpose of developing, manufacturing and commercializing KTE-C19 in the mainland of the People’s Republic of China, the Hong Kong Special Administration Region and the Macau Special Administration Region. On January 5, 2017, Kite Pharma EU B.V. entered into a Collaboration and License Agreement with Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, or Daiichi Sankyo, pursuant to which we have granted to Daiichi Sankyo an exclusive license to develop and commercialize KTE-C19 in Japan.
We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. The success of our strategic transactions, including our acquisition of TCF and partnerships with Fosun Pharma and Daiichi Sankyo, and any future strategic transactions depends on the risks and uncertainties involved including:
|
|
•
|
unanticipated liabilities related to acquired companies or joint ventures;
|
|
|
•
|
difficulties integrating acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business;
|
|
|
•
|
retention of key employees;
|
|
|
•
|
diversion of management time and focus from operating our business to management of strategic alliances or joint ventures or acquisition integration challenges;
|
|
|
•
|
increases in our expenses and reductions in our cash available for operations and other uses;
|
|
|
•
|
disruption in our relationships with collaborators or suppliers as a result of such a transaction; and
|
|
|
•
|
possible write-offs or impairment charges relating to acquired businesses or joint ventures.
|
If any of these risks or uncertainties occur, we may not realize the anticipated benefit of any acquisition or strategic transaction. For example, TCF’s TCR-GENErator technology platform may fail to identify TCR-based product candidates that are safe and effective, or at all. Additionally, foreign acquisitions and joint ventures are subject to additional risks, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks, potentially adverse tax consequences of overseas operations and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries. For instance, we owe significant milestone payments to the sellers of TCF in euros, rather than dollars, and we have not hedged these payments.
In addition, any payments due to us from our joint venture with Fosun Pharma may be restricted due to governmental or other regulatory controls. We may also face difficulties or be unable to successfully transfer our manufacturing process to China and Japan, which would prevent any development or commercialization of KTE-C19 in China and Japan.
Future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition.
If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may be unable to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates.*
Our operations have consumed substantial amounts of cash since inception. We expect to continue to spend substantial amounts to continue the clinical development of our product candidates, including KTE-C19. If approved, we may require significant additional amounts in order to launch and commercialize our product candidates.
Changing circumstances may cause us to consume capital 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 require additional capital for the further development and commercialization of our product candidates, including funding our internal manufacturing capabilities and Kite Pharma EU B.V. or our joint venture with Fosun Pharma and may need to raise additional funds sooner if we choose to expand more rapidly than we presently anticipate.
We cannot be certain that additional funding will be available on acceptable terms, or at all. We have no committed source of additional capital and if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development or commercialization of our product candidates or other research and development initiatives. Our license agreements and CRADAs may also be terminated if we are unable to meet the payment obligations under the agreements. We could be required to seek collaborators for our product candidates at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable or on terms that are less favorable than might otherwise be available or relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to our product candidates in markets where we otherwise would seek to pursue development or commercialization ourselves.
Any of the above events could significantly harm our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations and cause the price of our common stock to decline.
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 may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt 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 certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. 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 internal computer systems, or those used by our CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches.
Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems, our Kite Konnect technology platform and the systems of our CROs, contractors and consultants are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses and unauthorized access. While we have not experienced any such material system failure or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. A failure in the Kite Konnect platform, or any of the associated IT platform solutions, could also result in the loss of product or regulatory action. Likewise, we partly rely on NCI for research and development of our product candidates and other third parties to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.
Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.
Our operations, and those of our CROs 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 predominantly self-insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. In addition, we are reliant on the NCI for conducting research and development of certain of our product candidates. The NCI has been affected by the NIH evaluation of its manufacturing facilities, which is delaying clinical trials of early-stage product candidates under our 2012 CRADA, and the NCI may be further affected by government shutdowns or withdrawn funding.
Our ability to manufacture our product candidates could be disrupted if our operations or those of our suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption. Our corporate headquarters, the location of our manufacturer of the viral vector that delivers the CAR gene, and our clinical and commercial manufacturing facilities are located in California near major earthquake faults and fire zones. The ultimate impact on us, our significant suppliers and our general infrastructure of being located near major earthquake faults and fire zones and being consolidated in certain geographical areas is unknown, but our operations and financial condition could suffer in the event of a major earthquake, fire or other natural disaster.
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 our business may be found to be not compliant with regulatory standards requirements.
We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other illegal activity by our employees, independent contractors, consultants, commercial partners and vendors. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct that fails to: comply with the laws of the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, provide true, complete and accurate information to the FDA and other similar foreign regulatory bodies, 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. Similarly, our business could be found to be noncompliant with healthcare regulatory requirements. 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. These laws may impact, among other things, our current activities with principal investigators and research patients, as well as proposed and future sales, marketing and education programs. In particular, the promotion, sales and marketing of healthcare items and services, as well as certain 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, marketing and promotion, structuring and commission(s), 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. The healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to:
|
|
•
|
the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully, offering, paying, soliciting or receiving any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce, or in return for, the purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease, or order of any item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs;
|
|
|
•
|
federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the federal civil False Claims Act, which prohibit, among other things, individuals or entities from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, claims for payment or approval from Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal government programs that are false or fraudulent or knowingly making a false statement to improperly 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 created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme 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, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick, scheme 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;
|
|
|
•
|
HIPAA, as amended by HITECH and their respective implementing regulations, which impose requirements on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses as well as their respective business associates that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information, relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without appropriate authorization;
|
|
|
•
|
the federal Physician Payment Sunshine Act, created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care Education Reconciliation Act, which we refer to collectively as the Affordable Care Act, and its implementing regulations, which require certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals 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 the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or 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; and
|
|
|
•
|
federal consumer protection and unfair competition laws, which broadly regulate marketplace activities and activities that potentially harm consumers.
|
Additionally, we may be subject to state and foreign equivalents of each of the healthcare laws described above, among others, some of which may be broader in scope. For example, we may be subject to the following: state anti-kickback and false claims laws that may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state laws that require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers or marketing expenditures; and state and foreign laws governing the privacy and security of health information in some circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not preempted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.
We have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct or business noncompliance, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent inappropriate conduct 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 or regulations. 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 civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, disgorgement, monetary fines, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting requirements and/or oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, 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.
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 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 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:
|
|
•
|
decreased demand for our product candidates;
|
|
|
•
|
injury to our reputation;
|
|
|
•
|
withdrawal of clinical trial participants;
|
|
|
•
|
initiation of investigations by regulators;
|
|
|
•
|
costs to defend the related litigation;
|
|
|
•
|
a diversion of management’s time and our resources;
|
|
|
•
|
substantial monetary awards to trial participants or patients;
|
|
|
•
|
product recalls, withdrawals or labeling, marketing or promotional restrictions;
|
|
|
•
|
exhaustion of any available insurance and our capital resources;
|
|
|
•
|
the inability to commercialize any product candidate; and
|
|
|
•
|
a decline in our share price.
|
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 corporate collaborators. Our insurance policies may also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. While we have obtained clinical trial insurance for our clinical trials of KTE-C19, we may have to pay 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.
Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes will be limited.
Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change” (generally defined as a greater than 50% change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three-year period), the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. As of
December 31, 2016
, we have U.S. and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately
$167.5 million
and
$468.6 million
, respectively. As a result of our private placements, we triggered two “ownership changes”. The ownership change resulted in a limitation in utilization of pre-change attributes. We may also experience ownership changes in the future as a result of subsequent shifts in our stock ownership. Accordingly, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change net operating loss carryforwards to offset U.S. federal and state taxable income may be subject to limitations, which will result in increased future tax liability to us.
Unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our business, financial condition and stock price.*
As widely reported, global credit and financial markets have experienced extreme volatility and disruptions in the past several years, including severely diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. There can be no assurance that further deterioration in credit and financial markets and confidence in economic conditions will not occur. Our general business strategy may be adversely affected by any such economic downturn, volatile business environment or continued unpredictable and unstable market conditions. If the current equity and credit markets deteriorate, or do not improve, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult, more costly, and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and stock price and could require us to delay or abandon clinical development plans. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our current service providers, manufacturers and other partners may not survive these difficult economic times, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget.
At
June 30, 2017
, we had approximately
$147.8 million
of cash and cash equivalents and
$633.3 million
of marketable securities. While we are not aware of any downgrades, material losses or other significant deterioration in the fair value of our cash equivalents and marketable securities since
June 30, 2017
, no assurance can be given that further deterioration of the global credit and financial markets would not negatively impact our current portfolio of cash equivalents and marketable securities or our ability to meet our financing objectives. Furthermore, our stock price may decline due in part to the volatility of the stock market and the general economic downturn.
Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties
We are partly relying on third parties to assist in preparing for commercial launch and to commercialize KTE-C19, if approved.
We are partly relying on key collaborators to prepare for commercial launch and for the successful marketing and delivery of KTE-C19, if approved. In particular, we are relying on technology partners to assist in the development of the Kite Konnect technology platform. This platform is critical to ensure positive prescriber and patient experience as well as chain of identity and chain of custody of the product. If the technology platform is incomplete or develops technological issues, we may be unable to launch KTE-C19 or have to suspend sales post-launch.
In addition, we expect to rely on apheresis sites, shippers, couriers, and hospitals for the logistical collection of patient white blood cells and ultimate delivery of KTE-C19 to patients. Any disruption or difficulties incurred by any of these vendors could result in product loss and regulatory action and significantly harm our business.
We rely and will rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or meet expected deadlines, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize our product candidates.
We depend and will depend upon independent investigators and collaborators, such as universities, medical institutions, CROs and strategic partners to conduct our preclinical and clinical trials under agreements with us, including without limitation the NCI. We negotiate budgets and contracts with CROs and study sites, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs. We will rely heavily on these third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and we control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and these third parties are required to comply with current good clinical practices, or cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these cGCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable cGCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with the cGCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with biologic product produced under cGMPs and will require a large number of test patients. Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations or to recruit a sufficient number of patients may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of these third parties violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.
Any third parties conducting our clinical trials are and will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to complete development of, obtain regulatory approval of or successfully commercialize our product candidates. As a result, our financial results and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.
Switching or adding third parties to conduct our clinical trials involves substantial cost and requires extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new third party commences work. As a result, delays occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines.
We may rely on third parties to manufacture our clinical product supplies, and we may have to rely on third parties to produce and process our product candidates, if approved.
If we are unable to develop or obtain regulatory approval of our own commercial manufacturing facility for any commercial product supplies or engage any future third-party manufacturer, we are exposed to the following risks:
|
|
•
|
We may be unable to identify manufacturers on acceptable terms or at all because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA may have questions regarding any replacement contractor. This may require new testing and regulatory interactions. In addition, a new manufacturer would have to be educated in, or develop substantially equivalent processes for, production of our products after receipt of FDA questions, if any.
|
|
|
•
|
Our third-party manufacturers might be unable to timely formulate and manufacture our product or produce the quantity and quality required to meet our clinical and commercial needs, if any.
|
|
|
•
|
Contract manufacturers may not be able to execute our manufacturing procedures appropriately.
|
|
|
•
|
Our future contract manufacturers may not perform as agreed or may not remain in the contract manufacturing business for the time required to supply our clinical trials or to successfully produce, store and distribute our products.
|
|
|
•
|
Manufacturers are subject to ongoing periodic unannounced inspection by the FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration and corresponding state agencies to ensure strict compliance with cGMP and other government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. We do not have control over third-party manufacturers’ compliance with these regulations and standards.
|
|
|
•
|
We may not own, or may have to share, the intellectual property rights to any improvements made by our third-party manufacturers in the manufacturing process for our products.
|
|
|
•
|
Our third-party manufacturers could breach or terminate their agreement with us.
|
Our contract manufacturers would also be subject to the same risks we face in developing our own manufacturing capabilities, as described above. Each of these risks could delay our clinical trials, the approval, if any of our product candidates by the FDA or the commercialization of our product candidates or result in higher costs or deprive us of potential product revenue. In addition, we will rely on third parties to perform release tests on our product candidates prior to delivery to patients. If these tests are not appropriately done and test data are not reliable, patients could be put at risk of serious harm. We also plan to rely on a contract manufacturer to assist with part of the manufacturing process for our clinical trials in Europe and any non-performance by such manufacturer will adversely affect our clinical trials in Europe.
Cell-based therapies rely on the availability of specialty raw materials, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all.
Our product candidates require many specialty raw materials, including viral vectors that deliver the CAR or TCR sequence, some of which are manufactured by small companies with limited resources and experience to support a commercial product, and the suppliers may not be able to deliver raw materials to our specifications. In addition, those suppliers normally support blood-based hospital businesses and generally do not have the capacity to support commercial products manufactured under cGMP by biopharmaceutical firms. The suppliers may be ill-equipped to support our needs, especially in non-routine circumstances like an FDA inspection or medical crisis, such as widespread contamination. We also do not have contracts with many of these suppliers, and may not be able to contract with them on acceptable terms or at all. Accordingly, we may experience delays in receiving key raw materials to support clinical or commercial manufacturing.
In addition, some raw materials are currently available from a single supplier, or a small number of suppliers. We cannot be sure that these suppliers will remain in business, or that they will not be purchased by one of our competitors or another company that is not interested in continuing to produce these materials for our intended purpose.
If we or our third-party suppliers use hazardous and biological materials in a manner that causes injury or violates applicable law, we may be liable for damages.
Our research and development activities involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials. We and our suppliers are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations in the United States governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that we and our suppliers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we and our suppliers cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. As a result of any such contamination or injury, we may incur liability or local, city, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations.
Risks Related to Government Regulation
The FDA regulatory approval process is lengthy and time-consuming, and we may experience significant delays in the clinical development and regulatory approval of our product candidates.*
A BLA must include extensive preclinical and clinical data and supporting information to establish the product candidate’s safety and effectiveness for each desired indication. The BLA must also include significant information regarding the chemistry, manufacturing and controls for the product, including with respect to chain of identity and chain of custody of the product. In March 2017, we completed our submission of the BLA for the approval of KTE-C19 as a treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell NHL, who are ineligible for ASCT. However, the FDA may require additional information.
We expect the novel nature of our product candidates to create further challenges in obtaining regulatory approval. For example, the FDA has limited experience with commercial development of T cell therapies for cancer. We also intend to obtain regulatory approval of future TCR-based product candidates regardless of cancer type or origin, which the FDA may have difficulty accepting if our clinical trials only involved cancers of certain origins. Accordingly, the regulatory approval pathway for our product candidates may be uncertain, complex, expensive and lengthy, and approval may not be obtained.
We may also experience delays in completing planned clinical trials for a variety of reasons, including delays related to:
|
|
•
|
the availability of financial resources to commence and complete the planned trials;
|
|
|
•
|
reaching agreement on acceptable terms with prospective CROs and clinical trial sites, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different CROs and trial sites;
|
|
|
•
|
obtaining approval at each clinical trial site by an independent institutional review board, or IRB;
|
|
|
•
|
recruiting suitable patients to participate in a trial;
|
|
|
•
|
having patients complete a trial, including having patients enrolled in clinical trials dropping out of the trial before the product candidate is manufactured and returned to the site, or return for post-treatment follow-up;
|
|
|
•
|
clinical trial sites deviating from trial protocol or dropping out of a trial;
|
|
|
•
|
adding new clinical trial sites; or
|
|
|
•
|
manufacturing sufficient quantities of qualified materials under cGMPs and applying them on a patient by patient basis for use in clinical trials.
|
We could also encounter delays if physicians encounter unresolved ethical issues associated with enrolling patients in clinical trials of our product candidates in lieu of prescribing existing treatments that have established safety and efficacy profiles. Further, a clinical trial may be suspended or terminated by us, the IRBs for the institutions in which such trials are being conducted or by the FDA or other regulatory authorities due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions, lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial, or based on a recommendation by the Data Monitoring Committee. The FDA’s review of our data of our ongoing clinical trials of KTE-C19 may, depending on the data, also result in
the delay, suspension or termination of one or more clinical trials of KTE-C19, which would also delay or prevent the initiation of our other planned clinical trials. If we experience termination of, or delays in the completion of, any clinical trial of our product candidates, the commercial prospects for our product candidates will be harmed, and our ability to generate product revenue will be delayed. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials will increase our costs, slow down our product development and approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenue. The NCI is also experiencing difficulties in completing ongoing clinical trials and conducting future clinical trials of product candidates due to the NIH facility evaluation.
Many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates.
The FDA may disagree with our regulatory plan and we may fail to obtain regulatory approval of our product candidates.*
While we believe the primary analysis supports our BLA submission for approval of KTE-C19, the FDA may disagree or the FDA could require longer-term follow-up results, additional data from our clinical trial or additional information relating to GMP or GCP compliance and chain of identity and chain of custody that could delay or prevent FDA’s approval of KTE-C19. The FDA may issue a complete response letter on the basis that the benefits of KTE-C19 do not outweigh its risks, or if there are data integrity or GMP or GCP compliance concerns. While the FDA is not convening a public advisory committee, the FDA's targeted action date remains unchanged and we may not receive approval at all.
In addition, the general approach for FDA approval of a new biologic or drug is dispositive data from two well-controlled, Phase 3 clinical studies of the relevant biologic or drug in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical studies typically involve hundreds of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete. We believe our approval strategy is warranted given the limited alternatives for patients with aggressive NHL, but the FDA may ultimately require a Phase 3 clinical trial prior to approval, particularly since our product candidates represent a novel and personalized treatment. In addition, the standard of care may change with the approval of new products in the same indications that we are studying. This may result in the FDA or other regulatory agencies requesting additional studies to show that our product candidate is superior to the new products.
Our clinical trial results may also not support approval. In addition, our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval for many reasons, including the following:
|
|
•
|
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials;
|
|
|
•
|
we may be unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities that our product candidates are safe and effective for any of their proposed indications;
|
|
|
•
|
the results of clinical trials may not meet the level of statistical significance required by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities for approval, including due to the heterogeneity of patient populations;
|
|
|
•
|
we may be unable to demonstrate that our product candidates’ clinical and other benefits outweigh their safety risks;
|
|
|
•
|
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our interpretation of data from preclinical studies or clinical trials;
|
|
|
•
|
the data collected from clinical trials of our product candidates may not be sufficient to the satisfaction of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to support the submission of a BLA or other comparable submission in foreign jurisdictions or to obtain regulatory approval in the United States or elsewhere;
|
|
|
•
|
the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities will inspect our commercial manufacturing facility and may not approve our facility; and
|
|
|
•
|
the approval policies or regulations of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may significantly change in a manner rendering our clinical data insufficient for approval.
|
The FDA may also approve an indication that is narrower than the indication we are seeking, such as limiting to the indication studied in ZUMA-1, or grant accelerated approval if the FDA believes our results do not support regular approval, which may require us to conduct a confirmatory study to verify the predicted clinical benefit and additional safety studies. The results from the confirmatory study may not support the clinical benefit, which would result in the approval being withdrawn. In addition, accelerated approval would require the pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact how we market and sell KTE-C19.
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, while a failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even if the FDA grants marketing approval of a product candidate, comparable regulatory authorities in foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of the product candidate in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States, including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials as clinical studies conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.
We may also submit marketing applications in other countries. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those 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 fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or receive applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our product candidates will be harmed.
Even if we receive regulatory approval of our product candidates, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense and we may be subject to penalties if we fail to comply with regulatory requirements or experience unanticipated problems with our product candidates.*
Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates will require surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy in order to approve our product candidates, which could entail requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and cGCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, the FDA could require us to conduct another study to obtain additional safety or biomarker information. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party suppliers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:
|
|
•
|
restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of our product candidates, withdrawal of the product from the market, or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;
|
|
|
•
|
fines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials;
|
|
|
•
|
refusal by the FDA to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or suspension or revocation of license approvals;
|
|
|
•
|
product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of our product candidates; and
|
|
|
•
|
injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.
|
The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.
Coverage and reimbursement may be limited or unavailable in certain market segments for our product candidates, which could make it difficult for us to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably.
Successful sales of our product candidates, if approved, depend on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. In addition, because our product candidates represent new approaches to the treatment of cancer, we cannot accurately estimate the potential revenue from our product candidates.
Patients who are provided medical treatment for their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. Obtaining coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance.
Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs and treatments they will cover and the amount of reimbursement. Reimbursement by a third-party payor may depend upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the third-party payor’s determination that use of a product is:
|
|
•
|
a covered benefit under its health plan;
|
|
|
•
|
safe, effective and medically necessary;
|
|
|
•
|
appropriate for the specific patient;
|
|
|
•
|
neither experimental nor investigational.
|
Obtaining coverage and reimbursement approval of a product from a government or other third-party payor is a time-consuming and costly process that could require us to provide to the payor supporting scientific, clinical and cost-effectiveness data for the use of our products. Even if we obtain coverage for a given product, if the resulting reimbursement rates are deemed to be insufficient, hospitals may not approve our product for use in their facility or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients are unlikely to use our product candidates unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our product candidates.
In the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our product candidates to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained.
We intend to seek approval to market our product candidates in both the United States and in selected foreign jurisdictions. If we obtain approval in one or more foreign jurisdictions for our product candidates, we will be subject to rules and regulations in those jurisdictions. In some foreign countries, particularly those in Europe, the pricing of biologics is subject to governmental control. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after obtaining marketing approval of a product candidate. In addition, market acceptance and sales of our product candidates will depend significantly on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors for our product candidates and may be affected by existing and future health care reform measures.
The advancement of healthcare reform may negatively impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably.*
Third-party payors, whether domestic or foreign, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our product candidates, if approved, profitably. In particular, in 2010 the Affordable Care Act was enacted. The Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations, among other things, revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers to the state and federal government for covered outpatient drugs and certain biologics, including our product candidates, under the Medicaid drug rebate program are calculated, 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 new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs, and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act expanded eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, imposed a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, expanded the entities eligible for discounts under the Public Health Service pharmaceutical pricing program, and implemented a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. We are still unsure of the full impact that the Affordable Care Act will have on our business.
Further, since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to numerous provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In January, Congress voted to adopt a budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, or the Budget Resolution, that authorizes the implementation of legislation that would repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act. The Budget Resolution is not a law, but it is widely viewed as the first step toward the passage of legislation that would repeal certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Further, on January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with
authorities and responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the Affordable Care Act that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Congress also could consider subsequent legislation to replace elements of the Affordable Care Act that are repealed.
There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. For example, there has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient assistance programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. Further, in April 2016, CMS’ final rule regarding the Medicaid drug rebate program took effect, among other things, revising the manner in which the “average manufacturer price” is to be calculated by manufacturers participating in the program and implementing certain amendments to the Medicaid rebate statute created under the Affordable Care Act. 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:
|
|
•
|
the demand for our product candidates, if we obtain regulatory approval;
|
|
|
•
|
our ability to set a price that we believe is fair for our products;
|
|
|
•
|
our ability to generate revenue and achieve or maintain profitability;
|
|
|
•
|
the level of taxes that we are required to pay; and
|
|
|
•
|
the availability of capital.
|
Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors, which may adversely affect our future profitability.
Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property
We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties and termination of any of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights, which would harm our business.
We are dependent on patents, know-how and proprietary technology, both our own and licensed from others.
We have several license agreements, including with Cabaret Biotech Ltd., or Cabaret, and Dr. Zelig Eshhar, the NIH, Amgen Inc., Alpine Immune Sciences, Inc., The Regents of the University of California and Cell Design Labs, Inc. These licenses may be terminated upon certain conditions. Any termination of these licenses could result in the loss of significant rights and could harm our ability to commercialize our product candidates. In addition, Cabaret and other of our licensors in-license some of the intellectual property rights they are licensing to us. To the extent these licensors fail to meet their obligations under their license agreements, which we are not in control of, we may lose the benefits of our license agreements with these licensors.
Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:
|
|
•
|
the scope of rights granted under the license agreement and other interpretation-related issues;
|
|
|
•
|
whether and the extent to which our technology and processes infringe on intellectual property of the licensor that is not subject to the licensing agreement;
|
|
|
•
|
our right to sublicense patent and other rights to third parties under collaborative development relationships;
|
|
|
•
|
our diligence obligations with respect to the use of the licensed technology in relation to our development and commercialization of our product candidates, and what activities satisfy those diligence obligations; and
|
|
|
•
|
the ownership of inventions and know-how resulting from the joint creation or use of intellectual property by our licensors and us and our partners.
|
If disputes over intellectual property that we have licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates.
In addition, our subsidiary, Kite Pharma EU B.V., has licenses to certain intellectual property rights relating to its TCR-GENErator platform, and we are subject to the same risks of termination and disputes with respect to our subsidiary’s licenses. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we license, as we
are for intellectual property that we own, which are described below. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could suffer.
If our efforts to protect the proprietary nature of the intellectual property related to our technologies are not adequate, we may not be able to compete effectively in our market.*
We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and license agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our technologies. Any disclosure to or misappropriation by third parties of our confidential proprietary information could enable competitors to quickly duplicate or surpass our technological achievements, thus eroding our competitive position in our market.
We primarily rely on our license agreement with Cabaret with respect to CAR-based product candidates generally and KTE-C19 specifically, and rely and expect to rely on license agreements with the NIH for other product candidates. Certain intellectual property which is covered by these agreements has been developed with funding from the U.S. government. As such, our rights in this intellectual property are subject to certain research and other rights of the government.
Additional patent applications have been filed, and we anticipate additional patent applications will be filed, both in the United States and in other countries, as appropriate. However, we cannot predict:
|
|
•
|
if and when patents will issue;
|
|
|
•
|
the degree and range of protection any issued patents will afford us against competitors including whether third parties will find ways to invalidate or otherwise circumvent our patents;
|
|
|
•
|
whether or not others will obtain patents claiming aspects similar to those covered by our patents and patent applications; or
|
|
|
•
|
whether we will need to initiate litigation or administrative proceedings which may be costly whether we win or lose.
|
Composition of matter patents for biological and pharmaceutical products such as CAR- or TCR-based product candidates are generally considered to be the strongest form of intellectual property protection for those types of products, as such patents provide protection without regard to any method of use. We cannot be certain that the claims in our pending patent applications covering composition of matter of our product candidates will be considered patentable by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or the USPTO, or by patent offices in foreign countries, or that the claims in any of our issued patents will be considered patentable by courts in the United States or foreign countries. Method of use patents protect the use of a product for the specified method. This type of patent does not prevent a competitor from making and marketing a product that is identical to our product for an indication that is outside the scope of the patented method. Moreover, even if competitors do not actively promote their product for our targeted indications, physicians may prescribe these products “off-label.” Although off-label prescriptions may infringe or contribute to the infringement of method of use patents, the practice is common and such infringement is difficult to prevent or prosecute.
The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates or uses thereof in the United States or in other foreign countries. Even if the patents do successfully issue, third parties may challenge the patentability, validity, enforceability or scope thereof, for example through inter partes review, or IPR, post-grant review or ex parte reexamination before the USPTO or oppositions and other comparable proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, which may result in such patents being cancelled, narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable. For example, on November 16, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 5, 2016, one or more anonymous parties filed for ex parte reexaminations of certain patents that we licensed pursuant to our agreement with Cabaret. On December 12, 2016, we achieved a favorable outcome in one of these reexaminations: the USPTO maintained the patent with its expiration date unchanged. On June 26, 2017, we also achieved a favorable outcome in the remaining two reexaminations of one of our CAR-related patents, expiring in 2027. The USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate, confirming the patentability of amended claims in this patent. Even with the favorable outcomes at the USPTO or if our patents and applications are unchallenged, they may not adequately protect our intellectual property or prevent others from designing around our claims.
If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop, and threaten our ability to commercialize, our product candidates. Further, if we encounter delays in our clinical trials, the period of time during which we could market our product candidates under patent protection would be reduced. United States patent applications containing or that at any time contained a claim not entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013 are subject to the “first to file” system implemented by the America Invents Act (2011).
This first to file system 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, we cannot be certain that we were the first to file any patent application related to our product candidates. Furthermore, for United States applications in which all claims are entitled to a priority date before March 16, 2013, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third-party or instituted by the USPTO, to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications.
In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we seek to rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information, or technology that is not covered by patents. Although we require all of our employees to assign their inventions to us, and require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot be certain that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Furthermore, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent unauthorized material disclosure of our intellectual property to third parties, we will not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.
Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our product discovery and development efforts.*
Our commercial success depends in part on our avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There is a substantial amount of litigation involving patents and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing our product candidates. As described in more detail below, we have faced litigation in which a third party claimed that our lead product candidate, KTE-C19, infringes or will infringe its patent rights.
The patent-in-suit in the litigation in which we were involved is owned by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer and Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, or MSK, and licensed to Juno Therapeutics, Inc., or Juno, and relates to certain CAR compositions of matter. Juno is a publicly held biotherapeutics company developing CAR and TCR technologies. On August 13, 2015, we filed a petition with the USPTO to institute an IPR proceeding of the MSK patent. The purpose of the IPR petition was to seek a determination before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, that the claims recited in the patent licensed to Juno were invalid. A decision was issued in the IPR on December 16, 2016 wherein the PTAB declined to hold the claims invalid. On February 16, 2017, we filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Separately, on December 19, 2016, Juno and MSK filed a patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware with respect to the MSK patent. On February 23, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While the court granted our motion to dismiss on June 13, 2017, MSK may nonetheless bring another lawsuit in the future. Based on the controlling statute, in our defense against the infringement claims we would be precluded, or “estopped” from asserting that the patent at issue is invalid on any ground that we raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR proceeding. The precise scope of this statutory estoppel is evolving in the courts, and we are not estopped from raising additional invalidity challenges to the patent, as well as defenses in the lawsuit, based on grounds other than those that we raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR.
To have succeeded in the IPR proceeding, we would have needed to establish invalidity of the MSK patent by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that, based on the evidence, it is more likely than not that the claims in the patent are invalid. In contrast, in any separate infringement lawsuit filed against us, we would need to prove invalidity by “clear and convincing evidence,” a heightened standard of proof. In the U.S., issued patents enjoy a presumption of validity in court, but not at the USPTO. If the MSK patent were upheld in the IPR appeal and were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be not invalid, and that it covers KTE-C19, and if a court were to grant an injunction, Juno and MSK may be able to block our ability to sell the product unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires (which we believe will be in 2024) or is finally determined to be not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. While we believe that we have a meritorious basis for asserting that the MSK patent is invalid, patent litigation is inherently uncertain, and therefore we cannot be certain that we will prevail in these proceedings.
Additionally, there may be third-party patents of which we are currently unaware with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of our product candidates, constructs or molecules used in or formed during the manufacturing process, or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire or they are finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. Similarly, if any third-party patent were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy or patient selection methods, the holders of any such patent may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires or is finally determined to be held not infringed, unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to obtain a necessary license to a third-party patent on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our ability to commercialize our product candidates may be impaired or delayed, which could in turn significantly harm our business. Parties making claims against us may seek and obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, 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 or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure. We cannot predict whether any such license would be available at all or whether it would be available on commercially reasonable terms. These risks apply to the MSK patent and the related legal proceedings as well as to any other relevant third-party patent. Furthermore, even in the absence of litigation, we may need to obtain licenses from third parties to advance our research or allow commercialization of our product candidates. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all. In that event, we would be unable to further develop and commercialize our product candidates, which could harm our business significantly.
We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to product components and processes for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.
Presently we have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patent applications that we own or will own, to develop KTE-C19 and certain other product candidates. Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. For instance, while we have certain intellectual property directed to a CAR-based product candidate that targets the EGFRvIII antigen, we may require an additional license relating to the EGFRvIII scFv target binding site in order to commercialize a CAR-based product candidate that targets the EGFRvIII antigen. In addition, while we have patent rights directed to certain CAR constructs, we do not have, and do not expect to obtain, any intellectual property to broad TCR constructs. Rather, any intellectual property directed to TCR-based product candidates that we may obtain would likely be product and/or construct specific.
Our product candidates may also require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. Even if we are able to obtain a license, it may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to develop or license replacement technology.
The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and companies, which may be more established, or have greater resources than we do, may also be pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider necessary or attractive in order to commercialize our product candidates. More established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.
For example, for licenses to additional product candidates, we would have to negotiate a license with the NIH or other third parties for the rights to certain patents and patent applications relating to such product candidates. There can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully complete such negotiations and ultimately acquire the rights to the intellectual property surrounding the additional product candidates that we may seek to acquire.
We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful.
Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may decide that one or more of our patents is not valid or is unenforceable, or may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, 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 or redesign our infringing products, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.
Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms. Litigation or interference proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States.
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. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock.
Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.
Periodic maintenance fees on any issued patent are due to be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies in several stages over the lifetime of the patent. The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. While an inadvertent lapse can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. Noncompliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market, which would have a material adverse effect on our business.
Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found unpatentable, invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court or the USPTO.
If we or one of our licensing partners initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate, as applicable, is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace, and there are numerous grounds upon which a third party can assert invalidity or unenforceability of a patent. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include IPR, ex parte re-examination and post grant review in the United States, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). For example, on November 16, 2015, March 18, 2016 and August 5, 2016, one or more anonymous parties filed for ex parte reexaminations of certain patents that we licensed pursuant to our agreement with Cabaret. On December 12, 2016, we achieved a favorable outcome in one of these reexaminations: the USPTO maintained the patent with its expiration date unchanged. On June 26, 2017, we also achieved a favorable outcome in the remaining two reexaminations of one of our CAR-related patents, expiring in 2027. The USPTO issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate, confirming the patentability of amended claims in this patent. New proceedings could result in ultimate revocation, truncation of term, or amendment to our patents in
such a way that they no longer cover our product, or competitor product, candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of unpatentability, invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we, our patent counsel and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of unpatentability, invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business.
Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.
As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involve both technological and legal complexity, and is therefore costly, time-consuming and inherently 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. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future. For example, in the recent case,
Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
, the U.S. Supreme Court held that certain claims to DNA molecules are not patentable. While we do not believe that any of the patents owned or licensed by us will be found invalid based on this decision, we cannot predict how future decisions by the courts, the U.S. Congress or the USPTO may impact the value of our patents.
We have limited foreign intellectual property rights and may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.
We have limited intellectual property rights outside the United States, and, in particular, our patents directed to CAR constructs licensed from Cabaret do not extend outside of the United States. Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from 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 biopharmaceutical products, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.
We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties.
We have received confidential and proprietary information from third parties. In addition, we employ individuals who were previously employed at other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies. We may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed confidential information of these third parties or our employees’ former employers. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial cost and be a distraction to our management and employees.
Risks Related to Our Common Stock
The price of our stock has been and may continue to be highly volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
Prior to our initial public offering in 2014, there was no public market for our common stock. We cannot assure you that an active, liquid trading market for our shares will develop or persist. You may not be able to sell your shares quickly or at a recently reported market price if trading in our common stock is not active. The trading price of our common stock following our initial public offering has been and is likely to continue to be highly volatile and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control, including limited trading volume. In addition to the factors discussed in this “Risk Factors” section, these factors include:
|
|
•
|
any delay in our regulatory filings for our product candidates and any adverse development or perceived adverse development with respect to the applicable regulatory authority’s review of such filings, including without limitation the FDA’s issuance of a “refusal to file” letter or a request for additional information;
|
|
|
•
|
our failure to commercialize our product candidates;
|
|
|
•
|
the commencement, enrollment or results of our ongoing and planned clinical trials of our product candidates or any future clinical trials we may conduct, or changes in the development status of our product candidates;
|
|
|
•
|
adverse results or delays in clinical trials;
|
|
|
•
|
our or NCI’s decision to initiate a clinical trial, not to initiate a clinical trial or to terminate an existing clinical trial;
|
|
|
•
|
the resolution of the NIH facility evaluation and the ability and timing of the NCI to advance clinical trials under the 2012 CRADA and 2016 CRADAs;
|
|
|
•
|
adverse regulatory decisions, including failure to receive regulatory approval of our product candidates;
|
|
|
•
|
changes in laws or regulations applicable to our products, including but not limited to clinical trial requirements for approvals;
|
|
|
•
|
adverse developments concerning our manufacturers or suppliers;
|
|
|
•
|
our inability to obtain adequate product supply for any approved product or inability to do so at acceptable prices;
|
|
|
•
|
our inability to establish collaborations if needed;
|
|
|
•
|
additions or departures of key scientific or management personnel;
|
|
|
•
|
unanticipated serious safety concerns related to immuno-oncology or related to the use of our product candidates;
|
|
|
•
|
introduction of new products or services offered by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
•
|
announcements of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures or capital commitments by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
•
|
our ability to effectively manage our growth;
|
|
|
•
|
the size and growth of our initial cancer target markets;
|
|
|
•
|
our ability to successfully treat additional types of cancers or at different stages, including the ability of Kite Pharma EU B.V. to discover new TCR-based product candidates;
|
|
|
•
|
actual or anticipated variations in quarterly operating results;
|
|
|
•
|
our failure to meet the estimates and projections of the investment community or that we may otherwise provide to the public;
|
|
|
•
|
publication of research reports about us or our industry, or immunotherapy in particular, or positive or negative recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage by securities analysts;
|
|
|
•
|
changes in the market valuations of similar companies;
|
|
|
•
|
overall performance of the equity markets;
|
|
|
•
|
sales of our common stock by us or our stockholders in the future;
|
|
|
•
|
trading volume of our common stock;
|
|
|
•
|
changes in accounting practices;
|
|
|
•
|
ineffectiveness of our internal controls;
|
|
|
•
|
disputes or other developments relating to proprietary rights, including patents, litigation matters and our ability to obtain patent protection for our technologies;
|
|
|
•
|
significant lawsuits, including patent or stockholder litigation;
|
|
|
•
|
general political and economic conditions; and
|
|
|
•
|
other events or factors, many of which are beyond our control.
|
In addition, the stock market in general, and The NASDAQ Global Select Market and biopharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation,
if instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.
We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.
We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.
Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.*
As of August 1, 2017, our executive officers, directors, and 10% stockholders beneficially owned approximately 25% of our voting stock, a significant portion of which is beneficially owned by Arie Belldegrun, our President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman. These stockholders may be able to determine all matters requiring stockholder approval. For example, these stockholders may be able to control elections of directors, amendments of our organizational documents, or approval of any merger, sale of assets, or other major corporate transaction. This may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may feel are in your best interest as one of our stockholders.
Failure to establish and maintain adequate finance infrastructure and accounting systems and controls could impair our ability to comply with the financial reporting and internal controls requirements for publicly traded companies.
As a public company, we operate in an increasingly demanding regulatory environment, including with respect to more complex accounting rules. Company responsibilities required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, include establishing and maintaining corporate oversight and adequate internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. Effective internal controls are necessary for us to produce reliable financial reports and are important to help prevent financial fraud.
Our compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we incur substantial accounting expense and expend significant management efforts. We complied with Section 404 at December 31, 2015 and 2016 and while our testing did not reveal any material weaknesses in our internal controls, subsequent testing by our independent registered public accounting firm may reveal material weaknesses in our internal controls that we would be required to remediate in a timely manner so as to be able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act each year. If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner each year, we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the SEC, NASDAQ or other regulatory authorities which would require additional financial and management resources and could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, if we cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, our business and results of operations could be harmed and investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information.
We have incurred and will incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management has to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives.
As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, which requires, among other things, that we file with the SEC annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and The NASDAQ Global Select Market to implement provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, impose significant requirements on public companies, including requiring establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. Further, in July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, was enacted. There are significant corporate governance and executive compensation related provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act that require the SEC to adopt additional rules and regulations in these areas such as “say on pay” and proxy access. Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate.
We expect the rules and regulations applicable to public companies to continue to increase our legal and financial compliance costs and to make some activities more time-consuming and costly. If these requirements divert the attention of our management and personnel from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The increased costs will decrease our net income or increase our net loss, and may require
us to reduce costs in other areas of our business or increase the prices of our products or services. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain the same or similar coverage. We cannot predict or estimate the amount or timing of additional costs we may incur to respond to these requirements. The impact of these requirements could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as executive officers.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock by our existing stockholders in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.
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 may have on the prevailing market price of our common stock.
Sales of our common stock by current stockholders may make it more difficult for us to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem reasonable or appropriate, and make it more difficult for you to sell shares of our common stock.
Certain holders of our securities are entitled to rights with respect to the registration of their shares under the Securities Act. Any sales of securities by these stockholders could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.
We have registered on Form S-8 all shares of common stock that are issuable under our 2014 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended, or the EIP. As a consequence, these shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance, subject to volume limitations applicable to affiliates.
Actual or potential sales of our common stock by our employees, including our directors and executive officers, pursuant to pre-arranged stock trading plans could cause our stock price to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons, and actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by other investors.
In accordance with the guidelines specified under Rule 10b5-1 of the Exchange Act, and our policies regarding stock transactions, a number of our employees, including certain executive officers, have adopted and may continue to adopt stock trading plans pursuant to which they arrange to sell shares of our common stock from time to time in the future. Generally, sales under such plans by our executive officers require public filings. Actual or potential sales of our common stock by such persons could cause the price of our common stock to fall or prevent it from increasing for numerous reasons. For example, a substantial number of shares of our common stock becoming available (or being perceived to become available) for sale in the public market could cause the market price of our common stock to fall or prevent it from increasing. Also, actual or potential sales by such persons could be viewed negatively by other investors.
Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to the EIP, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.
We expect that significant additional capital may be needed in the future to continue our planned operations, including conducting clinical trials, commercialization efforts, expanded research and development activities and costs associated with operating a public company. To raise capital, we may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. Such sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights, preferences and privileges senior to the holders of our common stock.
Pursuant to the EIP, our management is authorized to grant stock options and other equity awards to our employees, directors and consultants.
The number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under our EIP will automatically increase on January 1 of each year continuing through and including January 1, 2024, by 5% of the total number of shares of our capital stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, or such lesser number of shares determined by our board of directors. In addition, the number of shares of our common stock reserved for issuance under our 2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or ESPP, will automatically increase on January 1 of each year continuing through and including January 1, 2024, by the lesser of (1) 1% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on December 31 of the preceding calendar year, (2) 720,000 shares, or (3) a number determined by our board of directors that is less than (1) and (2). Unless our
board of directors elects not to increase the number of shares underlying our EIP and ESPP each year, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall.
Anti-takeover provisions under our charter documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change of control which could limit the market price of our common stock and may prevent or frustrate attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change of control of our company or changes in our board of directors that our stockholders might consider favorable. Some of these provisions include:
|
|
•
|
a board of directors divided into three classes serving staggered three-year terms, such that not all members of the board will be elected at one time;
|
|
|
•
|
a prohibition on stockholder action through written consent, which requires that all stockholder actions be taken at a meeting of our stockholders;
|
|
|
•
|
a requirement that special meetings of stockholders be called only by the chairman of the board of directors, the chief executive officer, or by a majority of the total number of authorized directors;
|
|
|
•
|
advance notice requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations for election to our board of directors;
|
|
|
•
|
a requirement that no member of our board of directors may be removed from office by our stockholders except for cause and, in addition to any other vote required by law, upon the approval of not less than two-thirds of all outstanding shares of our voting stock then entitled to vote in the election of directors;
|
|
|
•
|
a requirement of approval of not less than two-thirds of all outstanding shares of our voting stock to amend any bylaws by stockholder action or to amend specific provisions of our certificate of incorporation; and
|
|
|
•
|
the authority of the board of directors to issue preferred stock on terms determined by the board of directors without stockholder approval and which preferred stock may include rights superior to the rights of the holders of common stock.
|
In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporate Law, which may prohibit certain business combinations with stockholders owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock. These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws could make it more difficult for stockholders or potential acquirors to obtain control of our board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the then-current board of directors and could also delay or impede a merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing or cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction or changes in our board of directors could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.
If securities or industry analysts issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our stock, our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if the clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more analysts do not initiate coverage of us, cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.