Celcuity Inc. - Annual Report: 2022 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022

or

For the transition period from _______________________ to ___________________

Commission File Number: 001-38207

Celcuity Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (763) 392-0767

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

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

None

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on $9.10, the closing price of the shares of common stock on June 30, 2022 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) as reported by The Nasdaq Capital Market on such date, was approximately $96,109,668.

As of March 15, 2023, there were 21,689,425 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED IN PART BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K

2022 Annual Report on Form 10-K

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements. This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”) contains forward-looking statements regarding us, our business prospects and our results of operations that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual business, prospects and results of operations to differ materially from those that may be anticipated by such forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those described in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report. We expressly disclaim any intent or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by us in this Annual Report and in our other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) that advise interested parties of the risks and uncertainties that may affect our business.

All statements, other than statements of historical facts, contained in this Annual Report, including statements regarding our plans, objectives and expectations for our business, operations and financial performance and condition, are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the following words: “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “target,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology, although not all forward-looking statements contain these words. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our results, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report. Additionally, our forward-looking statements do not reflect the potential impact of any future acquisitions, mergers, dispositions, joint ventures or investments that we may make. Forward-looking statements may include, among other things, statements relating to:

These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our results or our industry’s actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from the information expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Certain risks, uncertainties and other factors include, but are not limited to, our limited operating history; the potential impact of COVID-19 and any resurgence thereof on our business and clinical study activities; our potential inability to develop, validate and commercialize gedatolisib on a timely basis or at all; the uncertainties and costs associated with clinical studies and with developing and commercializing biopharmaceuticals; the complexity and difficulty of demonstrating the safety and sufficient magnitude of benefit to support regulatory approval of gedatolisib and other products we may develop; challenges we may face in developing and maintaining relationships with pharmaceutical company partners; the complexity and timeline for development of our CELsignia tests; the uncertainty regarding market acceptance of our products and services by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community, uncertainty with respect to the size of market opportunities available to us; uncertainty regarding the pricing of drug products and molecular and other diagnostic products and services that compete or may compete with us; uncertainty with insurance coverage and reimbursement for our products and services; difficulties we may face in managing growth, such as hiring and retaining key personnel; changes in government regulations; and obtaining and maintaining intellectual property protection for our technology and time and expense associated with defending third-party claims of intellectual property infringement, investigations or litigation threatened or initiated against us. See “Risk Factors” in Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report for additional risks, uncertainties and other factors applicable to the Company.

SUMMARY OF RISK FACTORS

Below is a summary of the material factors that make an investment in our common stock speculative or risky. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks summarized in this risk factor summary, and other risks that we face, can be found in the “Risk Factors” section of Part I, Item 1A of this Annual Report and should be carefully considered, together with other information in this Annual Report and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission before making investment decisions regarding our common stock.

PART I

ITEM 1. Business

Overview

Unless otherwise provided in this Annual Report, references to the “Company,” “we,” “us,” and “our” and similar references refer to Celcuity Inc., a Delaware corporation. We own various unregistered trademarks and service marks, including our corporate logo. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, trade names and service marks in this Annual Report, including those owned by third parties, may be referred to without the ®,^TM or ^SM symbols, but such references should not be construed as any indicator that the owner of such trademarks, trade names and service marks will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, their rights thereto. We do not intend the use or display of other companies’ trademarks, trade names and service marks to imply an endorsement or sponsorship of us by any other companies.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on development of targeted therapies for treatment of multiple solid tumor indications. Our lead therapeutic candidate is gedatolisib, a pan-PI3K/mTOR inhibitor. Its mechanism of action and pharmacokinetic properties are highly differentiated from other currently approved and investigational therapies that target PI3K or mTOR alone or together. With respect to our CDx development activities, our CELsignia diagnostic platform is uniquely able to analyze live patient tumor cells to identify new groups of cancer patients likely to benefit from targeted therapies.

Our therapeutic candidate, gedatolisib, is a potent, well-tolerated, small molecule dual inhibitor, administered intravenously, that selectively targets all Class I isoforms of PI3K and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In April 2021, we obtained exclusive global development and commercialization rights to gedatolisib under a license agreement with Pfizer, Inc. Our initial clinical development program for gedatolisib will focus on the treatment of patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2-negative, advanced or metastatic breast cancer. In 2022, we dosed our first patient in our Phase 3 clinical trial, VIKTORIA-1, evaluating gedatolisib in combination with fulvestrant with or without palbociclib in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC).

Supporting the development of a potential first-in-class targeted therapy for breast cancer, like gedatolisib, with our CELsignia platform is a natural extension of our strategy to use our CELsignia CDx to enable new indications for other companies’ targeted therapies. By combining companion diagnostics designed to enable proprietary new drug indications with targeted therapies that treat signaling dysregulation our CDx identifies, we believe we are uniquely positioned to improve the standard-of-care for many early and late-stage breast cancer patients. Our goal is to play a key role in the multiple treatment approaches required to treat breast cancer patients at various stages of their disease.

Therapeutic (Rx) Product Development

Gedatolisib

Gedatolisib is a potent, reversible dual inhibitor that selectively targets PI3K and mTOR. Gedatolisib was originally developed by Wyeth and clinical development was continued by Pfizer after it acquired Wyeth. We exclusively licensed global rights to gedatolisib from Pfizer in April 2021. A Phase 1b trial evaluating patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer was initiated in 2016 and subsequently enrolled 138 patients.

On January 13, 2022, gedatolisib was granted Fast Track designation for the treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer after progression on CDK4/6 therapy. Fast Track designation is granted by the FDA for products that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening disease or conditions and which demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need.

On July 18, 2022, gedatolisib was granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after progression on CDK4/6 therapy. Breakthrough Therapy designation is granted by the FDA to expedite the development and regulatory review of an investigational medicine that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition. The criteria for Breakthrough Therapy designation require preliminary clinical evidence that demonstrates the drug may have substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over available therapy.

In 2022, we activated VIKTORIA-1, a Phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two regimens in adults with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer whose disease has progressed after prior CDK4/6 therapy in combination with an aromatase inhibitor: 1) gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant; and 2) gedatolisib in combination with fulvestrant. Two hundred clinical sites in North America, Europe, South America, Asia, and Australia have been selected to participate in the study. The first clinical site was activated in the third quarter of 2022. The first dosage of a patient in the trial occurred in December 2022.

Background

Breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women, accounting for 30% of all female cancers and 13% of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The National Cancer Institute estimated that approximately 281,000 new cases of breast cancer would be diagnosed in the United States in 2020, and approximately 43,600 breast cancer patients would die of the disease. Approximately 190,000, or 70%, of these new cases are for HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Four different breast cancer subtypes are currently identified using molecular tests that determine the level of HR and HER2 expression. About 70% of breast cancers are HR+/HER2-, which is indicative of hormone dependency. Despite progress in treatment strategies, metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer (MBC) remains an incurable disease, with a median overall survival (OS) of three years and a five-year survival rate of 29%.

Four different classes of targeted therapies are currently used to treat HR+/HER2- tumors: endocrine-based therapies, CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors and mTOR inhibitors. Each of the CDK4/6 inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors and mTOR inhibitors are generally used to respond to the related mechanisms of resistance to endocrine therapy, namely, activation of the CDK4/6, PI3K and mTOR pathways.

As specifically relates to gedatolisib, activation of the PI3K/mTOR pathway has been implicated in a wide variety of human cancers, involving either activating mutations, or other unknown drivers of pathway amplification. These include cancers of the breast, prostate, endometrial, colon, rectum, and lung, among others.

Activities associated with PI3K involve complex essential cell regulatory mechanisms including feedforward and feedback signaling loops. Overactivation of the pathway is frequently present in human malignancies and plays a key role in cancer progression. Four catalytic isoforms of Class I PI3K preferentially mediate signal transduction and tumor cell survival based on the type of malignancy and the genetic or epigenetic alterations an individual patient harbors. Due to the multiple subcellular locations, activities, and importance of the different PI3K complexes in regulating many types of cancer cell proliferation, control of PI3K activity is an important target in cancer therapy.

mTOR is a critical effector in cell-signaling pathways commonly dysregulated in human cancers. The mTOR signaling pathway integrates both intracellular and extracellular signals and serves as a central regulator of cell metabolism, growth, proliferation, and survival. mTOR is a serine/threonine protein kinase, a downstream effector of PI3K, and regulated by hormones, growth factors, and nutrients, that is contained in two functionally distinct protein assemblies – mTORC1 and mTORC2. In cancer, dysfunctional signaling leads to various constitutive activities of the mTOR complexes, making mTOR a good therapeutic target.

In addition, the PI3K/mTOR pathway, like other mitogenic pathways, can also promote the activities of cyclin D and CDK4/6 to drive proliferative cell cycling. The available evidence indicates that resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer is a transient adaptive mechanism, most likely involving the PI3K/mTOR pathway. This data indicates that CDK4/6 signaling is restored in CDK4/6 resistant tumors when PI3K/mTOR inhibitors are applied. Thus, continuing CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment in combination with a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor in patients who progressed on their prior CDK4/6 inhibitor, would both blockade the reactivated CDK4/6 pathway and prevent adaptive activation of the PI3K/mTOR pathway. This suggests the limited efficacy induced by current standard-of-care (SOC) therapies in patients who have progressed on a CDK4/6 therapy reflects the mechanistic inadequacy of relying on partial PI3K/mTOR inhibition (e.g., alpelisib or everolimus) and no CDK4/6 inhibition to address this complex disease mechanism.

We believe the complex connection between the PI3K/mTOR and CDK4/6 pathways can enable gedatolisib to adaptively reactivate CDK4/6 signaling that reportedly occurs in CDK4/6 resistant tumors when the PI3K/mTOR pathway is completely blockaded. By re-activating CDK4/6 signaling, we believe gedatolisib can restore the therapeutic effect of CDK4/6 inhibition when it is combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor. The contributory effect of a CDK4/6 inhibitor when combined with gedatolisib would thus largely reflect the interaction between the two therapies that gedatolisib initiates.

Evidence of gedatolisib anti-tumor in vivo activity was provided in a study evaluating the combination of gedatolisib and a CDK4/6 inhibitor in cell-line xenograft model where response to endocrine therapy was improved and tumor regressions were induced. In a study evaluating the MCF7 xenograft model (ER+/HER2-/PIK3CA mutant), the combination of gedatolisib with palbociclib and fulvestrant caused 90% tumor regression with no tumor regrowth observed for more than 60 days after the final dose.

Advantages of Gedatolisib over other PI3K and mTOR inhibitors

The important role the PI3K/mTOR pathway plays in cancer has led to significant investment in the development of many different PI3K and mTOR inhibitors for solid tumors. However, developing efficacious and well-tolerated therapies that target this pathway has been challenging. This reflects the inherent adaptability and complexity of the PI3K pathway, where numerous feedforward and feedback loops, crosstalk with other pathways, and compensatory pathways enable resistance to PI3K inhibition. Another major hurdle for the development of PI3K pathway inhibitors has been the inability to achieve optimal drug-target blockade in tumors while avoiding undue toxicities in patients.

We believe there is significant potential for gedatolisib to address previously treated breast cancer tumors and has the potential to be used in other tumor types where the PI3K/mTOR pathway is either: i) driving tumorigenesis directly; ii) cooperating with other dysregulated signaling pathways; or iii) a mechanism of resistance to other drug therapies.

As a result, we believe gedatolisib’s unique mechanism of action, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and intravenous formulation offer distinct advantages over currently approved and investigational therapies that target PI3K or mTOR alone or together.

Clinical Experience with Gedatolisib

As of December 31, 2022, 492 patients with solid tumors have received gedatolisib in eight clinical trials sponsored by Pfizer. Of the 492 patients, 129 were treated with gedatolisib as a single agent in three clinical trials. The remaining 363 patients received gedatolisib in combination with other anti-cancer agents in five clinical trials. Additional patients received gedatolisib in combination with other anti-cancer agents in nine investigator sponsored clinical trials.

On January 13, 2022, gedatolisib was granted Fast Track designation for the treatment of patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer after progression on CDK4/6 therapy. Fast Track designation is granted by the FDA for products that are intended for the treatment of serious or life-threatening disease or conditions and which demonstrate the potential to address an unmet medical need. The designation offers the opportunity for frequent interactions with the FDA to discuss the drug’s development plan and to ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support drug approval, as well as eligibility for rolling submission of a New Drug Application.

On July 18, 2022, gedatolisib was granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation for HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer after progression on CDK4/6 therapy. Breakthrough Therapy designation is granted by the FDA to expedite the development and regulatory review of an investigational medicine that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition. The criteria for Breakthrough Therapy designation require preliminary clinical evidence that demonstrates the drug may have substantial improvement on one or more clinically significant endpoints over available therapy. The benefits of Breakthrough Therapy Designation include more intensive guidance from the FDA on an efficient development program, access to a scientific liaison to help accelerate review time, and potential eligibility for priority review if relevant criteria are met. Celcuity’s breakthrough application was supported by data from a Phase 1b study that assessed the safety, tolerability and clinical activity of gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed during treatment with a CDK4/6 therapy and an aromatase inhibitor.

Gedatolisib’s safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic profile were determined in a Phase 1 First-in-Human study. The favorability of preliminary results from our most recently completed clinical trial, a Phase 1b study which evaluated 138 patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC), led us to focus on our initial clinical development program on advanced breast cancer.

Phase 1 First-in-Human Study

In 2013, Pfizer completed a Phase 1, open-label, dose-escalation first-in human study of single-agent gedatolisib in patients with advanced solid tumors. The primary objective of Part 1 of the study was to determine the safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of single-agent gedatolisib administered once weekly as an intravenous (IV) infusion. Seventy-seven patients with advanced solid tumors received doses of gedatolisib and the MTD was determined to be 154 mg IV once weekly (n = 42). Based on results and analyses from subsequent clinical trials, the maximum tolerated dose was determined to be 180 mg IV once weekly.

Phase 1b HR+/HER2- ABC Clinical Trial Results

In 2016, Pfizer initiated a Phase 1b dose-finding trial with an expansion portion for safety and efficacy to evaluate gedatolisib when added to either the standard doses of palbociclib plus letrozole or palbociclib plus fulvestrant in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. PI3K mutation status was not used as an eligibility criterion. Patient enrollment for the trial is complete.

A total of 138 patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer were dosed in the clinical trial. Seven patients from this study continue to receive study treatment, as of December 31, 2022, each of whom have received study treatment for more than four years.

Analysis for the 103 patients enrolled in the expansion portion of the Phase 1b clinical trial, as of a database cutoff date of June 29, 2022, showed:

(1) ORR represents PR, except in Arm A, which had 1 CR = complete response. Responses per RECIST 1.1; (2) Includes 2 unconfirmed PR Abbreviations: 1L= first line, 2L= second line; mos= months; NR = not reached; ORR, objective response rate; PFS, progression free survival

Source: Wesolowski 2022 SABCS

Other Gedatolisib Clinical Trials

Phase 2 Pilot Clinical Trial for HER2+/PIK3CA+ Patients

The Korean Cancer Study Group sponsored a Phase 2 pilot clinical trial to evaluate gedatolisib combined with a trastuzumab biosimilar (Herzuma®), in patients with HER2+/PIK3CA+ metastatic breast cancers whose disease had progressed after treatment with three or more prior HER2 targeted therapy regimens. The clinical trial commenced in December 2019 and interim efficacy data from the first 17 patients enrolled was presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium in December 2021. Patients received a trastuzumab biosimilar (8 mg/kg IV for 1st cycle loading dose, and then 6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks) plus gedatolisib (180 mg, weekly IV). The primary endpoint was objective response, a reduction of at least 30% in tumor volume by RECIST v1.1.

As of a data cutoff date of October 30, 2021, 10 of 17 patients achieved a partial response, an ORR of 59%, and four patients had stable disease. Fourteen of 17 patients thus received either a partial response or stable disease, resulting in a clinical benefit rate of 82%. Best responses are shown in the following chart. The dotted lines represent the cutoff for progressive disease (>20% tumor growth) and for partial response (>30% tumor regression).

Best Response

* Patient whose target lesion decreased by 63% but a new leptomeningeal seeding occurred.

The duration of treatment for the 16 patients evaluated is shown in the chart below. As of the October 30, 2020 data cutoff, 16 patients (80%) remained on therapy. Four patients discontinued treatment, one due to disease progression, one due to an adverse event of Grade 1 diarrhea, one participant decision, and one patient being unable to undergo the required MRI imaging due to a titanium rod implant from non-treatment related worsening of scoliosis. At the time of data cut-off, the median time on treatment for these 20 patients was 10.1 cycles (approximately 10 months) and all 10 patients who had achieved an objective response remained on therapy assessment. At the time of the analysis, nine patients had a continuing response. The dashed lines show the response at 3 months and 6 months.

Duration of Treatment

Phase 1 Clinical Trial in Patients with Solid Tumors

A phase 1 study conducted at the Indiana University Simon Cancer Center evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and preliminary activity of gedatolisib combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors previously who were treated with two or more prior chemotherapies. Seventeen patients were enrolled (10 clear cell ovarian, one low-grade serous ovarian, four endometrial, and two lung cancers). The ORR was 65% in all patients (11/17 patients: eight partial responses and three complete responses) and stable disease was 17% (3/17). Among patients with clear cell ovarian cancer, the ORR was 80%, with three patients achieving a complete response.

Best Response

Active Gedatolisib Clinical Trials

Phase 3 HR+/HER2- ABC Clinical Trial (VIKTORIA-1)

In 2022, we initiated VIKTORIA-1, a Phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gedatolisib in combination with fulvestrant with or without palbociclib in adults with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer whose disease has progressed after prior CDK4/6 therapy in combination with an aromatase inhibitor. This multi-center, international trial is expected to enroll 701 total subjects at approximately 200 clinical sites across North America, Europe, Latin America, and Asia. The first clinical site was activated in the third quarter of 2022. The first patient was dosed in December 2022.

The clinical trial will enable separate evaluation of subjects according to their PIK3CA status.

The clinical trial primary endpoints are progression free survival (PFS), per RECIST 1.1 criteria, as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Two primary endpoints will be evaluated in subjects who are PI3KCA WT, and one primary endpoint will be evaluated in subjects who are PI3KCA MT. In subjects who are PI3KCA WT, the PFS of gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant (Arm A) will be compared to fulvestrant monotherapy (Arm C), and the PFS in gedatolisib in combination with fulvestrant (Arm B) will be compared to fulvestrant monotherapy (Arm C). In subjects who are PI3KCA MT, the PFS of gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant (Arm D) will be compared to alpelisib combined with fulvestrant (Arm E).

All subjects will receive treatment according to the assigned study arm until objective progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, death, or withdrawal of consent, whichever occurs first. Subjects in Arm C will have the option to receive the treatment regimen provided in Arm A or Arm B upon radiographically confirmed disease progression. Subjects will be followed for AEs, safety laboratory testing, tumour assessment by RECIST v1.1, quality of life, and overall survival.

Planned Phase 2 Gedatolisib Clinical Trials

We expect to use the CELsignia PI3K Activity Test to help support development of gedatolisib for breast cancer indications. Our internal studies demonstrate how measurement of PI3K-involved signaling may provide a sensitive and specific method of identifying patients most likely to benefit from PI3K inhibitors. We believe CELsignia tests uniquely enable us to pursue indications simultaneously for unselected patient populations and CELsignia selected patient sub-groups. This approach can greatly reduce the risk of pursing an indication for a large, but unselected patient population, as we plan to do for the initial gedatolisib indication. By combining the capabilities of CELsignia PI3K Activity Test with a potent pan-PI3K/mTOR inhibitor like gedatolisib, we believe we are uniquely suited to maximize the probability of obtaining regulatory approval to market gedatolisib.

Accordingly, we plan to initiate a Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and letrozole in early-stage HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients. The tumors from all patients will be evaluated with a CELsignia PI3K Pathway Test.

Pfizer License Agreement

In April 2021, we entered into a license agreement, or the Gedatolisib License Agreement, with Pfizer pursuant to which we acquired exclusive (including as to Pfizer) worldwide sublicensable rights to research, develop, manufacture, and commercialize gedatolisib for the treatment, diagnosis and prevention of all diseases. Pursuant to the Gedatolisib License Agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop and seek regulatory approval for at least one product in the U.S. and if regulatory approval is obtained, to commercialize such product in the U.S and at least one international major market.

We paid Pfizer a $5.0 million upfront fee upon execution of the Gedatolisib License Agreement and issued to Pfizer $5.0 million of our common stock. We are also required to make milestone payments to Pfizer upon achievement of certain development and commercial milestone events, up to an aggregate of $335.0 million. We will pay Pfizer tiered royalties on sales of gedatolisib at percentages ranging from the low to mid-teens, that may be subject to deductions for expiration of valid claims, amounts due under third-party licenses and generic competition. Unless earlier terminated, the Gedatolisib License Agreement will expire upon the expiration of all royalty obligations. The royalty period will expire on a country-by-country basis upon the later of (a) 12 years following the date of First Commercial Sale of such Product in such country, (b) the expiration of all regulatory or data exclusivity in such country for such Product or (c) the date upon which the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of such Product in such country would no longer infringe, but for the license granted herein, a Valid Claim of a Licensed Patent Right. Capitalized terms in this paragraph have the meanings set forth in the Gedatolisib License Agreement.

We have the right to terminate the Gedatolisib License Agreement for convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice. Pfizer may not terminate the agreement for convenience. Either we or Pfizer may terminate the Gedatolisib License Agreement if the other party is in material breach and such breach is not cured within the specified cure period. In addition, either we or Pfizer may terminate the Gedatolisib License Agreement in the event of specified insolvency events involving the other party.

Manufacturing

We rely on third parties to manufacture gedatolisib. We expect to enter into agreements with contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to produce drug substance for gedatolisib. We require all of our CMOs to conduct manufacturing activities in compliance with current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, requirements. We anticipate that these CMOs will have the capacity to support both clinical supply and commercial-scale production, but we do not have any formal agreements at this time to cover commercial production. We may also elect to enter into agreements with other CMOs to manufacture supplies of drug substance and finished drug product.

Sales and Marketing

If any of our product candidates are approved, we intend to market and commercialize them in the U.S. and select international markets, either alone or in partnership with others. Cancer patients are managed by oncologists, medical geneticists and neurologists, and therefore we believe can be reached with a targeted sales force.

Competition for Gedatolisib

The pharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid evolution of technologies and intense competition. While we believe that our product candidates, technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face competition from major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions, governmental agencies and public and private research institutions, among others. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with approved treatment options, including off-label therapies, and new therapies that may become available in the future. Key considerations that would impact our ability to effectively compete with other therapies include the efficacy, safety, method of administration, cost, level of promotional activity and intellectual property protection of our products. Many of the companies against which we may compete have significantly greater financial resources and expertise than we do in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products.

There are several PI3K and mTOR inhibitors approved by the FDA, including Piqray and Afinitor from Novartis AG, Aliqopa from Bayer Corporation, Copiktra from Verastem, Inc., Zydelig from Gilead Sciences, Inc. and we are aware that other companies are, or may be, developing products for this indication, including AstraZeneca plc, BridgeBio Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Kazia Therapeutics Limited, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Relay Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. There may be additional companies with programs suitable for addressing these patient populations that could be competitive with our efforts but that have not yet disclosed specific clinical development plans. Smaller or early-stage companies, including oncology-focused therapeutics companies, may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. These companies may also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites, enrolling patients in clinical trials and acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. The availability of reimbursement from government and private payors will also significantly impact the pricing and competitiveness of our products. Our competitors may obtain FDA or other regulatory approvals for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approvals for our product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to commercialize our product candidates.

CELsignia Development and CDx Programs

Overview

Our proprietary CELsignia diagnostic platform is the only commercially ready technology we are aware of that uses a patient’s living tumor cells to identify the specific abnormal cellular process driving a patient’s cancer and the targeted therapy that best treats it. This enables us to identify patients whose tumors may respond to a targeted therapy, even though they lack a previously associated molecular mutation. By identifying cancer patients whose tumors lack an associated genetic mutation but have abnormal cellular activity a matching targeted therapeutic is designed to inhibit, we believe our CELsignia CDx can expand the markets for a number of already approved targeted therapies. Our current CDx identifies breast and ovarian cancer patients whose tumors have cancer drivers potentially responsive to treatment with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2), mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (c-MET), or phosphatidylinositol 3-kinases (PI3K) targeted therapeutics.

Our CELsignia platform provides an important advantage over traditional molecular diagnostics. Current molecular diagnostics analyze fragmented cells to obtain a snapshot of the genetic mutations present in a patient’s tumor. Using cell fragments prevents molecular diagnostics from analyzing the dynamic cellular activities, known as cell signaling, that regulate cell proliferation or survival. Cancer can develop when critical cell signaling, regulating physiologic activity such as cell proliferation, becomes abnormal or dysregulated. Since genetic mutations are often only weakly correlated to the dysregulated cell signaling activity driving a patient’s cancer, a molecular diagnostic is prone to providing an incomplete diagnosis. CELsignia tests overcome this limitation by measuring dynamic cell signaling activity in a cancer patient’s living tumor cells. When a CELsignia test detects abnormal signaling activity, a more accurate diagnosis of the patient’s cancer driver is obtained.

We are supporting the advancement of new potential indications for four different targeted therapies, controlled by other pharmaceutical companies, that would rely on a CELsignia CDx to select patients. Our first analytically validated and commercially ready test using our CELsignia platform, the CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test for breast cancer, diagnoses two new sub-types of HER2-negative breast cancer that traditional molecular diagnostics cannot detect. Our internal studies show that approximately 15-20% of HER2-negative breast cancer patients have abnormal HER2 signaling activity similar to levels found in HER2-positive breast cancer cells. As a result, these HER2-negative patients have undiagnosed HER2-driven breast cancer and would be likely to respond to the same anti-HER2 targeted therapies only HER2-positive patients receive today. We have three interventional clinical trials underway to evaluate the efficacy of HER2 targeted therapies in breast cancer patients selected with our CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test.

Our second CELsignia test for breast cancer evaluates independent c-Met signaling activity and its involvement with HER family signaling in HER2-negative breast cancer tumor cells. Our internal studies show that approximately 20%-25% of HER2-negative breast cancer patients have abnormal c-Met signaling activity that is co-activated with abnormal HER family signaling. These studies suggest that this sub-group of HER2-negative breast cancer patients may best respond to treatment with a combination of HER family and c-Met inhibitors. We have one interventional clinical trial underway to evaluate the efficacy of HER2 and c-Met targeted therapies, in previously treated metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer patients selected with our CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test, or CELsignia MP Test.

Our third CELsignia test for breast cancer evaluates PI3K signaling in HER2-negative breast cancer tumor cells. Our internal studies demonstrate how measurement of PI3K-involved signaling may provide a more sensitive and specific method of identifying patients most likely to benefit from PI3K inhibitors than current genetic tests that measure PI3K mutations. We intend to combine these three tests to expand the CELsignia MP Test. With this next generation CELsignia test, we plan to provide an analysis of EGFR/HER1, HER2, HER3, c-MET, and PI3K-node involved signaling activity for each patient tumor specimen received.

In addition, we completed development of our first CELsignia test for ovarian cancer in 2020. This test identifies a new sub-group of ovarian cancer patients with tumors that have abnormal c-Met and HER2 signaling activity. These findings suggest that a significant sub-group of ovarian cancer patients may respond to treatment with a combination of ErbB and c-Met inhibitors. Nearly 14,000 women a year die from ovarian cancer, a disease that has less than a 50% five-year survival rate and a limited range of targeted therapy options. There is thus a significant unmet need for additional therapeutic options for ovarian cancer patients. As a companion diagnostic, our CELsignia test for ovarian cancer will be intended to help pharmaceutical companies obtain new drug indications and expand treatment options for this challenging tumor type.

Our overall commercialization strategy is to develop diagnostics that expand the patient population eligible for targeted therapies. In furtherance of this strategy, we have been and will continue to seek collaborations with pharmaceutical companies to field clinical trials to advance the clinical development of their targeted therapies with the eventual goal of obtaining FDA approval of a new drug indication.

CELsignia Clinical Trials

We are currently collaborating on four Phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of our collaboration partners’ targeted therapies in patients selected with one of our CELsignia tests. The goal of these trials is to support the development of four potential new drug indications to treat patient groups found responsive by our CELsignia test to their approved targeted therapies. These clinical trials include:

Companion Diagnostics Industry

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer was the second-leading cause of death in the United States in 2020, responsible for nearly one of every four deaths. There are many types of cancer treatment options, including surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, hormone therapy, stem cell transplant, and targeted therapy. Targeted therapies are drugs or other substances that block the growth and spread of cancer by interfering with specific molecular targets involved in the progression of cancer. Targeted therapies differ from standard chemotherapy drugs in that they are often cytostatic (block tumor cell proliferation) rather than cytotoxic (kill tumor cells). According to the National Cancer Institute, there are currently more than 90 approved targeted oncology therapies, some of which cost more than $100,000 per treatment course.

Diagnostic tests to detect single biomarkers are now widely used by pathologists to determine the molecular sub-type of a cancer. When a molecular biomarker test is used to support the choice of therapy to prescribe, it is often referred to as a “companion diagnostic.” Increasing numbers of targeted therapeutics are prescribed based on the results from a companion diagnostic test to detect the presence of a molecular biomarker. Only patients testing positive for the biomarker are eligible to receive the associated therapy.

Companion diagnostics are becoming increasingly important to the pharmaceutical industry. The use of companion diagnostics to better match patients to effective treatments positively impacts clinical outcomes and lowers expenditures on drugs that do not benefit patients. Stratifying the eligible patient population to include only likely responders is particularly important when the percentage of likely responders is only a fraction of the total cancer population. In these circumstances, narrowing the eligible patient population is often necessary to meet the clinical endpoint targets required to receive FDA drug approval.

CELsignia Testing Opportunities

We expect to generate recurring companion diagnostic testing revenues once a CELsignia companion diagnostic-linked drug therapy is approved for patient use. On average, we believe that the lifetime value of providing the companion diagnostic test will significantly exceed the revenue generated from the companion diagnostic development program. We expect to offer each CELsignia test to patients at prices ranging from $4,000–$7,000, depending on the number of pathways evaluated. No tests directly comparable to the CELsignia tests are available today to offer reference points for pricing purposes. Pricing for several proprietary complex genomic tests, however, fall within this range and we believe this provides guidance on the amount insurance companies are willing to pay for highly informative tests that guide patient care.

Our CELsignia Platform

We have made significant investments in research and development of our CELsignia platform. To measure dynamic cellular activity, we internally developed two distinct but complementary technologies, which now comprise our CELsignia platform:

We utilize our CELsignia platform to create CELsignia tests that measure specific signaling pathway activity in various tumor types.

Cell microenvironment. Previous research has shown that cancer cells extracted from a patient’s tumor share the molecular features of the primary cancers from which they were derived and could provide an ex vivo (outside the patient) model of a patient’s tumor. The technology around tumor cell extraction from individual patients and culturing techniques, however, has largely remained undeveloped. For instance, we are not aware of any competing diagnostic tests that use live patient tumor cells to measure dynamic cell signaling activity. Studies on the topic have historically highlighted the challenges of deriving a viable patient tumor cell sample from an individual patient tumor specimen.

We have developed a cell microenvironment to extract and expand viable tumor cells from fresh human tumor tissue, which meets the three critical clinical parameters a patient-derived tumor cell sample would need to satisfy in order to meet the regulatory and clinical requirements for a diagnostic test measuring signaling activity:

Dynamic patient cell signaling quantification. The second component of our CELsignia platform involves methods to quantify specific dynamic signal transduction events in patient derived tumor cells. The complexity of signal transduction processes is immense, and the permutations of the pathway variables are practically unquantifiable. Current analytical methods to assess these variables use cell fragments. Point-in-time measurements are limited to assessment of the compositional status (e.g., mutation), concentration level (e.g., protein amount), or activation status (e.g., phosphorylation) of a finite number of signaling pathway components. A key insight underlying our technology was our observation that, no matter how sophisticated or detailed, a point-in-time molecular profile would only provide a snapshot. These methods could not provide a complete, dynamic assessment of the signaling activity driving a patient’s cancer. These point-in-time molecular analyses would, in many cases, only provide a weak correlation to the presence of the signaling pathway dysfunction driving a patient’s cancer. Instead, we concluded that a complete diagnosis of cancer and an assessment of a patient’s response to treating their disease requires measurement of the underlying activity of signaling pathways in live patient tumor cells.

To measure live real-time dynamic cell signaling activity, we utilize an impedance biosensor instrument. An impedance biosensor is an analytical platform that converts changes in cellular activity to a measurable electrical signal. When cells are stimulated and change their function, the accompanying changes alter the electrical signal that is measured. The output value is quantified over time and used to determine a Signaling Function Score. To determine the activity of a specific signaling pathway, an activating agent specific to a pathway receptor is used to turn on the pathway and a corresponding inhibitory agent specific to the pathway receptor is used to turn signaling off. When signaling pathways are stimulated in this manner, a change in the electrical signal occurs and Signaling Function Score recorded. By relying on the principle of detecting signaling pathway activity, we believe we can develop tests for a range of disease types and targeted therapies that affect various cellular pathways.

CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test

Our CELsignia MP Test is a qualitative laboratory developed test or LDT that measures HER2, c-Met, and PI3K signaling activity in breast and ovarian tumor cells obtained from patients previously diagnosed with cancer to determine whether or not the patients have one of the following cancer sub-types:

CELsignia’s Commercialization Strategy

Our commercial activities will target three complementary groups at various phases of the development of our CELsignia tests.

Our CELsignia tests are laboratory developed tests, or LDTs, and subject to regulation under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, or CLIA. We completed the analytical validation of our first CELsignia test and received CLIA certification in 2016. Our current focus is to field clinical trials with leading cancer centers in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate that cancer patients diagnosed with an abnormal signaling pathway by a CELsignia test respond efficaciously to treatment with a matching targeted therapy. Once favorable efficacy data is available, we expect to generate revenues from CELsignia tests performed in conjunction with the clinical trials a pharmaceutical company will field during the registrational phase of our partners’ drug approval process. We also expect that the agreements we enter into with the pharmaceutical companies partnering with us on these registrational trials will include milestone payments at initiation and completion of trials and perhaps at various other negotiated points during the trials. We expect to generate revenue from the sale of CELsignia tests ordered by physicians upon the approval of our pharmaceutical company’s matching drug, as a companion diagnostic. A key requirement for success of these partnerships will be clinical trial results that demonstrate the advantages of using a CELsignia test as a companion diagnostic.

A CELsignia test would be launched upon the approval of a pharmaceutical company’s matching drug as a companion diagnostic. We would expect physicians, typically a medical or surgical oncologist, to order our tests in conjunction with the roll-out of the pharmaceutical company’s matching drug. The physician will prescribe a CELsignia test and coordinate provision of a patient specimen from a biopsy or surgical procedure. The fresh tissue would then be shipped overnight directly to our laboratory where we would use our proprietary methods to extract diseased cell samples from the patient’s tissue and perform the CELsignia tests ordered. Test results would typically be available in 10 to 14 days after receipt of the patient specimen. For each patient sample analyzed, a Signaling Function Score would be calculated quantitatively and converted into a final qualitative result: abnormal or normal. For patients found to have an abnormal signaling pathway, clinicians would use the results of the CELsignia test as a guide to select a targeted drug that inhibits the abnormal signaling activity identified.

Pricing and Reimbursement

The principal groups that we expect to pay us in the future for our CELsignia tests include:

Adequate reimbursement will be an important factor in achieving broad clinical adoption of our CELsignia tests. At the same time, we believe broad clinical adoption will help drive favorable reimbursement decisions. To achieve broad reimbursement coverage with commercial third-party payors and government payors, including Medicare and Medicaid, we plan to demonstrate the economic and clinical value of our CELsignia tests to payors by employing a multi-pronged strategy:

CELsignia’s Competition

At present, we are not aware of any other companies that offer diagnostic tests that use a patient’s live tumor cells to identify the signaling pathway driving a patient’s cancer. There are several companies focused on developing genomic or proteomic analyses of a patient’s diseased cells. Initial efforts identified protein targets or genetic mutations, oftentimes referred to as “biomarkers,” that are associated with a disease process to enable development of drugs more closely tailored to specific patient populations.

As tools for human genome analysis have become less expensive, a number of companies have also recently launched more complex genomic test panels and gene expression signatures tests. These tests rely on a static measurement of molecular properties and mathematical analysis to identify statistically significant correlations between the selected molecular properties and a clinical condition or outcome of populations of patients with the “same” disease.

These genetic tests often have limited predictive success because they only identify some, but not all, of, the molecular and cellular conditions required for a drug therapy to function in a patient. They may identify the presence of the genes associated with a disease, but they cannot determine how the gene products function in the context of a particular individual.

Providers of genomic or proteomic tests include diagnostic kit manufacturers, hospitals, and independent laboratories. We do not plan to develop tests where a molecular biomarker can identify drug responsive patients, so our current tests will not compete directly against the tests provided by these other companies.

Diagnostics competitors that have molecular method-based tests include, but are not limited to, Foundation Medicine, Caris Life Sciences, NeoGenomics, LabCorp, Quest, Nanostring, Paradigm, Biocept, Exosome Diagnostics, Guardant Health, Roche Diagnostics, Qiagen, Myriad, and Genomic Health.

Principal Suppliers for CELsignia

We purchase commercially available reagents and instruments from a variety of suppliers. Our principal reagent suppliers include Bio-Techne Corporation, Selleck Chemicals, Sigma-Aldrich, and VWR International. Our principal instrument suppliers include Agilent Technologies, Integra Biosciences, Invitrogen, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. These items are purchased on a purchase order basis pursuant to the applicable supplier’s standard terms and conditions. The items purchased from these suppliers are standard products sold widely to the biotechnology industry. All items purchased are typically available within several days after an order is placed.

Intellectual Property

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our product candidates, manufacturing and process discoveries and other know-how, to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others, and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We plan to protect our proprietary positions using a variety of methods, which include protecting current U.S. and foreign patents related to proprietary technology, inventions and improvements and prosecuting additional U.S. and foreign patents that we determine are important to the development and implementation of our business. For example, we, our licensors, or our collaborators currently have, or are pursuing, patents covering the composition of matter for our drug product candidates and we plan to generally pursue patent protection covering methods-of-use for one or more clinical programs. We also rely on trade secrets, trademarks, know-how, continuing technological innovation and potential in-licensing opportunities to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

Gedatolisib Patents

We entered into the Gedatolisib License Agreement with Pfizer in April 2021, pursuant to which we acquired exclusive worldwide rights under Pfizer patents and know-how to develop, manufacture and commercialize gedatolisib. We have exclusive licenses under the Gedatolisib License Agreement to patent rights in the U.S. and numerous foreign jurisdictions relating to gedatolisib. The patent rights in-licensed under the Gedatolisib License Agreement include 11 granted patents in the U.S. and more than 290 patents granted in foreign jurisdictions including Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom and Japan. A U.S. patent covering gedatolisib as a composition of matter has a statutory expiration date in December 2029 and a U.S. composition of matter patent that covers the lactic acid form of gedatolisib that is currently in clinical development expires in December 2035, in each case, not including patent term adjustment or any patent term extension, and relevant foreign counterparts.

CELsignia Patents

With respect to CELsignia, we have six issued U.S. patents and 30 issued international patents covering our diagnostic approach using cell signaling analysis in living patient cells to guide treatment of patients with targeted therapies and cell sample preparation methods. The earliest expiration date of patents is 2033. In addition, we have developed significant proprietary know-how and trade secrets for the various cell sample preparation and cellular analysis methods we have developed.

Trade Secrets

In addition to patents, we rely on trade secrets and know-how to develop and maintain our competitive position. We typically rely on trade secrets to protect aspects of our business that are not amenable to, or that we do not consider appropriate for, patent protection. We protect trade secrets and know-how by establishing confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, contractors and partners. These agreements generally provide that all confidential information developed or made known during the course of an individual or entity’s relationship with us must be kept confidential during and after the relationship. These agreements also generally provide that all inventions resulting from work performed for us or relating to our business and conceived or completed during the period of employment or assignment, as applicable, shall be our exclusive property. In addition, we take other appropriate precautions, such as physical and technological security measures, to guard against misappropriation of our proprietary information by third parties.

Government Regulation

Approval of Gedatolisib and Other Drug Products in the United States

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

Overview of FDA Approval Process

In the U.S., pharmaceutical products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDC Act, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, storage, recordkeeping, approval, labeling, promotion and marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, sampling, and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with applicable U.S. requirements may subject a company to a variety of administrative or judicial sanctions, such as FDA refusal to approve pending New Drug Applications, or NDAs, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties and criminal prosecution.

Pharmaceutical product development for a new product or certain changes to an approved product in the U.S. typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug applicable, or IND, which must become effective before clinical testing may commence, and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the drug for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Satisfaction of FDA pre-market approval requirements typically takes many years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.

Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry, formulation and toxicity, as well as animal trials to assess the characteristics and potential safety and efficacy of the product. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements, including good laboratory practices. The results of preclinical testing are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND along with other information, including information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed clinical trial protocol. Long term preclinical tests, such as animal tests of reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, may continue after the IND is submitted. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If the FDA has neither commented on nor questioned the IND within this 30-day period, the clinical trial proposed in the IND may begin.

The clinical stage of development involves the administration of the investigational product to healthy volunteers or disease-affected patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by, or under control of, the trial sponsor, in accordance with Good Clinical Practices, or GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of an investigational new drug applicable, or IND. Furthermore, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted to ensure that the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There also are requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Information about most clinical trials must be submitted within specific timeframes for publication on the www.clinicaltrials.gov website. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is made public as part of the registration of the clinical trial. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in some cases for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, which may overlap or be combined:

A registrational trial is a clinical trial that adequately meets regulatory agency requirements for the evaluation of a drug candidate’s efficacy and safety such that it can be used to justify the approval of the drug. Generally, registrational trials are Phase 3 trials but may be Phase 2 trials if the trial design provides a reliable assessment of clinical benefit, particularly in situations where there is an unmet medical need.

Post-approval trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow up. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 clinical trials as a condition of approval of a Biologics License Application, or BLA.

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. The FDA or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time, or the FDA may impose other sanctions on various grounds, including a finding that the research patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the IRB or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. There are also requirements related to registration and reporting of certain clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

After completion of the required clinical testing, an NDA is prepared and submitted to the FDA. FDA approval of the NDA is required before marketing of the product may begin in the U.S. The NDA must include the results of all preclinical, clinical and other testing and a compilation of data relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture and controls. The cost of preparing and submitting an NDA is substantial. The submission of most NDAs is additionally subject to a substantial application user fee, currently $3,242,026 for Fiscal Year 2023, and the manufacturer and/or sponsor under an approved NDA are also subject to annual program fees for eligible products, which are currently $393,933 for Fiscal Year 2023.

The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of an NDA to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that it is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review. The FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of new drug applications. Most such applications for standard review drug products are reviewed within ten to twelve months; most applications for priority review drugs are reviewed in six to eight months. Priority review can be applied to drugs that the FDA determines offer major advances in treatment or provide a treatment where no adequate therapy exists. The review process for both standard and priority review may be extended by FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information, or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission.

The FDA may also refer applications for novel drug products, or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy, to an advisory committee—typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts—for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved. The FDA is not bound by the recommendation of an advisory committee, but it generally follows such recommendations. Before approving an NDA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. Additionally, the FDA will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMP is satisfactory and the NDA contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied.

After the FDA evaluates the NDA and the manufacturing facilities, it issues either an approval letter or a complete response letter. A complete response letter generally outlines the deficiencies in the submission and may require substantial additional testing, or information, in order for the FDA to reconsider the application. If, or when, those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the NDA, the FDA will issue an approval letter. The FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two to six months depending on the type of information included.

An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. As a condition of NDA approval, the FDA may require a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to help ensure that the benefits of the drug outweigh the potential risks. REMS can include medication guides, communication plans for healthcare professionals and elements to assure safe use, or ETASU. ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. The requirement for a REMS can materially affect the potential market and profitability of the drug. Moreover, product approval may require substantial post-approval testing and surveillance to monitor the drug’s safety or efficacy. Once granted, product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing.

Changes to some of the conditions established in an approved application, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new NDA or NDA supplement before the change can be implemented. An NDA supplement for a new indication typically requires clinical data similar to that in the original application, and the FDA uses the same procedures and actions in reviewing NDA supplements as it does in reviewing NDAs.

U.S. Exclusivity

Upon NDA approval of a new chemical entity, or NCE, which is a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other NDA, that drug receives five years of marketing exclusivity during which the FDA cannot receive any Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, seeking approval of a generic version of that drug. Certain changes to a drug, such as the addition of a new indication to the package insert, are associated with a three-year period of exclusivity during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA for a generic drug that includes the change. An ANDA may be submitted one year before NCE exclusivity expires if a Paragraph IV certification is filed. If there is no listed patent in the Orange Book, there may not be a Paragraph IV certification, and, thus, no ANDA may be filed before the expiration of the exclusivity period.

Patent Term Extension

After NDA approval, owners of relevant drug patents may apply for up to a five-year patent extension for one patent. The allowable patent term extension is calculated as half of the drug’s testing phase—the time between IND and NDA submission—and all of the review phase—the time between NDA submission and approval up to a maximum of five years. The time can be shortened if the FDA determines that the applicant did not pursue approval with due diligence. The total patent term after the extension may not exceed 14 years from approval.

For patents that might expire during the application phase, the patent owner may request an interim patent extension. An interim patent extension increases the patent term by one year and may be renewed up to four times. For each interim patent extension granted, the post-approval patent extension is reduced by one year. The director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must determine that approval of the drug covered by the patent for which a patent extension is being sought is likely. Interim patent extensions are not available for a drug for which an NDA has not been submitted.

Fast Track Designation and Accelerated Approval

The FDA is required to facilitate the development, and expedite the review, of drugs that are intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening disease or condition for which there is no effective treatment, and which demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Under the Fast Track program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a Fast Track drug concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for Fast Track Designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Under the Fast Track program and the FDA’s accelerated approval regulations, the FDA may approve a drug for a serious or life-threatening illness that provides meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments based upon a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments.

In clinical trials, a surrogate endpoint is a measurement of laboratory or clinical signs of a disease or condition that substitutes for a direct measurement of how a patient feels, functions or survives. Surrogate endpoints can often be measured more easily or more rapidly than clinical endpoints. A drug candidate approved on this basis is subject to rigorous post-marketing compliance requirements, including the completion of Phase 4 or post-approval clinical trials to confirm the effect on the clinical endpoint. Failure to conduct required post-approval studies, or confirm a clinical benefit during post-marketing studies, will allow the FDA to withdraw the drug from the market on an expedited basis. All promotional materials for product candidates approved under accelerated regulations are subject to prior review by the FDA.

In addition to other benefits such as the ability to use surrogate endpoints and engage in more frequent interactions with the FDA, the FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast Track drug’s NDA before the application is complete. This rolling review is available if the applicant provides, and the FDA approves, a schedule for the submission of the remaining information and the applicant pays applicable user fees. However, the FDA’s time period goal for reviewing an application does not begin until the last section of the NDA is submitted. Additionally, the Fast Track Designation may be withdrawn by the FDA if the FDA believes that the designation is no longer supported by data emerging in the clinical trial process.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation

Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA provides more extensive development consultation opportunities with FDA senior staff, allows for the rolling review of the drug’s application for approval and indicates that the product could be eligible for priority review if supported by clinical data at the time of application submission for drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Under the breakthrough therapy program, the sponsor of a new drug candidate may request that the FDA designate the drug candidate for a specific indication as a breakthrough therapy concurrent with, or after, the filing of the IND for the drug candidate. The FDA must determine if the drug candidate qualifies for Breakthrough Therapy Designation within 60 days of receipt of the sponsor’s request.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed in certain circumstances for up to two years after the date of completion of the trial. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

Approval of Gedatolisib and Other Drug Products in the European Union

Overview

In the EU, our product candidates also may be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the U.S., medicinal products can be marketed only if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained. Similar to the U.S., the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

The Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC, the Directive 2005/28/EC on GCP, and the related national implementing provisions of the individual EU Member States govern the system for the approval of clinical trials in the EU. Under this system, an applicant must obtain prior approval from the competent national authority of the EU Member States in which the clinical trial is to be conducted. Furthermore, the applicant may only start a clinical trial at a specific trial site after the competent ethics committee has issued a favorable opinion. The clinical trial application must be accompanied by, among other documents, an Investigational Medicinal Product Dossier or IMPD, or the Common Technical Document, with supporting information prescribed by Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2005/28/EC, where relevant the implementing national provisions of the individual EU Member States and further detailed in applicable guidance documents. All suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial have to be reported to the competent national authority and the Ethics Committee of the Member State where they occurred.

The new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 came into effect in 2022. The Clinical Trials Regulation will be directly applicable in all the EU Member States, repealing the current Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. The new Clinical Trials Regulation aims to simplify and streamline the approval of clinical trials in the EU. The main characteristics of the regulation include: a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point, the “EU portal” a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors; and a harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials, which is divided in two parts. Part I is assessed by the competent authorities of all EU Member States in which an application for authorization of a clinical trial has been submitted (Member States concerned). Part II is assessed separately by each Member State concerned. Strict deadlines have been established for the assessment of clinical trial applications. The role of the relevant ethics committees in the assessment procedure will continue to be governed by the national law of the concerned EU Member State. However, overall related timelines will be defined by the Clinical Trials Regulation.

To obtain a marketing authorization of a drug in the EU, we may submit Marketing Authorization Applications, or MAA, either under the so-called centralized or national authorization procedures.

Centralized Procedure

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single marketing authorization following a favorable opinion by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, that is valid in all EU Member States, as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The centralized procedure is compulsory for medicines produced by specified biotechnological processes, products designated as orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicines (such as gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy or tissue-engineered medicines) and products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of specified diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders or autoimmune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products that represent a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation, or whose authorization would be in the interest of public health. Under the centralized procedure the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA by the EMA is 210 days, excluding clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the Committee of Medicinal Products for Human Use, or the CHMP. Accelerated assessment might be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is expected to be of a major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation. The timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the accelerated assessment procedure is of 150 days, excluding stop-clocks.

National Authorization Procedures

There are also two other possible routes to authorize medicinal products in several EU countries, which are available for investigational medicinal products that fall outside the scope of the centralized procedure:

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

EU Regulatory Exclusivity

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

Drug Approval-Related Regulations – Rest of the World

For other countries outside of the EU and the U.S., such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Additionally, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with cGCP requirements and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki. If we fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Regulations of CELsignia Tests

CLIA and CMS for Diagnostic

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, regulates all clinical laboratory testing (except research) performed on humans in the United States through CLIA. All clinical laboratories that perform clinical lab services on human specimens for the purpose of providing information on the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease must receive CLIA certification. This covers approximately 175,000 laboratories as of 2017. Laboratories must obtain CLIA certification and demonstrate compliance with CLIA requirements as confirmed by an inspection by CMS. We received our CLIA certification in 2016. We also had our laboratory certified by the College of American Pathologies, or CAP, in 2016, an organization recognized by CMS as a third-party reviewer of clinical laboratories. Several states, including, among others, New York and California, require licensure of out-of-state labs that receive specimens from the state and compliance with the state’s individual laboratory regulations.

If our laboratory is out of compliance with CLIA requirements, we may be subject to sanctions such as suspension, limitation or revocation of our CLIA certificate, as well as directed plan of correction, state on-site monitoring, civil money penalties, civil injunctive suit or criminal penalties. We must maintain CLIA compliance and certification to be eligible to bill for services provided to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. If we were to be found out of compliance with CLIA program requirements and subjected to sanction, our business could be harmed. Failure to comply with state licensure laws, if applicable, could subject us to additional sanctions imposed by state licensing authorities.

FDA for Diagnostics

FDA approval or clearance is not currently required for CELsignia tests offered as a stand-alone LDT test. If we are partnered with a drug company to launch a CELsignia test as a companion diagnostic for a new drug indication, we would be required to obtain premarket approval, or PMA, in conjunction with the pharmaceutical company seeking a new drug approval for the matching therapy. Historically, the FDA has exercised enforcement discretion with respect to tests performed solely in a central laboratory, like the CELsignia tests or LDTs. The FDA has not required laboratories that furnish only LDTs to comply with the agency’s requirements for medical devices (e.g., establishment registration, device listing, quality systems regulations, premarket clearance or premarket approval, and post-market controls).

Although the FDA proposed regulations that would apply to LDTs, the FDA decided that, at present, those regulations are not moving forward towards approval and implementation. In mid-2014, the FDA published a draft Guidance Document describing a proposed approach for a regulatory framework for LDTs that would have resulted in most of the high-value LDT tests marketed today eventually being required to obtain 510(k) clearances or PMAs. If implemented, this regulatory framework would require most hospital clinical labs to abandon a number of tests they perform or to pursue regulatory clearances or approvals to perform them. These proposals met significant resistance from Congress, the hospital industry, and independent clinical laboratories. The FDA indicated in late 2016 that it does not intend to finalize the draft Guidance Document at this time. However, the FDA continues to discuss potential regulatory approaches to LDTs.

Pricing and Reimbursement of our Product Candidates

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any products we sell or may sell. Sales of any of our products will depend, in part, on the extent to which the costs of the products will be covered by third-party payors, including government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, commercial health insurers, managed care organizations or pharmaceutical companies. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a test sometimes is separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that a payor will pay for the drug product. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific testing products on an approved list, which might not include all of the tests available for a particular indication.

In order to obtain coverage and reimbursement for any product, we may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of the test. Whether or not we conduct such studies, our products may not be considered medically necessary or cost-effective. A third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a test does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, one payor’s determination to provide coverage for a product does not assure that other payors will also provide coverage, and adequate reimbursement, for the product. Third-party reimbursement may not be sufficient to enable us to maintain price levels high enough to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state and foreign governments, and the prices of tests and drugs have been a focus in this effort. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, examining the medical necessity and reviewing the cost-effectiveness of testing products, drug products and medical services and questioning safety and efficacy. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available tests, they may not cover our products or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit. The U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost-containment programs to limit the growth of government-paid healthcare costs, including price controls and restrictions on reimbursement. Adoption of such controls and measures, and tightening of restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures, could limit payments for our testing products or drugs that require use of our testing products and could adversely affect our net revenue and results.

We expect to see continued focus by Congress and the Biden Administration on regulating pricing, which could result in legislative and regulatory changes designed to control costs. For example, in August 2022, the IRA was signed into law, which, among other things, requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare (beginning in 2026), imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation (first due in 2023), and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program (beginning in 2025). We continue to evaluate the impact of the IRA on our business, operations and financial condition and results as the full effect of the IRA on our business and the pharmaceutical industry remains uncertain. In addition, changes to the Medicaid program or the federal 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities, could have a material impact on our business.

Pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. Some countries may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular test to currently available tests. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and testing products, has become intense. As a result, increasingly high barriers are being erected to the entry of new products. In addition, in some countries, cross-border imports from low-priced markets exert competitive pressure that may reduce pricing within a country. Any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for testing products may not allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products.

Coverage policies, third-party reimbursement rates and pricing regulation may change at any time.

Other Healthcare Laws

Manufacturing, sales, promotion and other activities following product approval are also subject to regulation by numerous regulatory authorities in the U.S. in addition to the FDA, including CMS, the HHS Office of Inspector General and HHS Office for Civil Rights, other divisions of the HHS and the Department of Justice.

Healthcare providers, physicians, and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain marketing approval. Our current and future arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we market, sell and distribute our drug and diagnostic products. In the U.S., these laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, false claims, physician transparency, and patient data privacy and security laws and regulations, including but not limited to those described below.

The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or AKS, prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of any good, facility, item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The AKS has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers, formulary managers and beneficiaries on the other hand. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the statute has been violated. In addition, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act. On November 20, 2020, the Office of Inspector General, or OIG finalized further modifications to the AKS. Under the final rule, OIG added safe harbor protections under the AKS for certain coordinated care and value-based arrangements among clinicians, providers, and others. The final rule (with some exceptions) became effective January 19, 2021. We continue to evaluate what effect, if any, this rule will have on our business.

In addition, under a federal law directed at “self-referral,” commonly known as the “Stark Law,” there are prohibitions, with certain exceptions, on referrals for certain designated health services, including laboratory services, that are covered by the Medicare and Medicaid programs by physicians who personally, or through a family member, have an investment or ownership interest in, or a compensation arrangement with, an entity performing the tests. The prohibition also extends to payment for any testing referred in violation of the Stark Law. A person who engages in a scheme to circumvent the Stark Law’s referral prohibition may be fined up to $100,000 for each such arrangement or scheme. In addition, any person who presents or causes to be presented a claim to the Medicare or Medicaid programs in violation of the Stark Law is subject to civil monetary penalties of up to $15,000 per bill submission, an assessment of up to three times the amount claimed and possible exclusion from participation in federal governmental payor programs. Bills submitted in violation of the Stark Law may not be paid by Medicare or Medicaid, and any person collecting any amounts with respect to any such prohibited bill is obligated to refund such amounts. Many states have comparable laws that are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid referrals.

Furthermore, we could be held liable under the federal False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties, including through civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities (including manufacturers) for, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services that are false or fraudulent, claims for items or services not provided as claimed, or claims for medically unnecessary items or services. This could apply even if we are not submitting claims directly to payors as would be the case with drug products. The government may deem manufacturers of such products to have “caused” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. Several biopharmaceutical, medical device and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under federal false claims and civil monetary penalty laws for, among other things, allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product. Other companies have been prosecuted for causing false claims to be submitted because of the companies’ marketing of products for unapproved (e.g., or off-label), and thus non-covered, uses. In addition, the civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

Our future marketing and activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, if approved, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our product candidates, are subject to scrutiny under these laws.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, any money or property owned by, or under the control or custody of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the AKS, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and certain other healthcare providers. The Affordable Care Act, or the ACA, imposed, among other things, new annual reporting requirements through the Physician Payments Sunshine Act for covered manufacturers for certain payments and “transfers of value” provided 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. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Failure to submit timely, accurately and completely the required information for all payments, transfers of value and ownership or investment interests may result in civil monetary penalties. Covered manufacturers must submit reports by the 90^th day of each subsequent calendar year and the reported information is publicly made available on a searchable website.

We may also be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final HIPAA Omnibus Rule published on January 25, 2013, impose specified requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information held by covered entities and their business associates. Among other things, HITECH made HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to “business associates,” defined as independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity, although it is unclear that we would be considered a “business associate” in the normal course of our business. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same requirements, thus complicating compliance efforts. See “European Data Collection” below for a discussion of data privacy and security enactments of the EU.

For example, California’s Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, went into effect in January 2020, and the California Attorney General has since promulgated final regulations. The law provides broad rights to California consumers with respect to the collection and use of their personal information and imposes data protection obligations on certain businesses. While the CCPA does not apply to protected health information that is subject to HIPAA or personal information collected, used or disclosed in research, as defined by federal law, the CCPA may still affect our business activities. Moreover, on November 3, 2020, California voters passed the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, under a ballot initiative. The CPRA amends the existing CCPA to include new consumer rights and additional data protection obligations. The new data protection requirements under the CPRA apply to information collected on or after January 1, 2022. With the promulgation of final regulations, the California State Attorney General has commenced enforcement actions against CCPA violators. The uncertainty surrounding the implementation of CCPA and the amendments under the CPRA exemplifies the vulnerability of our business to the evolving regulatory environment related to personal data and protected health information. The California law further expands the need for privacy and process enhancements and commitment of resources in support of compliance. Moreover, more than ten states have proposed bills in the last year with provisions similar to the CCPA and CPRA. It is likely that other states will pass laws similar to the CCPA and the CPRA in the near future and a federal data protection law may also be on the horizon.

Similar state and foreign fraud and abuse laws and regulations, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, may apply to sales or marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services. Such laws are generally broad and are enforced by various state agencies and private actions. Also, many states have similar fraud and abuse statutes or regulations that may be broader in scope and may apply regardless of payor, in addition to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs. Some state laws require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant federal government compliance guidance, and require drug manufacturers to report information related to payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, marketing expenditures or drug pricing.

In order to sell products, we must also comply with state laws, including those that require the registration of manufacturers and wholesale distributors of drug and biological products. These include, in certain states, manufacturers and distributors who ship products into the state even if such manufacturers or distributors have no place of business within the state. Some states also impose requirements on manufacturers and distributors to establish the pedigree of product in the chain of distribution, including some states that require manufacturers and others to adopt new technology capable of tracking and tracing product as it moves through the distribution chain. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, and/or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. All of our activities are potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform, especially in light of the lack of applicable precedent and regulations. Federal and state enforcement bodies have recently increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, imprisonment, exclusion of drugs from government funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs. Ensuring business arrangements comply with applicable healthcare laws, as well as responding to possible investigations by government authorities, can be time- and resource consuming and can divert a company’s attention from the business.

European Data Collection

The collection and use of personal health data in or arising from the EU are governed by the provisions of the Data Protection Directive, and the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. This directive imposes several requirements relating to the consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, the information provided to the individuals, notification of data processing obligations to the competent national data protection authorities and the security and confidentiality of the personal data. The Data Protection Directive and GDPR also impose strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EU, to the U.S. Failure to comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Directive, the GDPR and the related national data protection laws of the EU Member States may result in fines and other administrative penalties. The GDPR introduces new data protection requirements in the EU and substantial fines for breaches of the data protection rules. The GDPR regulations may impose additional responsibility and liability in relation to personal data that we process, including in respect of clinical trials, and we may be required to put in place additional mechanisms ensuring compliance with the new data protection rules. This may be onerous and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Current and Future Legislation

In the U.S. and other jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes regarding the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product candidates. We expect that current laws, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and additional downward pressure on the price that we, or any collaborators, may receive.

The ACA, for example, revised the methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers for covered outpatient drugs are calculated under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to utilization of covered drugs dispensed to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations and subjected manufacturers to new annual fees for certain branded prescription drugs. As the price of our test may be included in the reimbursement rates for certain drugs, this could significantly impact our pricing. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for one or more products, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. For example, various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Additionally, Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. In December 2018, the CMS published a final rule permitting further collections and payments to and from certain ACA qualified health plans and health insurance issuers under the ACA risk adjustment program in response to the outcome of the federal district court litigation regarding the method CMS uses to determine this risk adjustment. Since then, the ACA risk adjustment program payment parameters have been updated annually. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business, especially given the new Biden Administration.

Additionally, other federal health reform measures have been proposed and adopted in the U.S. since the ACA was enacted:

Further, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which companies set prices for their products, which have resulted in several recent Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for products. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures, and foreign governments have shown significant interest in implementing cost containment programs, including price-controls, restrictions on reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products for branded prescription drugs to limit the growth of government paid healthcare costs.

Individual states in the U.S. have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Congress and the Biden administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. Individual states in the U.S. have also been increasingly passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Other Regulatory Requirements

Our operations use small amounts of hazardous materials in research and development and generate regulated medical waste in the normal course of performing our CELsignia tests. This subjects us to a variety of federal, state and local environmental and safety laws and regulations. Some of the regulations under the current regulatory structure provide for strict liability, holding a party potentially liable without regard to fault or negligence. We could be held liable for damages and fines as a result of our, or others’, business operations should contamination of the environment or individual exposure to hazardous substances occur. We cannot predict how changes in laws or development of new regulations will affect our business operations or the cost of compliance.

Impact of COVID-19 on our Business

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we experienced delays in the enrollment of patients in our ongoing FACT-1 and FACT-2 clinical trials. While the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly subsided, future outbreaks or variants of the virus may cause additional delays in our clinical trial work.

Corporate History

We were organized as a Minnesota limited liability company in 2011 and commenced operations in 2012. On September 15, 2017, we converted from a Minnesota limited liability company into a Delaware corporation and changed our name from Celcuity LLC to Celcuity Inc.

Employees and Labor Relations

As of December 31, 2022, we had 45 full-time employees, most of which were engaged in research and development activities. None of our employees are currently represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement and we believe that our relations with our employees are good. During 2022, our voluntary turnover rate was approximately 14%.

ITEM 1A. Risk Factors

Risk factors that could cause actual results to differ from our expectations and that could negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations are discussed below and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that are currently not believed to be significant to our business may also affect our actual results and could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. If any of the risks or uncertainties described below or any additional risks and uncertainties actually occur, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Relating to Our Business

We have a limited operating history and we may never generate revenue or profit.

We are a clinical-stage biotechnology company that commenced activities in January 2012. We only have a limited operating history and our business plan has not been tested. Since inception, we have had no revenue and have incurred significant operating losses. We have financed our operations primarily through equity and debt offerings. To generate revenue and become and remain profitable, we need to develop and commercialize gedatolisib pursuant to our license agreement with Pfizer and successfully complete our existing clinical trial collaborations and cultivate partnerships with pharmaceutical companies. We must also build operational and financial infrastructure to support commercial operations, train and manage employees, and market and sell our anticipated drug products and our CELsignia tests (as a companion diagnostic and/or as a stand-alone test).

We may never succeed in any of these activities and, even if we do, we may never generate revenue that is sufficient to achieve profitability. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses for the foreseeable future, and the net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter. Our failure to become and remain profitable would decrease our value and could impair our ability to raise capital, maintain or expand our research and development efforts, expand our business, or continue our operations.

Our inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms in the future may limit our ability to develop and commercialize our integrated therapeutic (Rx) and companion diagnostic (CDx) strategy.

We may require additional capital to finance capital expenditures and operating expenses over the next several years as we launch our integrated therapeutic and companion diagnostic strategy and expand our infrastructure, commercial operations and research and development activities. We may seek to raise additional capital through equity offerings, debt financings, collaborations or licensing arrangements. Additional funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we raise funds by issuing equity securities, dilution to our stockholders could result. Any equity securities issued may also provide for rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of holders of our existing securities. The incurrence of additional indebtedness or the issuance of certain equity securities could result in increased fixed payment obligations and could also include restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt or issue additional equity, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights, and other operating restrictions that could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. In the event that we enter into collaborations or licensing arrangements to raise capital, we may be required to accept unfavorable terms. If we are not able to secure additional funding when needed, we may have to delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate one or more research and development programs or selling and marketing initiatives. In addition, we may have to work with a partner on one or more of our products or market development programs, which could lower the economic value of those programs to our company.

We will be dependent on our ability to attract and retain key personnel.

Our operations will be materially dependent upon the services of our officers and key employees, including Brian F. Sullivan, our Chief Executive Officer, and Dr. Lance G. Laing, our Chief Science Officer. Successful implementation of our business plan will also require the services of other consultants and additional personnel. We cannot assure you that we will be able to attract and retain such persons as employees, independent contractors, consultants or otherwise. If we are not able to attract individuals with the skills required for our business, or if we lose the services of either Mr. Sullivan or Dr. Laing, we may be unable to successfully implement our business plan.

The COVID-19 pandemic may materially and adversely impact our business, including ongoing clinical trials.

The outbreak of COVID-19 and government measures taken in response have had a significant impact on the global economy, with healthcare systems particularly affected. As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and related public health measures, we have and may in the future experience disruptions that could materially and adversely impact our clinical trials, business, financial condition and results of operations. Potential disruptions include but are not limited to:

All of the effects of COVID-19 described herein are expected to apply to any future recurrences of COVID-19 and any other pandemics that may occur in the future.

Risks Related to Our Drug Product, Gedatolisib

Our future strategy is dependent on the success of our initial drug product, gedatolisib, as well as other drug products we may develop. If we are unable to successfully complete clinical development of, obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our drug products, or if we experience delays in doing so, our business will be materially harmed.

To date, we have not yet completed any registrational clinical trials or the development of any drug products. Our future success and ability to generate revenue from our drug products, which we do not expect will occur for several years, if ever, is dependent on our ability to successfully develop, obtain regulatory approval for and commercialize one or more drug products. We may not have the financial resources to continue development of, or to modify existing or enter into new collaborations for, a drug product if we experience any issues that delay or prevent regulatory approval of, or our ability to commercialize, our drug products, including:

We were not involved in the early development of gedatolisib; therefore, we are dependent on third parties having accurately generated, collected, interpreted and reported data from certain preclinical and clinical trials of gedatolisib.

We had no involvement with or control over the initial preclinical and clinical development of gedatolisib. We are dependent on third parties having conducted their research and development in accordance with the applicable protocols and legal, regulatory and scientific standards; having accurately reported the results of all preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted with respect to such drug product; and having correctly collected and interpreted the data from these trials. If these activities were not compliant, accurate or correct, the clinical development, regulatory approval or commercialization of our drug product will be adversely affected.

As an organization, we have never successfully completed any registrational clinical trials, and we may be unable to do so for any drug candidates we may develop.

We will need to successfully complete registrational clinical trials in order to obtain the approval of the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities to market our drug products. Carrying out clinical trials, including later-stage registrational clinical trials, is a complicated process. As an organization, we have not previously completed any registrational clinical trials. In order to do so, we will need to build and expand our clinical development and regulatory capabilities, and we may be unable to recruit and train qualified personnel. We also expect to continue to rely on third parties to conduct our clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval of or commercialize any potential product candidates. Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to submission and approval of our drug products. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approval of any drug products that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent us from or delay us in commercializing our drug products.

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

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

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

Clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process, with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

To obtain the requisite regulatory approvals to commercialize any drug products, we must demonstrate through extensive preclinical studies and clinical trials that such drug product is safe and effective in humans. Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. We may be unable to establish clinical endpoints that applicable regulatory authorities would consider clinically meaningful, and a clinical trial can fail at any stage of testing.

Differences in trial design between early-stage clinical trials and later-stage clinical trials make it difficult to extrapolate the results of earlier clinical trials to later clinical trials. Moreover, clinical data are often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses, and many companies that have believed their product candidates performed satisfactorily in clinical trials have nonetheless failed to obtain marketing approval of their products. Additionally, we are conducting and plan to conduct some open-label trials, where both the patient and investigator know whether the patient is receiving the investigational product candidate or either an existing approved drug or placebo. Most typically, open-label clinical trials test only the investigational product candidate and sometimes may do so at different dose levels. Open-label clinical trials are subject to various limitations that may exaggerate any therapeutic effect as patients in those trials are aware when they are receiving treatment. Open-label clinical trials may be subject to a “patient bias” where patients perceive their symptoms to have improved merely due to their awareness of receiving an experimental treatment. In addition, open-label clinical trials may be subject to an “investigator bias” where those assessing and reviewing the outcomes of the clinical trials are aware of which patients have received treatment and may interpret the information of the treated group more favorably given this knowledge. Where a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial is designed to allow enrolled subjects to cross-over to the treatment arm, there may be a risk of inadvertent unblinding of subjects prior to cross-over, which may limit the clinical meaningfulness of those data and may require the conduct of additional clinical trials. As such, the results from an open-label trial may not be predictive of future clinical trial results with any of our product candidates for which we include an open-label clinical trial when studied in a controlled environment with a placebo or active control.

Successful completion of clinical trials is a prerequisite to submitting a new drug application, or NDA, to the FDA and similar marketing applications to comparable foreign regulatory authorities for each drug product and, consequently, the ultimate approval and commercial marketing of any drug products. We may experience delays in initiating or completing clinical trials and preparing for regulatory submissions. We also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any future clinical trials that we could conduct that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our current product candidates or any future product candidates. Our costs will increase if we experience delays in clinical testing or marketing approvals. We do not know whether any of our clinical trials will begin as planned, will need to be reassigned or will be completed on schedule, or at all. Significant clinical trial delays also could shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our product candidates and may allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do, potentially impairing our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and harming our business and results of operations. Any delays in our clinical development programs may harm our business, financial condition and results of operations significantly.

For a new drug to be approved for marketing, the FDA and other regulatory authorities must determine that the drug is safe and effective. Because all drugs can have adverse effects, the data from our Phase 3 clinical study must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA and other health authorities that the benefits of gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant, or gedatolisib in combination with fulvestrant, outweigh its risks. Failure to demonstrate sufficient magnitude of benefit, even if the benefit is found to be statistically significant, may not support regulatory approval.

If a drug meets its primary efficacy endpoint objective in a Phase 3 clinical trial, and the drug sponsor has additional nonclinical and clinical data required by the FDA or other regulatory authorities, the drug sponsor may submit an NDA seeking marketing approval. Upon submission of an NDA, these health authorities perform a benefit-risk assessment that considers the strength and quality of evidence available and takes remaining uncertainties into account. These considerations include an assessment of the strengths and limitations of clinical trials, including design, and potential implications for assessing drug efficacy, the magnitude of benefit and interpretation of clinical importance, the benefit attributed to the drug when studied in combination with other therapies, and the clinical relevance of the study endpoints. We have sought feedback from the FDA and other regulatory authorities on the design of our Phase 3 clinical trial with the goal of addressing these considerations in the clinical trial’s design. However, due to the complexity of clinical trials, the uncertainty of outcomes, and the uncertainty of how the FDA and other regulatory authorities may balance benefits and risks in their review of an NDA, it may not be practical or possible to address all benefit-risk assessment considerations in a Phase 3 clinical trial so that sufficient evidence is generated to support a marketing approval, even if the primary endpoint objective is achieved. The FDA or other regulatory authorities may require us to redesign or conduct additional unplanned clinical trials before granting any approval and we may not get approval at all. If we are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our drug candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates, or if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only modestly positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

The successful development of biopharmaceuticals is highly uncertain.

Successful development of biopharmaceuticals is highly uncertain and is dependent on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. Product candidates that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons including, among other things, that clinical trial results may show the product candidates to be less effective than expected or to have unacceptable side effects or toxicities; we may fail to receive the necessary regulatory approvals or there may be a delay in receiving such approvals; or the proprietary rights of others and their competing products and technologies that may prevent our product candidates from being commercialized.

The length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one drug product to the next and from one country to the next and may be difficult to predict. Even if we are successful in obtaining marketing approval, commercial success of any approved products will also depend in large part on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs and managed care organizations in the U.S. or country specific governmental organizations in foreign countries, which may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. Third-party payors could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related to the cost effectiveness of a product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert our resources. If government and other healthcare payors were not to provide coverage and adequate reimbursement for our products once approved, market acceptance and commercial success would be reduced.

In addition, if any of our drug products receive marketing approval, we will be subject to significant post-approval regulatory obligations. In addition, there is always the risk that we, a regulatory authority or a third party might identify previously unknown problems with a product post-approval, such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency. Compliance with these requirements is costly, and any failure to comply or other issues with our drug products post-approval could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We face significant competition from other biopharmaceutical 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 as they develop novel approaches to treating disease indications that our product candidates are also focused on treating. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel therapeutics or to in-license novel therapeutics that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. 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 collaboration 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.

Even if we obtain regulatory approval of drug products, 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.

Even if any drug product we develop receives marketing approval, it may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If any future drug product we develop receives marketing approval, whether as a single agent or in combination with other therapies, it may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. If the product candidates we develop do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of any product candidate, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

Risks Related to Intellectual Property for Gedatolisib

We depend on intellectual property licensed from third parties, including from Pfizer for our lead product candidate, and termination of this license 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. All patents covering gedatolisib and any combination therapies using our product candidates are licensed from third parties. Any termination of a product license could result in the loss of significant rights and would cause material adverse harm to our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Disputes may also arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

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.

We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we own, as we are for intellectual property that we license. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize products could materially suffer.

If we fail to comply with our obligations under our patent license with Pfizer, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to a license agreement with Pfizer pursuant to which we in-license key patents for gedatolisib. This license imposes various diligence, milestone payment, royalty, insurance and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with these obligations, Pfizer may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market the products covered by such licensed intellectual property. We may have limited control over the maintenance and prosecution of these in-licensed rights, activities or any other intellectual property that may be related to our in-licensed intellectual property. For example, we cannot be certain that such activities by these licensors have been or will be conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations or will result in valid and enforceable patents and other intellectual property rights. We have limited control over the manner in which our licensors initiate an infringement proceeding against a third-party infringer of the intellectual property rights, or defend certain of the intellectual property that is licensed to us. It is possible that the licensors’ infringement proceeding or defense activities may be less vigorous than had we conducted them ourselves.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to develop any future product candidates on acceptable terms.

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 may depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. 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 as necessary or important to our business operations. We may fail to obtain any of these licenses at a reasonable cost or on reasonable terms, if at all, which could harm our business. We may need to cease use of the compositions or methods covered by such third-party intellectual property rights, and may need to seek to develop alternative approaches that do not infringe on such intellectual property rights which may entail additional costs and development delays, even if we were able to develop such alternatives, which may not be feasible. 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. 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.

Risks Related to Government Regulation for Gedatolisib

We may not obtain the necessary regulatory approvals to commercialize our product candidate.

We will need FDA approval to commercialize our product candidate in the U.S. In order to obtain FDA approval, we must submit to the FDA a new drug application, or NDA, demonstrating that the drug product is safe for humans and effective for its intended use. This demonstration requires significant research and animal tests, which are referred to as pre-clinical studies, as well as human tests, which are referred to as clinical trials. Satisfaction of the FDA’s regulatory requirements typically takes many years, depends upon the type, complexity and novelty of the drug product and requires substantial resources for research, development and testing. We cannot predict whether our research and clinical approaches will result in a drug that the FDA considers safe for humans and effective for indicated uses. The FDA has substantial discretion in the drug approval process and may require us to conduct additional pre-clinical and clinical testing or to perform post-marketing studies. The approval process may also be delayed by changes in government regulation, future legislation or administrative action or changes in FDA policy that occur prior to or during our regulatory review. Delays in obtaining regulatory approvals may delay commercialization of, and our ability to derive product revenues from, our drug product; impose costly procedures on us; or diminish any competitive advantages that we may otherwise enjoy. Even if we comply with all FDA requests, the FDA may ultimately reject our NDA. We cannot be sure that we will ever obtain regulatory clearance for our drug product. Failure to obtain FDA approval of our drug product will severely undermine our business by reducing our number of salable products and, therefore, corresponding product revenues.

The FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may disagree with our regulatory plan for our product candidates.

The general approach for FDA approval of a new drug is dispositive data from one or more well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials of the product candidate in the relevant patient population. Phase 3 clinical trials typically involve a large number of patients, have significant costs and take years to complete.

Our clinical trial results may not support approval of our product candidates. In addition, our product candidates could fail to receive regulatory approval, or regulatory approval could be delayed, for many reasons, including the following:

Breakthrough Therapy Designation or Fast Track Designation from the FDA may not actually lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process.

If a drug is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the product sponsor may apply for Fast Track Designation. The designation offers the opportunity for frequent interactions with the FDA to discuss the drug’s development plan and to ensure collection of appropriate data needed to support drug approval, as well as eligibility for submission of a New Drug Application.

In addition, a drug may receive Breakthrough Therapy Designation if it is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other products, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The benefits of Breakthrough Therapy Designation include more intensive guidance from the FDA on an efficient development program, access to a scientific liaison to help accelerate review time, and potential eligibility for priority review if relevant criteria are met. This designation can expedite the development and regulatory review of an investigational medicine that is intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition.

Both Fast Track and Breakthrough Therapy Designations are within the discretion of the FDA. While the FDA has granted both designations to our lead drug candidate, gedatolisib, such designations may not result in a faster development process, review or approval compared to products considered for approval under conventional FDA procedures, and neither designation assures ultimate approval by the FDA. In addition, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the qualification conditions and may rescind either or both such designations.

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, a comparable foreign regulatory authority 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 U.S., including additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the U.S., 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 U.S. 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 any 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.

If any of our product candidates are approved, they will be subject to ongoing regulatory requirements for manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, advertising, promotion, sampling, record-keeping, conduct of post-marketing studies and submission of safety, efficacy and other post-marketing information, including both federal and state requirements in the U.S. and requirements of comparable foreign regulatory authorities. In addition, we will be subject to continued compliance with requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval.

Manufacturers and manufacturers’ facilities are required to comply with extensive FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authority requirements. Accordingly, we and others with whom we work must continue to expend time, money and effort in all areas of regulatory compliance, including manufacturing, production and quality control.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, or contain requirements for potentially costly post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. Certain endpoint data we hope to include in any approved product labeling also may not make it into such labeling, including exploratory or secondary endpoint data such as patient-reported outcome measures. The FDA may impose consent decrees or withdraw approval if compliance with regulatory requirements and standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in revisions to the approved labeling to add new safety information, imposition of post-marketing studies or clinical trials to assess new safety risks or imposition of distribution restrictions or other restrictions under a REMS program. Other potential consequences include, among other things:

The FDA strictly regulates marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of products that are placed on the market. Products may be promoted only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The policies of the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities 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 U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

If we commercialize any product candidates, we will be subject to U.S. and foreign governmental regulations as well as private payor policies that mandate price controls or limitations on patient access to our products or establish prices paid by government entities or programs for our products. Our business, and our future results could be adversely affected by changes in such regulations.

Government and private payors routinely seek to manage utilization and control the costs of our products, and there is considerable public and government scrutiny of pharmaceutical pricing. Efforts by states and the federal government to regulate prices or payment for pharmaceutical products, including proposed actions to facilitate drug importation, limit reimbursement to lower international reference prices, require deep discounts, and require manufacturers to report and make public price increases and sometimes provide a written justification for such price increases, could adversely affect our business if implemented.

U.S. and foreign governmental regulations that mandate price controls or limitations on patient access to our products or establish prices paid by government entities or programs for our products could impact our business, and our future results could be adversely affected by changes in such regulations or policies. The adoption of restrictive price controls in new jurisdictions, more restrictive controls in existing jurisdictions or the failure to obtain or maintain timely or adequate pricing could also adversely impact revenue. We expect pricing pressures will continue globally. In the U.S., pharmaceutical product pricing is subject to government and public scrutiny and calls for reform, and many of our products are subject to increasing pricing pressures as a result. We expect to see continued focus by the federal government on regulating pricing which could result in legislative and regulatory changes designed to control costs. For example, in August 2022, the IRA was signed into law, which, among other things, requires manufacturers of certain drugs to engage in price negotiations with Medicare, imposes rebates under Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D to penalize price increases that outpace inflation, and replaces the Part D coverage gap discount program with a new discounting program. Some states have implemented, and others are considering implementing, patient access constraints or cost cutting under the Medicaid program, and some are considering measures that would apply to broader segments of their populations that are not Medicaid-eligible. State legislatures also have continued to focus on addressing drug costs, generally by increasing price transparency or limiting drug price increases. Measures to regulate prices or payment for pharmaceutical products, including legislation on drug importation, could adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to Our CELsignia Tests

Our success with CELsignia is heavily dependent on the success of our first CELsignia trials.

Our business strategy is focused on attracting pharmaceutical company partnerships that provide revenue from the sale of CELsignia tests during clinical trials, from milestone payments during clinical trials, from sales of our CELsignia tests as companion diagnostics or stand-alone tests thereafter, and, potentially, from royalties on the incremental drug revenues our tests enable. Our ability to obtain such partnerships and generate such revenue depends in part on the ability of our first CELsignia tests to demonstrate the potential incremental opportunity available for pharmaceutical companies. We do not expect to receive the first interim results for our prospective clinical trials for the CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test until the second half of 2023. Success of the clinical trials using the CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test or CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test will depend on many factors, such as successfully enrolling patients, meeting trial endpoint goals, and completing the trial in a timely manner. Our ability to complete the trial could be delayed or prevented for several reasons that are out of our control, such as the FDA withdrawing its authorization and approval to perform the study, NSABP, West Cancer Center, MD Anderson Cancer Center, or University of Rochester determining that the human and/or toxicology test results do not support continuing the trial, or participants having adverse reactions or side-effects to the drugs administered in the study. If we are unable to demonstrate that the CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test or CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test is suitable as a companion diagnostic for the targeted therapy, we will likely not be able to generate future revenue from our CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test or CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity test and may not be able to attract other pharmaceutical companies to partner with us for the development and commercialization of other CELsignia tests. Further, potential pharmaceutical company partners may delay negotiating development agreements until results of the first clinical trial using our CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test trial are available. Even if the ultimate outcome of the first clinical trial using a CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test trial is positive, any delays could materially and adversely affect our business.

We may not be successful in finding pharmaceutical company partners for continuing development of additional CELsignia tests.

We intend to develop strategic partnerships with pharmaceutical companies for developing additional CELsignia tests. Many of the potential partners are global, multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies with sophisticated research and development organizations and multiple priorities. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish such a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for our CELsignia tests because, among other things, our research and development pipeline may be insufficient, such tests may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort, or third parties may not view such tests as having the requisite potential to demonstrate efficacy. In addition, we may be restricted under collaboration agreements from entering into future agreements with other partners. Even if we are able to find suitable partners, we may not be successful in negotiating development agreements with such partners that provide revenue from the sale of our CELsignia tests, from milestone payments, and/or from royalties on the incremental drug revenues that our tests enable. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable strategic partners on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all, we may have to curtail the development of additional CELsignia tests, our expected revenue opportunities may be significantly smaller than expected and our business may fail.

While our CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test and CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test are commercially ready, we have not attempted to market these to physicians or their patients as stand-alone tests and have no ability to determine if these tests or any of our other tests will be commercially viable.

While our CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test and CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test are analytically validated, conducted in our CLIA certified and CAP accredited laboratory, and currently ready for commercial use as an LDT, we have not attempted to market them to physicians or their patients. Furthermore, we have commenced only limited communications with KOLs to build awareness and credibility of our CELsignia diagnostic platform and CELsignia tests. Accordingly, we have no ability to determine whether our CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test, CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test or any other future CELsignia tests, will be commercially viable as stand-alone tests. We may never be successful in generating revenue from our CELsignia tests as stand-alone tests, and if we are unable to build pharmaceutical partnerships that enable us to market the CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test, the CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test, and other tests as companion diagnostic tests, we may never generate any revenue and our business may fail.

Developing our CELsignia tests involves a lengthy and complex process that may not be successful.

Our CELsignia tests may take several years to develop from the time they are discovered to the time they are available for patient use, if ever. In order to develop additional CELsignia tests into commercially ready products, we need to successfully complete a variety of activities, including, among others, conducting substantial research and development, conducting extensive analytical testing, and maintaining our CLIA certified and CAP accredited laboratory. In addition, our business strategy is focused on our CELsignia tests being sold as companion diagnostics. This will require obtaining and maintaining partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and successfully completing clinical studies that demonstrate the suitability of the applicable CELsignia test as a companion diagnostic for their targeted therapies.

These activities will require us to expend significant resources. Based on comparable companies in this industry, few research and development projects result in commercially viable products, and success in early clinical studies often is not replicated in later studies. At any point, we may abandon development of a product candidate for several reasons, such as a clinical validation study failing to demonstrate the prospectively defined endpoints of the study. We may also be required to expend considerable resources repeating clinical studies, which would adversely affect the timing for generating potential revenue from a new product and our ability to invest in other products in our pipeline.

Clinical trials are expensive and complex with uncertain outcomes, which may prevent or delay commercialization of our CELsignia tests.

For our CELsignia tests to become a companion diagnostic for a matching targeted therapy, we must conduct clinical trials to demonstrate that patients who have an abnormal signaling pathway, as identified by our CELsignia tests, respond to treatment with a matching targeted therapy. Clinical testing is expensive, is difficult to design and implement, and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. As a company, we have limited experience in conducting or participating in clinical trials. We cannot be certain that any future clinical trials will conclusively demonstrate that any CELsignia test is effective as a companion diagnostic. If our trials do not yield positive results, we may be unable to maintain the pharmaceutical company partnerships we build or find additional partners, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our CELsignia tests or generate any revenue, our business may fail, and you may lose part or all of your investment.

We cannot be certain that our existing clinical trial or future clinical trials, if any, will begin or be completed on time, if at all. We may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to commercialize our CELsignia tests, such as:

Significant nonclinical or clinical trial delays could prevent us from maintaining and/or developing new pharmaceutical company partnerships. Delays could also shorten any periods during which we may have the exclusive right to commercialize our CELsignia tests or allow our competitors to bring products to market before we do. As such, any delays could impair our ability to successfully commercialize our CELsignia tests and may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if our CELsignia tests achieve positive clinical trial results, they may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success.

If any of our potential CELsignia tests, including our first CELsignia HER2 Pathway Activity Test and CELsignia Multi-Pathway Activity Test, achieve positive clinical trial results, they may nonetheless fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success. For example, conventional genomic- or proteomic-based analyses are commonly used today to diagnose cancer and prescribe cancer medications, and physicians may continue to rely on these diagnostic tests instead of adopting the use of a CELsignia test. The degree of market acceptance of our CELsignia tests will depend on a number of factors, including:

If our CELsignia tests do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may never generate significant product revenues and we may not become profitable.

Our CELsignia related business, operational and financial goals may not be attainable if the market opportunities for our CELsignia tests or our pharmaceutical company partners are smaller than we expect. Our internal research and estimates on market opportunities have not been verified by independent sources, and we have not independently verified market and industry data from third-parties that we have relied on.

The total market opportunities that we believe exist are based on a variety of assumptions and estimates, including the number of potential companion diagnostic programs we will be able to successfully pursue, the amount of potential milestone payments that we could receive in companion diagnostic programs, the number of patients we will test in clinical trials, the price we will be able to charge for our tests and the total annual number of cancer patients with undiagnosed abnormal cell signaling. In addition, we have relied on third-party publications, research, surveys and studies for information related to determining market opportunities, including without limitation, information on the number of cancer patients and those receiving various forms of treatment, the cost of drug therapy, the amount of revenue generated from various types of drug therapy, the objective response rates of drug therapies, the number of deaths caused by cancer and the expected growth in cancer drug therapy and diagnostic markets. Our internal research and estimates on market opportunities have not been verified by independent sources, and we have not independently verified market and industry data from third-parties that we have relied on. Any or all of our assumptions and/or estimates may prove to be incorrect for several reasons, such as inaccurate reports or information that we have relied on, potential patients or providers not being amenable to using our CELsignia platform for diagnostic testing or such patients becoming difficult to identify and access, limited reimbursement for companion diagnostics, pricing pressure due to availability of alternative diagnostic tests, or an inability of the CELsignia tests’ companion drugs to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for new indications. If any or all of our assumptions and estimates prove inaccurate, we and our companion diagnostic pharmaceutical partners may not attain our business, operational and financial goals.

The expected selling price range of our CELsignia tests is an estimate. We have not yet sold any such tests and the actual price we are able to charge may be substantially lower than our expected price range.

We have estimated the selling price range of our CELsignia tests based on the pricing of other diagnostic tests currently available and assumptions regarding the efficacy and market acceptance of our tests. We have not yet sold our CELsignia tests and cannot be certain of the actual price we may be able to charge. The availability and price of our competitors’ products could limit the demand and the price we are able to charge. We may not achieve our business plan if acceptance is inhibited by price competition, if pharmaceutical companies refuse to pay our expected prices for CELsignia tests in clinical trials, if physicians are reluctant to switch from other diagnostic tests to our CELsignia tests or if physicians switch to other new products or choose to reserve our CELsignia tests for use in limited circumstances. Furthermore, reductions in the reimbursement rate of third-party payors have occurred and may occur in the future. Each of these factors could cause our selling price to be substantially lower than expected, and we may fail to generate revenue or become profitable.

The insurance coverage and reimbursement status of new diagnostic products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for CELsignia tests could limit our ability to market those CELsignia tests and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive diagnostic tests and treatments. Sales of any of our potential CELsignia tests will depend substantially, both in the United States and internationally, on the extent to which the costs of our CELsignia tests will be paid by health maintenance, managed care, and similar healthcare management organizations, or reimbursed by government health administration authorities, private health coverage insurers and other third-party payors. Reimbursement by a payor may depend on a number of factors, including a payor’s determination that the CELsignia tests are neither experimental nor investigational, appropriate for the specific patient, cost-effective, supported by peer-reviewed publications, and included in clinical practice guidelines.

If reimbursement is not available, or is available only to a limited amount, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our CELsignia tests at expected levels, or potentially at all. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our research and development investment.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved diagnostic products. In the United States, the principal decisions about reimbursement for new diagnostic products and services are typically made by CMS. CMS decides whether and to what extent a new product or service will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow CMS to a substantial degree. As such, a significant portion of our potential revenue depends on CMS approving coverage and reimbursement of our CELsignia tests.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe, Canada and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of diagnostic tests such as our potential CELsignia tests. In many countries, particularly the countries of the European Union, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. In these countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we may be required to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of our CELsignia tests relative to other available diagnostic tests. The prices of products under such systems may be substantially lower than in the United States. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our CELsignia tests. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our potential CELsignia tests may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profit.

Moreover, increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors, in the United States and internationally, to cap or reduce healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our potential CELsignia tests. The downward pressure on healthcare costs in general, particularly prescription drugs and surgical procedures and other treatments, has become very intense. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any CELsignia tests due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes.

We may encounter difficulties in commercializing and marketing our CELsignia products, including in hiring and retaining a qualified sales force.

In order to commercialize any CELsignia test, we must build marketing, sales, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. For each CELsignia test we develop, we intend to pursue development agreements with the pharmaceutical companies that provide matching targeted therapies. Once we have completed the analytical validation of a CELsignia test, we plan to target KOLs to build product awareness. Once we have clinical validation data available, we expect to expand our sales and marketing efforts to target the broader market and coordinate our go-to-market activities with those of our partner pharmaceutical companies. These activities will be expensive and time consuming and will require significant attention of our executive officers to manage. In particular, there is intense competition for qualified sales personnel and our inability to hire or retain an adequate number of sales representatives could limit our ability to maintain or expand our business and increase sales. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that any new drug indications will require our CELsignia tests as a companion diagnostic or that any pharmaceutical company will effectively coordinate sales and marketing activities with us. Any failure or delay in these activities, including if we are unable to develop our marketing and sales networks or if our sales personnel do not perform as expected, would adversely impact the commercialization our CELsignia platform, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be materially and adversely affected.

We face significant competition from other diagnostic companies and our operating results will suffer if we fail to compete effectively.

The diagnostic testing industry is intensely competitive. We have competitors both in the United States and abroad, including universities and other research institutions and providers of diagnostics that focus on developing genomic or proteomic analyses of a patient’s diseased cells or theranostic tests to predict specific patient responses to a drug therapy. Many of our competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger research and development staff and well-established marketing and sales forces. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing, on an exclusive basis, products or services that are more effective or less costly than the CELsignia tests that we are currently developing or that we may develop. In addition, established medical technology, biotechnology and/or pharmaceutical companies may invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of diagnostic tests that could make our CELsignia tests less competitive.

Our ability to compete successfully will depend largely on our ability to:

If our sole laboratory facility becomes inoperable, we will be unable to perform our tests and our business will be harmed.

We do not have redundant laboratory facilities. We perform all of our diagnostic services in our laboratory located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Our facility and the equipment we use to perform our tests would be costly to replace and could require substantial lead time to repair or replace. The facility may be harmed or rendered inoperable by physical damage from fire, floods, tornadoes, power loss, telecommunications failures, break-ins and similar events, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to perform our tests for some period of time. The inability to perform our tests may result in the loss of customers or harm our reputation, and we may be unable to regain those customers in the future. Although we possess insurance for damage to our property and the disruption of our business, this insurance may not be sufficient to cover all of our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all.

In order to rely on a third party to perform our tests, we could only use another facility with established state licensure and CLIA accreditation under the scope of which our potential CELsignia tests could be performed following validation and other required procedures. We cannot assure you that we would be able to find another CLIA-certified facility willing to adopt CELsignia tests and comply with the required procedures, or that this laboratory would be willing to perform the tests for us on commercially reasonable terms.

Our instrument or reagent suppliers may fail to meet our quality requirements for the items we purchase or fail to provide a continuous supply of the items we utilize to perform our CELsignia tests.

We utilize highly specialized reagents and instruments to perform our CELsignia tests. We may be unable to find suitable replacement reagents and instruments on a timely basis, if at all. Interruption in the supply of these items or degradation in their quality could delay analytical and clinical studies, and/or render us unable to deliver CELsignia tests. This would interrupt sales and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Performance issues or price increases by our shipping carriers could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, and harm our reputation and ability to provide our CELsignia tests on a timely basis.

Expedited, reliable shipping is essential to our operations. Should our shipping carrier encounter delivery performance issues such as loss, damage or destruction of a sample, such occurrences may damage our reputation and lead to decreased demand for our services and increased cost and expense to our business. In addition, any significant increase in shipping rates could adversely affect our operating margins and results of operations. Similarly, strikes, severe weather, natural disasters or other service interruptions by delivery services we use would adversely affect our ability to receive and process patient samples on a timely basis. There are only a few providers of overnight nationwide transport services, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain arrangements with providers on acceptable terms, if at all.

Our CELsignia tests represent a novel approach to companion diagnostics, which could result in heightened regulatory scrutiny, delays in clinical development, or delays in our ability to commercialize any products.

Our unique and proprietary CELsignia technology is the first cancer diagnostic platform we are aware of that can detect the underlying signaling dysfunction driving a patient’s cancer. Because this is a novel approach to companion diagnostics, there can be no assurance as to the length of a clinical trial period, the number of patients the FDA or another applicable regulatory authority will require to be enrolled in the trials in order to establish the safety and efficacy of our CELsignia tests and the companion drugs, or that the data generated in these trials will be acceptable to the FDA or another applicable regulatory authority to support marketing approval of new indications for the companion drugs. This could delay or prohibit our clinical trials and/or commercialization of our CELsignia tests.

If the FDA were to begin regulating our tests, we could incur substantial costs and delays associated with trying to obtain premarket clearance or approval.

Most LDTs are not currently subject to FDA regulation, although reagents, instruments, software or components provided by third parties and used to perform LDTs may be subject to regulation. We believe that the CELsignia tests are LDTs, which is a term that describes tests that are designed and performed within a single laboratory. As a result, we believe the CELsignia tests are not currently subject to regulation by the FDA in accordance with the FDA’s current policy of exercising enforcement discretion regarding LDTs.

Historically, the FDA has not required laboratories that furnish only LDTs to comply with the agency’s requirements for medical devices (e.g., establishment registration, device listing, quality systems regulations, premarket clearance or premarket approval, and post-market controls). In mid-2014, the FDA published a draft Guidance Document describing a proposed approach for a regulatory framework for LDTs, but in late 2016, the FDA indicated it did not intend to finalize the LDT Guidance Document at that time. It is not clear when or if the FDA will seek to alter the current LDT regulatory framework in the future. We cannot provide any assurance that FDA regulation, including premarket review, will not be required in the future for our tests, whether through additional guidance issued by the FDA, new enforcement policies adopted by the FDA or new legislation enacted by Congress. We cannot predict with certainty the timing or content of future legislation enacted or guidance issued regarding LDTs, or how it will affect our business.

If premarket review is required by the FDA at a future date or if we decide to voluntarily pursue FDA premarket review of our CELsignia tests, there can be no assurance that our CELsignia tests or any tests we may develop in the future will be cleared or approved by the FDA on a timely basis, if at all, nor can there be assurance that labeling claims will be consistent with our current claims or adequate to support continued adoption of and reimbursement for our CELsignia tests. If our CELsignia tests are allowed to remain on the market but there is uncertainty in the marketplace about our tests, if they are labeled investigational by the FDA, or if labeling claims the FDA allows us to make are more limited than we expect, reimbursement may be adversely affected and we may not be able to sell our CELsignia tests. Compliance with FDA regulations would increase the cost of conducting our business and subject us to heightened regulation and scrutiny by the FDA and penalties for failure to comply with these requirements.

If we fail to obtain required federal and state laboratory licenses, we could lose the ability to perform our tests.

Clinical laboratory tests, including our CELsignia tests, are regulated under CLIA. CLIA is a federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. CLIA regulations mandate specific standards for laboratories in the areas of personnel qualifications, administration, and participation in proficiency testing, patient test management and quality assurance. CLIA certification is also required in order for us to be eligible to bill state and federal healthcare programs, as well as many private third-party payers, for any tests we launch. We will also be required to maintain state licenses in certain states to conduct testing in our laboratories. While we currently have CLIA certification for our Minnesota laboratory, failure to maintain this certification would adversely affect our ability to launch our CELsignia tests.

CELsignia Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our CELsignia technology, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize technology and diagnostic tests similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our technology and diagnostic tests may be impaired.

Our ability to compete successfully will depend in part on our ability to obtain and enforce patent protection for our products, preserve our trade secrets and operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. We have applied for patents that protect our technology. Our patent portfolio includes six issued U.S. patents and 30 issued international patents. Each patent and patent application covers methods of use. However, we cannot assure you that our intellectual property position will not be challenged or that all patents for which we have applied will be granted. The validity and breadth of claims in patents involve complex legal and factual questions and, therefore, may be highly uncertain. Uncertainties and risks that we face include the following:

The patent prosecution process is expensive and time-consuming, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner, or in all jurisdictions. We may choose not to seek patent protection for certain innovations and may choose not to pursue patent protection in certain jurisdictions, and under the laws of certain jurisdictions, patents or other intellectual property rights may be unavailable or limited in scope. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our discovery and nonclinical development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

The patent position of companies like ours is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or U.S. PTO, has not established a consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims that it will allow in medical technology patents. In addition, the laws of foreign jurisdictions may not protect our rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States. For example, India and China do not allow patents for methods of treating the human body. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot know with certainty whether we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our owned or licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Our pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued that protect our technology or CELsignia tests, in whole or in part, or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and diagnostic tests. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our patents or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

Moreover, we may be subject to a third-party pre-issuance submission of prior art to the U.S. PTO or patent offices in foreign jurisdictions, or become involved in opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter parties review, post-grant review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope of, or invalidate, our patent rights, allow third parties to commercialize our technology and compete directly with us, without payment to us, or result in our inability to commercialize CELsignia platform without infringing third-party patent rights. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop or commercialize current or future CELsignia tests.

Even if our owned patent applications issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors may be able to circumvent our owned patents by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability, and our owned patents may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or freedom to operate or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, in whole or in part, which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical technology and product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our technology and potential diagnostic tests. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new diagnostic tests, patents protecting such tests might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing diagnostic tests similar or identical to ours.

Third parties may initiate legal proceedings alleging that we are infringing their intellectual property rights, the outcome of which would be uncertain and could have a material adverse effect on the success of our business.

The commercial success of CELsignia tests depends upon our ability, and the ability of our collaborators, to develop, manufacture, market and sell our CELsignia tests and use our proprietary technologies without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. There is considerable intellectual property litigation in the medical technology, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. We may become party to, or threatened with, future adversarial proceedings or litigation regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our CELsignia platform, including interference or derivation proceedings before the U.S. PTO and similar bodies in other jurisdictions. Third parties may assert infringement claims against us based on existing patents or patents that may be granted in the future.

If we are found to infringe a third party’s intellectual property rights, we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to continue developing and marketing our CELsignia platform and CELsignia tests. However, we may not be able to obtain any required license on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we were able to obtain a license, it could be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same technologies licensed to us. We could be forced, including by court order, to cease commercializing the infringing technology or product. In addition, we could be found liable for monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed a patent. A finding of infringement could prevent us from commercializing our CELsignia platform or force us to cease some of our business operations, which could materially harm our business. Claims that we have misappropriated the confidential information or trade secrets of third parties could have a similar negative impact on our business.

If we are not able to prevent disclosure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information, the value of our CELsignia platform could be significantly diminished.

We rely on trade secret protection to protect our interests in proprietary know-how and in processes for which patents are difficult to obtain or enforce. We may not be able to protect our trade secrets adequately. We have a policy of requiring our consultants, advisors and strategic partners to enter into confidentiality agreements and our employees to enter into invention, non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. However, no assurance can be given that we have entered into appropriate agreements with all parties that have had access to our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information. There is also no assurance that such agreements will provide meaningful protection of our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized use or disclosure of information. Furthermore, we cannot provide assurance that any of our employees, consultants, contract personnel, or strategic partners, either accidentally or through willful misconduct, will not cause serious damage to our programs and/or our strategy, for example by disclosing important trade secrets, know-how or proprietary information to our competitors. It is also possible that our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information could be obtained by third parties as a result of breaches of our physical or electronic security systems. Any disclosure of confidential data into the public domain or to third parties could allow our competitors to learn our trade secrets and use the information in competition against us. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information. Any action to enforce our rights is likely to be time consuming and expensive, and may ultimately be unsuccessful, or may result in a remedy that is not commercially valuable. These risks are accentuated in foreign countries where laws or law enforcement practices may not protect proprietary rights as fully as in the United States. Any unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information could harm our competitive position.

Other Risks Related to Government Regulation for Our Business

Failure to comply with the HIPAA security and privacy regulations may increase our operational costs.

A portion of the data that we obtain and handle for or on behalf of our clients is considered protected health information, or PHI, subject to HIPAA. Under HIPAA and our contractual agreements with our HIPAA-covered entity health plan customers, we are considered a “business associate” to those customers and are required to maintain the privacy and security of PHI in accordance with HIPAA and the terms of our business associate agreements with our clients, including by implementing HIPAA-required administrative, technical and physical safeguards. We are also required to maintain similar business associate agreements with our subcontractors that have access to PHI of our customers in rendering services to us or on our behalf. We will incur significant costs to establish and maintain these safeguards and, if additional safeguards are required to comply with HIPAA regulations or our clients’ requirements, our costs could increase further, which would negatively affect our operating results. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that such safeguards have been and will continue to be adequate under applicable laws. If we have failed, or fail in the future, to maintain adequate safeguards, or we or our agents or subcontractors use or disclose PHI in a manner prohibited or not permitted by HIPAA, our subcontractor business associate agreements, or our business associate agreements with our customers, or if the privacy or security of PHI that we obtain and handle is otherwise compromised, we could be subject to significant liabilities and consequences.

Compliance with global privacy and data security requirements could result in additional costs and liabilities to us or inhibit our ability to collect and process data globally, and the failure to comply with such requirements could subject us to significant fines and penalties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The regulatory framework for the collection, use, safeguarding, transfer and other processing of information is rapidly evolving and is likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. Globally, virtually every jurisdiction in which we operate has established its own data security and privacy frameworks with which we must comply. For example, the collection, use, disclosure, transfer, or other processing of personal data regarding individuals in the European Union, including personal health data, is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), which took effect across all member states of the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) in May 2018. The GDPR is wide-ranging in scope and imposes numerous requirements on companies that process personal data, including requirements relating to the processing of health and other sensitive data, obtaining consent of the individuals to whom the personal data relates, providing information to individuals regarding data processing activities, implementing safeguards to protect the security and confidentiality of personal data, providing notification of data breaches, and taking certain measures when engaging third-party processors. In addition, the GDPR also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data to countries outside the European Union, including the United States, and, as a result, increases the scrutiny that clinical trial sites located in the EEA should apply to transfers of personal data from such sites to countries that are considered to lack an adequate level of data protection, such as the United States. The GDPR also permits data protection authorities to require destruction of improperly gathered or used personal information and/or impose substantial fines for violations of the GDPR, which can be up to 4% of global revenue or €20 million, whichever is greater, and it also confers a private right of action on data subjects and consumer associates to lodge complaints with supervisory authorities, seek judicial remedies, and obtain compensation for damages resulting from violations of the GDPR. In addition, the GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data.

Similar actions are either in place or under way in the United States. There are a broad variety of data protection laws that are applicable to our activities, and a wide range of enforcement agencies at both the state and federal levels that can review companies for privacy and data security concerns based on general consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General all are aggressive in reviewing privacy and data security protections for consumers. New laws are also being considered at both the state and federal levels. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), which went into effect on January 1, 2020, and was amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”), effective January 1, 2023, secure new privacy rights for consumers and impose new obligations on us. Many other states have implemented or are considering similar legislation which will change the privacy law landscape in the United States. For example, Virginia, Colorado, Utah and Connecticut have all adopted privacy laws, which take effect in 2023. A broad range of legislative measures also have been introduced at the federal level. Accordingly, failure to comply with federal and state laws (both those currently in effect and future legislation) regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. There also is the threat of consumer class actions related to these laws and the overall protection of personal data.

Given the breadth and depth of changes in data protection obligations, preparing for and complying with these requirements is rigorous and time intensive and requires significant resources and a review of our technologies, systems and practices, as well as those of any third-party collaborators, service providers, contractors or consultants that process or transfer personal data collected in the European Union. The GDPR and other changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as healthcare data or other personal information from our clinical trials, could require us to change our business practices and put in place additional compliance mechanisms, may interrupt or delay our development, regulatory and commercialization activities and increase our cost of doing business, and could lead to government enforcement actions, private litigation and significant fines and penalties against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, failure to comply with federal and state laws regarding privacy and security of personal information could expose us to fines and penalties under such laws. Even if we are not determined to have violated these laws, government investigations into these issues typically require the expenditure of significant resources and generate negative publicity, which could harm our reputation and our business.

We will also need to expend a considerable amount of resources complying with other federal, state and foreign laws and regulations. If we are unable to comply or have not complied with such laws, we could face substantial penalties or other adverse actions.

Our operations are subject, directly or indirectly, to other federal, state and foreign laws and regulations that are complex and their application to our specific products, services and relationships may not be clear and may be applied to our business in ways that we do not anticipate. Compliance with laws and regulations will require us to expend considerable resources implementing internal policies and procedures for compliance and ongoing monitoring and will require significant attention of our management team. This will be challenging as an early-stage company with limited financial resources and human capital. These laws include, for example:

Many states and foreign governments have adopted similar laws and regulations. Violations of law could subject us to civil or criminal penalties, monetary fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings and curtailment of our operations. We could also be required to change or terminate some portions of operations or business or could be disqualified from providing services to healthcare providers doing business with government programs.

Risks Related to Our Reliance on Third Parties

We will rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for, or commercialize, any potential product candidates.

We will depend upon third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and depend on third parties, including independent investigators, to conduct our clinical trials, under agreements with universities, medical institutions, contract research organizations, or CROs, strategic partners and others. We expect to negotiate budgets and contracts with such third parties, which may result in delays to our development timelines and increased costs.

We continue to build our infrastructure and hire personnel necessary to execute our operational plans. We will rely especially heavily on third parties over the course of our clinical trials, and, as a result, may have limited control over the clinical investigators and limited visibility into their day-to-day activities, including with respect to their compliance with the approved clinical protocol. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal and regulatory requirements 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 GCP requirements, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCP requirements through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, clinical investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of these third parties fail to comply with applicable GCP requirements, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to suspend or terminate these trials or perform additional preclinical studies or clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot be certain that, upon inspection, such regulatory authorities will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP requirements. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under cGMP requirements and may require a large number of patients.

Our failure or any failure by these third parties to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be adversely affected 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 aspects of our preclinical studies or our clinical trials will not be our employees and, except for remedies that may be available to us under our agreements with such third parties, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical studies and clinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other product 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 preclinical or clinical data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols or regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our development timelines, including clinical development timelines, 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 or precluded entirely.

The pharmaceutical companies that we partner with may not be successful in receiving regulatory approval for drug indications or may not commercialize their companion therapies for our expected companion diagnostic programs.

While we intend to provide our pharmaceutical company partners with new patient populations for such partners’ existing or investigational targeted therapies, there can be no assurances that such partners will be able to obtain regulatory approval for new indications to treat these patient populations or otherwise be successful in commercializing these new therapies. The pharmaceutical companies we partner with:

Any of these factors could adversely affect our commercialization strategy, business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our reliance on third parties to formulate and manufacture our drug product will expose us to a number of risks that may delay the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our drug product or result in higher product costs.

We have no direct experience in drug formulation or manufacturing and do not intend to establish our own manufacturing facilities. We lack the resources and expertise to formulate or manufacture our own product candidates. Instead, we will contract with one or more manufacturers to manufacture, supply, store and distribute drug supplies for our clinical trials. If our drug product receives FDA approval, we will rely on one or more third-party contractors to manufacture our drugs. Our anticipated future reliance on a limited number of third-party manufacturers exposes us to risks that, among other things, we may be unable to identify manufacturers on acceptable terms or at all because the number of potential manufacturers is limited and the FDA must approve any replacement contractor; our third-party manufacturers might be unable to formulate and manufacture our drugs in the volume and of the quality required to meet our clinical and/or commercial needs, if any; 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; and our contract manufacturers may fail to comply with good manufacturing practice and other government regulations and corresponding foreign standards. 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 revenues.

Patent reform legislation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents.

On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications are prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. The U.S. PTO recently developed new regulations and procedures to govern administration of the Leahy-Smith Act, and many of the substantive changes to patent law associated with the Leahy-Smith Act, and in particular, the first to file provisions, only became effective on March 16, 2013. Accordingly, it is not clear what, if any, impact the Leahy-Smith Act will have on the operation of our business. However, the Leahy-Smith Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts, and the U.S. PTO, 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. In addition, there may be patent law reforms in foreign jurisdictions that could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents in those foreign jurisdictions.

We may be subject to claims by third parties asserting that our employees or we have misappropriated their intellectual property, or claiming ownership of what we regard as our own intellectual property.

Our current and future employees may have been previously employed at universities or other biotechnology, diagnostic technology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors and strategic partners. Although we try to ensure that our employees do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that these employees or we have used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any such employee’s former employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims.

In addition, while it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who in fact develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. Our and their assignment agreements may not be self-executing or may be breached, and we may be forced to bring claims against third parties, or defend claims they may bring against us, to determine the ownership of what we regard as our intellectual property.

If we fail in prosecuting or defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

Any lawsuits relating to infringement of intellectual property rights necessary to defend ourselves or enforce our rights will be costly and time consuming and could be unsuccessful.

Because competition in our industry is intense, competitors may infringe or otherwise violate our issued patents, patents of our licensors or other intellectual property. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time consuming, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. Any claims we assert against perceived infringers could provoke these parties to assert counterclaims against us alleging that we infringe their patents. In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court may decide that a patent of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims narrowly or 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 proceeding could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly. We may also elect to enter into license agreements in order to settle patent infringement claims or to resolve disputes prior to litigation, and any such license agreements may require us to pay royalties and other fees that could be significant. 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.

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and under Delaware law could make an acquisition of our company, which may be beneficial to our stockholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation and our bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of our company that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. These provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of our common stock, thereby depressing the market price of our common stock. In addition, because our board of directors will be responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions:

Moreover, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner.

Any of these provisions of our charter documents or Delaware law could, under certain circumstances, depress the market price of our common stock.

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for purchasers of our common stock or could subject us to securities litigation.

Our stock price may be extremely volatile. The stock market in general and the market for smaller medical technology companies in particular have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, investors may not be able to sell our common stock at or above the price they paid for such stock. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

Additionally, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to an increased incidence of securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Future sales of shares of our common stock, including by us and significant stockholders, could negatively affect our stock price.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. Such sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares of our common stock intend to sell their shares, could reduce the trading price of our common stock.

On December 9, 2022, we issued 6,182,574 shares of common stock, 1,120,873 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and warrants exercisable for 6,956,450 shares of common stock to certain institutional and other accredited investors in a private placement pursuant to a securities purchase agreement entered into on May 15, 2022. Each share of Series A Preferred Stock is convertible at the option of the holder, subject to the Beneficial Ownership Limitation described below, into 10 shares of common stock. Under the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock and the warrants, we will not effect the conversion of any Series A Preferred Stock or the exercise of any such warrant, and the investor will not have the right to convert any portion of the Series A Preferred Stock or to exercise any portion of any warrant, to the extent that, after giving effect to an attempted conversion or exercise, the aggregate number of shares of common stock beneficially owned by the investor, together with its affiliates, would exceed 9.99% of the number of shares of common stock outstanding immediately after giving effect to the conversion or exercise, which percentage may be reset at the investor’s election to a higher percentage, not to exceed 19.9%, upon 61 days’ notice to us, or to a lower percentage, effective immediately after notice to us. We refer to such percentage limitation as the Beneficial Ownership Limitation. We filed a registration statement on Form S-3 covering the resale of up to 24,347,754 shares of common stock, consisting of (i) 6,182,574 shares of common stock purchased by the investors under the securities purchase agreement, (ii) 11,208,730 shares of common stock issuable upon conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock and (iii) 6,956,450 shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the warrants, which was declared effective in January 2023. The Form S-3 covers the resale of the number of shares of common stock issued or issuable to the investors without giving effect to the Beneficial Ownership Limitation, but the investors may not convert or exercise, and subsequently resell the underlying shares of common stock of, any portion of the Series A Preferred Stock or the warrants to the extent such conversion or exercise would result in the investor exceeding the applicable Beneficial Ownership Limitation. The investors may resell all, some or none of the shares of common stock registered pursuant to the Form S-3 at any time or in their discretion, subject to the Beneficial Ownership Limitation.

On February 4, 2022, we entered into an Open Market Sale Agreement^SM with Jefferies LLC, as agent, pursuant to which we may offer and sell, from time to time, through Jefferies, shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $50,000,000. On October 12, 2022, pursuant to this agreement, we sold 500,000 shares of common stock in a single transaction at a price of $10.35 per share, generating gross proceeds of $5.2 million ($4.8 million net of commissions and offering expenses). At December 31, 2022, $44.8 million of common stock remains available for sale under the Jefferies agreement. The extent to which we utilize the Open Market Sale Agreement^SM as a source of funding will depend on a number of factors, including the prevailing market price of our common stock, general market conditions and the extent to which we are able to secure funds from other sources.

Sales of substantial amounts of shares of our common stock or other securities by our stockholders, by us under the Open Market Sale Agreement^SM, by the private placement investors pursuant to the Form S-3 or through any other means could also lower the market price of our common stock, make it more difficult for you to sell your shares at a price that you desire and impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of equity or equity-related securities.

Our Series A Preferred Stock has rights, preferences, and privileges that are not held by, and are preferential to, the rights of holders of our common stock.

The Certificate of Designations of Preferences, Rights and Limitations of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock provides that, in the event of any voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company, or in the event of a Deemed Liquidation Event (as defined in the Certificate of Designations of Preferences, Rights and Limitations of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock), the holders of Series A Preferred Stock are entitled to be paid from assets of the Company available for distribution to its stockholders, before any payment is made to the holders of common stock by reason of their ownership thereof, an amount per share equal to the greater of (i) the original issue price ($5.75 on an as-converted-to-common stock basis), plus all accrued and unpaid dividends and (ii) the amount that the holder would have been entitled to receive at such time if the Series A Preferred Stock were converted into common stock. The Company may not, without the consent of holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock, amend its charter in a manner that adversely affects the powers, preferences or rights of the Series A Preferred Stock or issue or obligate itself to issue shares of any additional class or series of capital stock unless the same ranks junior to the Series A Preferred Stock with respect to the distribution of assets on the liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the Company and the payment of dividends.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or publish negative reports about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. There can be no assurance that analysts will cover us or provide favorable coverage. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or change their opinion of our stock, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

We incur increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management will be required to devote substantial time to new compliance initiatives and corporate governance practices.

As a public company, we will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the continued listing requirements of The Nasdaq Stock Market and other applicable securities rules and regulations impose various requirements on public companies, including establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and corporate governance practices. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations have increased our ongoing legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, we are required to furnish a report by our management on our internal control over financial reporting. Depending upon our filer status, we could also be required to include an attestation report on internal control over financial reporting issued by our independent registered public accounting firm as required by Section 404(b). While we, as of December 31, 2022, concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective, we may need to dedicate additional internal resources and engage outside consultants to maintain compliance with Section 404 in the future. Any material weaknesses that we may identify in the future could result in an adverse reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements.

ITEM 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

ITEM 2. Properties

We currently lease and occupy approximately 16,000 square feet in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which includes our clinical laboratory and offices. On March 13, 2023, we signed the fourth amendment to our lease agreement, which expires in April 2026. The lease provides for monthly rent, real estate taxes and operating expenses. We believe that this leased space is adequate to meet current and anticipated future requirements and that additional or substitute space will be available as needed to accommodate any expansions that our operations require.

ITEM 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time we may be involved in disputes or litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations. We are not currently a party to any legal proceedings that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

ITEM 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5. Market For Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Price Information

Our common stock has been listed on The Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “CELC” since September 20, 2017.

As of March 14, 2023, there were approximately 54 holders of record of our common stock. The actual number of holders of common stock is greater than this number of record holders and includes stockholders who are beneficial owners, but whose shares are held in street name by brokers and nominees. The number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to finance the operation and expansion of our business. We do not expect to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Payment of future cash dividends, if any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors after taking into account various factors, including our financial condition, operating results, current and anticipated cash needs, outstanding indebtedness and plans for expansion and restrictions imposed by lenders, if any.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The information required by this Item concerning equity compensation plans is incorporated herein by reference from Part III, Item 11 of this Annual Report.

ITEM 6. Reserved.

ITEM 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

You should read the following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations together in conjunction with our financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report. Some of the information contained in this discussion and analysis or set forth elsewhere in this Annual Report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and expected financial results, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. You should review the “Risk Factors” discussed in Item 1A of Part I of this Annual Report.

OVERVIEW

Celcuity is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on development of targeted therapies for treatment of multiple solid tumor indications. The Company’s lead therapeutic candidate is gedatolisib, a pan-PI3K/mTOR inhibitor. Its mechanism of action and pharmacokinetic properties are highly differentiated from other currently approved and investigational therapies that target PI3K or mTOR alone or together. The Company initiated VIKTORIA-1, a Phase 3 study evaluating gedatolisib in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer in 2022 and is currently enrolling patients. Its CELsignia companion diagnostic platform is uniquely able to analyze live patient tumor cells to identify new groups of cancer patients likely to benefit from already approved targeted therapies.

Gedatolisib, is a potent, well-tolerated, small molecule reversible dual inhibitor, administered intravenously, that selectively targets all Class I isoforms of PI3K and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). In April 2021, we obtained exclusive global development and commercialization rights to gedatolisib under a license agreement with Pfizer, Inc. We believe gedatolisib’s unique mechanism of action, differentiated chemical structure, favorable pharmacokinetic properties, and intravenous formulation offer distinct advantages over currently approved and investigational therapies that target PI3K or mTOR alone or together.

Gedatolisib is a pan-class I isoform PI3K inhibitor with low nanomolar potency for the p110α, p110β, p110γ, and p110δ isoforms and mTORC1 and mTORC2 complexes. Each PI3K isoform and mTOR complex is known to preferentially affect different signal transduction events that involve tumor cell survival, depending upon the aberrations associated with the linked pathway. When a therapy only inhibits a single Class I isoforms (e.g., alpelisib, a PI3K-α inhibitor ) or only one mTOR kinase complex (e.g., everolimus, an mTORC1 inhibitor), numerous feedforward and feedback loops between the PI3K isoforms and mTOR complexes cross-activates the uninhibited sub-units. This, in turn, induces compensatory resistance that reduces the efficacy of isoform specific PI3K or single mTOR kinase complex inhibitors. Inhibiting all four PI3K isoforms and both mTOR complexes, as gedatolisib does, thus prevents the confounding effect of isoform interaction that may occur with isoform-specific PI3K inhibitors and the confounding interaction between PI3K isoforms and mTOR.

Gedatolisib is administered intravenously (IV) on a four-week cycle of three weeks-on, one week-off, in contrast to the orally administered pan-PI3K or dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitors that are no longer being clinically developed. Oral pan-PI3K or PI3K/mTOR inhibitors have repeatably been found to induce significant side effects that were not well tolerated by patients. This typically leads to a high proportion of patients requiring dose reductions or treatment discontinuation. The challenging toxicity profile of these drug candidates ultimately played a significant role in the decisions to halt their development, despite showing promising efficacy. By contrast, gedatolisib stabilizes at lower concentration levels in plasma compared to orally administered PI3K inhibitors, resulting in less toxicity, while maintaining concentrations sufficient to inhibit PI3K/mTOR signaling.

Isoform-specific PI3K inhibitors administered orally were developed to reduce toxicities in patients. While the range of toxicities associated with isoform-specific inhibitors is narrower than oral pan-PI3K or PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, administering them orally on a continuous basis still leads to challenging toxicities. The experience with an FDA approved oral p110-α specific inhibitor, Piqray, illustrates the challenge. In its Phase 3 pivotal trial Piqray was found to induce a Grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) related to hyperglycemia in 39% of patients evaluated. In addition, 26% of patients discontinued alpelisib due to treatment related adverse events. By contrast, in the 103-patient dose expansion portion of the Phase 1b clinical trial with gedatolisib, only 7% of patients experienced Grade 3 or 4 hyperglycemia and less than 10% discontinued treatment.

As of December 31, 2022, 492 patients with solid tumors have received gedatolisib in eight clinical trials sponsored by Pfizer. Of the 492 patients, 129 were treated with gedatolisib as a single agent in three clinical trials. The remaining 363 patients received gedatolisib in combination with other anti-cancer agents in five clinical trials. Additional patients received gedatolisib in combination with other anti-cancer agents in nine investigator sponsored clinical trials.

A Phase 1b trial (B2151009) evaluating patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer was initiated in 2016 and subsequently enrolled 138 patients. Seven patients from this study continue to receive study treatment, as of December 31, 2022, each of which have received study treatment for more than four years. The B2151009 clinical trial was an open label, multiple arm Phase 1b study that evaluated gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib (CDK4/6 inhibitor) and fulvestrant or letrozole in patients with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. Thirty-five patients were enrolled in two dose escalation arms to evaluate the safety and tolerability and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of gedatolisib when used in combination with the standard doses of palbociclib and endocrine therapy (letrozole or fulvestrant). The MTD was determined to be 180 mg administered intravenously once weekly. A total of 103 patients were subsequently enrolled in one of four expansion arms (A, B, C, D).

High objective overall response rates were observed in all four expansion arms and were comparable in each arm for PIK3CA WT and PIK3CA MT patients. In treatment-naïve patients (Arm A), ORR was 85%. In patients who received prior hormonal therapy alone or in combination with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (Arms B, C, and D), ORR ranged from 36% to 77%. Each arm achieved its primary endpoint target, which was reporting higher ORR in the study arm than ORR from either the PALOMA-2 (ORR=55%) study that evaluated palbociclib plus letrozole for Arm A or the PALOMA-3 study (ORR=25%) that evaluated palbociclib plus fulvestrant for Arms B, C, and D. For all enrolled patients, a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of ≥79% was observed. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.9 months for patients who received a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor and were treated with the Phase 3 dosing schedule (Arm D). For the Arm A patients that were treatment naive in the advanced setting, median PFS had not yet been reached.

Gedatolisib combined with palbociclib and endocrine therapy demonstrated a favorable safety profile with manageable toxicity. The majority of treatment emergent adverse events were Grade 1 and 2. The most frequently observed adverse events included stomatitis/mucosal inflammation, the majority of which were Grade 1 and 2. The most common Grade 4 AEs were neutropenia and neutrophil count decrease, which were assessed as related to treatment with palbociclib. No grade 5 events were reported in this study.

We activated VIKTORIA-1, a Phase 3, open-label, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two regimens in adults with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer whose disease has progressed after prior CDK4/6 therapy in combination with an aromatase inhibitor: 1) gedatolisib in combination with palbociclib and fulvestrant: and 2) gedatolisib in combination with fulvestrant. Two hundred clinical sites in North America, Europe, South America, Asia, and Australia have been selected to participate in the study. The first clinical site was activated in the third quarter. The first dosage of a patient in the trial occurred in December 2022.

The clinical trial will enable separate evaluation of subjects according to their PIK3CA status. Subjects who meet eligibility criteria and are PIK3CA WT will be randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a regimen of either gedatolisib, palbociclib, and fulvestrant (Arm A), gedatolisib and fulvestrant (Arm B), or fulvestrant (Arm C). Subjects who meet eligibility criteria and are PIK3CA MT will be randomly assigned (3:3:1) to receive a regimen of either gedatolisib, palbociclib, and fulvestrant (Arm D), alpelisib and fulvestrant (Arm E), or gedatolisib and fulvestrant (Arm F).

Our proprietary CELsignia diagnostic platform is the only commercially ready technology we are aware of that uses a patient’s living tumor cells to identify the specific abnormal cellular process driving a patient’s cancer and the targeted therapy that best treats it. This enables us to identify patients whose tumors may respond to a targeted therapy, even though they lack a previously associated molecular mutation. By identifying cancer patients whose tumors lack an associated genetic mutation but have abnormal cellular activity a matching targeted therapeutic is designed to inhibit, CELsignia CDx can expand the markets for a number of already approved targeted therapies. Our current CDx identifies breast and ovarian cancer patients whose tumors have cancer drivers potentially responsive to treatment with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2), mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (c-MET), or phosphatidylinositol 3-kinases (PI3K) targeted therapeutics. While U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval or clearance is not currently required for CELsignia tests offered as a stand-alone laboratory developed test, if we are partnered with a drug company to launch a CELsignia test as a companion diagnostic for a new drug indication, we would be required to obtain premarket approval, or PMA, in conjunction with the pharmaceutical company seeking a new drug approval for the matching therapy.

We are supporting the advancement of new potential indications for four different targeted therapies, controlled by other pharmaceutical companies, that would rely on a CELsignia CDx to select patients. Four Phase 2 trials are underway to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these therapies in CELsignia selected patients. These patients are not currently eligible to receive these drugs and are not identifiable with a molecular test.

Supporting the development of a potential first-in-class targeted therapy for breast cancer, like gedatolisib, with our CELsignia platform is a natural extension of our strategy to use our CELsignia CDx to enable new indications for other companies’ targeted therapies. By combining companion diagnostics designed to enable proprietary new drug indications with targeted therapies that treat signaling dysregulation our CDx identifies, we believe we are uniquely positioned to improve the standard-of-care for many early and late-stage breast cancer patients. Our goal is to play a key role in the multiple treatment approaches required to treat breast cancer patients at various stages of their disease. With each program, we are:

Recent Developments

On December 22, 2022, Celcuity closed on a $20.0 million term loan (the “Term B Loan”) with an affiliate of Innovatus Capital Partners, LLC (“Innovatus”), pursuant to a Loan and Security Agreement, dated April 8, 2021 (the “Loan Agreement”), as amended by that First Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement, dated August 9, 2022 (the “Amendment and collectively with the Loan Agreement, the “Amended Loan Agreement”). The Company became eligible to draw down the Term B Loan upon the closing of the Company’s previously disclosed $100 million private placement on December 9, 2022. As previously disclosed, the Amended Loan Agreement may provide the Company with up to $75.0 million through funding of up to five term loans. Funding of the first $15.0 million term loan occurred on April 8, 2021 in connection with entering into the original Loan Agreement. As of December 31, 2022, term loans totaling $35 million are outstanding under the Amended Loan Agreement. Celcuity will be able to draw on two additional tranches of $10 million each and one additional tranche of $20 million upon achievement of certain clinical trial milestones and satisfaction of certain financial covenants determined on a pro forma as-funded basis. Funding of these additional tranches is also subject to other customary conditions and limits on when the Company can request funding for such tranches. Celcuity is entitled to make interest only payments for the 48-month period from the original agreement date or for the 60-month period from the original agreement date if certain conditions are met. The loans will mature on April 8, 2027, the sixth anniversary of the initial funding date. Innovatus has the right to convert outstanding principal into shares of Celcuity common stock until the third anniversary of the loan amendment date, with such amount limited to an aggregate of up to $6.6 million assuming all tranches are funded. The loan is secured by all of Celcuity’s assets.

On December 9, 2022, Celcuity closed on a private placement of common stock and preferred stock, resulting in gross proceeds of approximately $100 million, before deducting placement agent fees and other expenses. Celcuity issued 6,182,574 shares of common stock, 1,120,873 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and warrants exercisable for 6,956,450 shares of common stock to certain institutional and other accredited investors pursuant to a securities purchase agreement entered into on May 15, 2022. Pursuant to the securities purchase agreement, the closing (funding) of the private placement followed dosage of the first patient in Celcuity’s Phase 3 clinical trial, VIKTORIA-1, evaluating gedatolisib, Celcuity’s lead therapeutic candidate. Investors purchased shares of common stock and Series A Preferred Stock at a price of $5.75 per share (on an as converted to common stock basis), with forty percent (40%) warrant coverage (on an as converted to common stock basis) and customary resale registration rights. The warrants have an exercise price of $8.05 per share.

On December 7, 2022, Celcuity announced that the first patient was dosed in it Phase 3 VIKTORIA-1 clinical trial. Operational activities continue to focus on facilitating activation of sites and enrolling patients. The clinical trial protocol was updated to include an additional study arm (Arm F) to evaluate gedatolisib plus fulvestrant in 50 patients who have PIK3CA mutations. This update was made in response to a recommendation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) that the study arms for PIK3CA mutated patients mirror the same study arms for PIK3CA non-mutated patients. No changes were made to the primary endpoints. VIKTORIA-1 will evaluate the safety and efficacy of gedatolisib in combination with fulvestrant with or without palbociclib in adults with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed while receiving prior CDK4/6 therapy. Further details about the study are available at ClinicalTrials.gov.

We have not generated any revenue from 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 and have never been profitable and have incurred losses in each period since we began operations in 2012. For the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2021, we reported a net loss of approximately $40.4 million and $29.6 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2022, our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments were approximately $168.6 million, and we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $96.3 million.

Impact of COVID-19 on our Business

Although we have largely returned to normal operations in our facility, the COVID-19 pandemic continues and its effect on our operations and financial condition will depend in large part on future developments which cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Future developments include the duration, scope and severity of the pandemic, the emergence of new virus variants that are more contagious or harmful than prior variants, actions taken by governmental authorities, suppliers, clinical trial sites, and other business partners to contain or mitigate the pandemic’s impact, and the potential adverse effects on the suppliers, labor market and general economic activity.

As we continue to advance our clinical trial collaborations, we remain in close contact with our current clinical sponsors, and principal investigators, as well as prospective pharmaceutical company and clinical collaborators, to monitor the impact of COVID-19 on our trial enrollment timelines and collaboration discussions. We experienced delays in the enrollment of patients in our ongoing CELsignia Phase 2 clinical trials and now expect interim results from FACT-1 and FACT-2 to be delayed until the second half of 2023. We could experience further delays in clinical trials and collaborations with pharmaceutical companies and sponsors if new variants emerge or if the spread of COVID-19 once again accelerates. Due to the inherent uncertainty associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, we are unable to predict the impact the pandemic may have on our clinical trial work and overall financial condition.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Components of Operating Results

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue. With the execution of the Pfizer license agreement in April 2021, whereby we acquired exclusive world-wide licensing rights to develop and commercialize gedatolisib, we initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial, VIKTORIA-1, in 2022 to support potential regulatory approval to market gedatolisib. If we obtain regulatory approvals to market gedatolisib, we expect to generate revenue from sales of the drug for the treatment of breast cancer patients. Additionally, we will seek to generate revenue from partnership agreements with pharmaceutical companies to provide companion diagnostics for such pharmaceutical partners’ existing or investigational targeted therapies. If a new drug indication is received that requires use of our companion diagnostic to identify eligible patients, we expect to generate revenues from sales of tests to treating physicians.

Research and Development

Since our inception, we have primarily focused on research and development of gedatolisib, a PI3K/mTOR targeted therapy and our CELsignia platform and corresponding tests. Research and development expenses primarily include:

Internal and external research and development costs are expensed as they are incurred. As we continue development of gedatolisib, manage the VIKTORIA-1 Phase 3 trial and other clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of targeted therapies in cancer patients selected with one of our CELsignia tests, the proportion of research and development expenses allocated to external spending will grow at a faster rate than expenses allocated to internal expenses.

General and Administrative

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries, benefits and stock-based compensation related to our executive, finance and support functions. Other general and administrative expenses include professional fees for auditing, tax, and legal services associated with being a public company, director and officer insurance, investor relations and travel expenses for our general and administrative personnel.

Sales and Marketing

Sales and marketing expenses consist primarily of professional and consulting fees related to these functions. To date, we have incurred immaterial sales and marketing expenses as we continue to focus primarily on the development of our first drug, gedatolisib, managing the VIKTORIA-1 Phase 3 trial, and development of our CELsignia platform and corresponding CELsignia tests. We would expect to begin to incur increased sales and marketing expenses in anticipation of the commercialization of our first drug, gedatolisib, and CELsignia tests. These increased expenses are expected to include payroll-related costs as we add employees in the commercial departments, costs related to the initiation and operation of our sales and distribution network and marketing related costs.

Interest Expense

Interest expense is primarily due to a Loan Agreement and finance lease obligations.

Interest Income

Interest income consists of interest income earned on our cash, cash equivalents and investment balances.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2022 and 2021

Research and Development

For the year ended December 31, 2022, our research and development expenses were approximately $35.3 million, representing an increase of approximately $9.5 million, or 37%, compared to the same period in 2021. Included in the $9.5 million increase is a $10 million reduction in gedatolisib licensing related expenses offset by increases of $19.5 million in other research and development expenses. In the 2021 period, research and development expenses included a $10.0 million upfront license fee related to the execution of the Pfizer license agreement while there were no licensing agreement expenses for gedatolisib in 2022. Of the $19.5 million increase in research and development expense, $4.9 million was related to increased employee and consulting expenses, of which $0.9 million was in the form of non-cash stock-based compensation. The remaining $14.6 million increase of research and development costs is related to costs for existing clinical trials and for activities supporting the initiation of the VIKTORIA-1 pivotal trial.

Conducting a significant amount of research and development is central to our business model. We plan to increase our research and development expenses for the foreseeable future as we seek to develop gedatolisib, manage the VIKTORIA-1 Phase 3 trial, discover new cancer sub-types, and develop and validate additional CELsignia tests to diagnose such sub-types. We also expect to incur increased expenses to support companion diagnostic business development activities with pharmaceutical companies as we develop additional CELsignia tests and manage a clinical trial for gedatolisib.

General and Administrative

For the year ended December 31, 2022, our total general and administrative expenses were $4.1 million, representing an increase of approximately $1.5 million, or 58%, compared to the same period in 2021. The increase primarily resulted from a $1.3 million increase in compensation related expenses, including approximately $1.1 million of non-cash stock-based compensation. In addition, other general and administrative expenses increased $0.2 million primarily due to professional fees associated with being a public company and director and officer insurance.

We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses will increase in future periods, reflecting both increased costs in connection with the potential future commercialization of gedatolisib and CELsignia tests, an expanding infrastructure, and increased professional fees associated with being a public company.

Interest Expense

For the year ended December 31, 2022, interest expense was $2.1 million and represents an increase of $0.8 million compared to the same period in 2021. The Loan Agreement that was executed in April 2021 amended in August 2022, and includes $0.9 million of non-cash interest expense. The increase primarily reflects the loan being in place for the full year in 2022, while only a portion of the year in 2021.

Interest Income

For the year ended December 31, 2022, interest income increased approximately $1.1 million compared to the same period in 2021. The increase was primarily the result of higher market interest rates and the closing of additional financing activities, leading to higher cash, cash equivalents and short-term investment balances.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Since our inception, we have incurred losses and cumulative negative cash flows from operations. Through December 31, 2022, we have funded our operations primarily through private placements and registered offerings of our equity securities and unsecured convertible notes, and borrowings under loan agreements. From inception through December 31, 2022, we raised an aggregate of approximately $223.7 million of net proceeds through sales of our securities, and as of December 31, 2022 had $35.0 million of borrowings under loan agreements. As of December 31, 2022, our cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments were approximately $24.6 million and $144.0 million, respectively, and we had an accumulated deficit of approximately $96.3 million.

Private Placement. On December 9, 2022, we issued 6,182,574 shares of common stock, 1,120,873 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and warrants exercisable for 6,956,450 shares of common stock to certain institutional and other accredited investors pursuant to a securities purchase agreement entered into on May 15, 2022. Pursuant to the securities purchase agreement, the closing (funding) of the private placement occurred following dosage of the first patient in the Company’s Phase 3 study, VIKTORIA-1. Investors purchased shares of common stock and Series A Preferred Stock at a price of $5.75 per share (on an as converted to common stock basis), with forty percent (40%) warrant coverage (on an as converted to common stock basis) and customary resale registration rights. The warrants have an exercise price of $8.05 per share. The private placement generated gross proceeds of approximately $100 million before deducting placement agent fees and other offering expenses of $4.3 million.

Open Market Sale Agreement^SM. On February 4, 2022, we entered into an Open Market Sale Agreement^SM with Jefferies LLC, as agent, pursuant to which we may offer and sell, from time to time, through Jefferies, shares of our common stock having an aggregate offering price of up to $50,000,000. On October 12, 2022, pursuant to this agreement, the Company sold 500,000 shares of common stock in a single transaction at a price of $10.35 per share, generating gross proceeds of $5.2 million ($4.8 million net of commissions and offering expenses). At December 31, 2022, $44.8 million of common stock remains available for sale under the Jefferies agreement.

Innovatus Loan Agreement. On April 8, 2021, we entered into a Loan Agreement with Innovatus Life Sciences Lending Fund I, LP (“Innovatus”), under which Innovatus agreed to loan up to $25 million in three tranches consisting of (i) a $15.0 million non-contingent Term A loan that was funded on April 8, 2021, (ii) a $5 million Term B loan with a deadline of March 31, 2022, and (iii) a $5 million Term C loan to be funded upon our request, subject to our ability to achieve certain milestones, no later than March 31, 2023. On August 9, 2022, the Company amended the Loan Agreement with Innovatus to provide for up to $75 million in term loans. As of December 31, 2022, term loans totaling $35 million are outstanding under the Loan Agreement, including the initial Term A loan of $15 million which was funded on April 8, 2021, and a $20 million Term B loan which was funded on December 22, 2022 following the closing of the $100 million private placement described above. Additionally, the Company will be able to draw on two additional tranches of $10 million and one additional tranche of $20 million upon achievement of certain clinical trial milestones and satisfaction of certain financial covenants determined on a pro forma as-funded basis. Funding of these additional tranches is also subject to other customary conditions and limits on when the Company can request funding for such tranches.

We expect that our research and development and general and administrative expenses will increase as we continue to develop gedatolisib, manage the VIKTORIA-1 Phase 3 trial, conduct research related to the discovery of new cancer sub-types, conduct clinical trials, and pursue other business development activities. We would also expect to incur sales and marketing expenses as we commercialize gedatolisib and our CELsignia tests. We expect to use cash on hand to fund our research and development expenses, clinical trial costs, capital expenditures, working capital, sales and marketing expenses, and general corporate expenses.

Based on our current business plan, we believe that our current cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments together with available borrowings under the Innovatus Loan Agreement will provide sufficient cash to finance our operations and pay obligations when due through at least 2025.

Our expectations as to how long our current capital resources will be sufficient to fund our operations are based on assumptions that may not be accurate, and we could use our current capital resources sooner than we currently expect. In addition, we may seek to raise additional capital to finance capital expenditures and operating expenses over the next several years as we launch our integrated therapeutic and companion diagnostic strategy and expand our infrastructure, commercial operations and research and development activities, and to take advantage of financing or other opportunities that we believe to be in the best interests of the Company and our stockholders. Additional capital may be raised through the sale of common or preferred equity or convertible debt securities, entry into debt facilities or other third-party funding arrangements. The sale of equity and convertible debt securities may result in dilution to our stockholders and those securities may have rights senior to those of our common shares. Agreements entered into in connection with such capital raising activities could contain covenants that would restrict our operations or require us to relinquish certain rights. Additional capital may not be available on reasonable terms, or not at all.

Cash Flows

The following table sets forth the primary sources and uses of cash for the years ended December 31:

Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities was approximately $36.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2022 and consisted primarily of a net loss of approximately $40.4 million and working capital changes of $1.2 million, offset by non-cash expense items of approximately $5.6 million. Non-cash expense items of approximately $5.6 million primarily consisted of $4.6 million of stock-based compensation expense, non-cash interest expense of $0.9 million and depreciation expense of $0.2 million. The approximately $1.2 million of working capital changes was primarily due to an increase in prepaid assets, somewhat offset by increases in accounts payable and accrued expenses.

Net cash used in operating activities was approximately $20.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 and consisted primarily of a net loss of approximately $29.6 million, adjusted for non-cash items of approximately $8.5 million and working capital changes of approximately $0.8 million. Non-cash expense items of approximately $8.5 million consisted of $5.0 million for issuance of common stock related to a license agreement, stock-based compensation expense of approximately $2.6 million, non-cash interest expense of $0.6 million and depreciation of approximately $0.3 million. The working capital change of approximately $0.8 million was primarily due to an increase in accounts payable, slightly offset by an increase in prepaid assets.

Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2022 was approximately $144.0 million and consisted of approximately $143.9 million of short-term investments in government securities (U.S. Treasury Bills and U.S. government agency securities) and approximately $0.1 million in purchases of property and equipment.

Net cash used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2021 was approximately $0.1 million and consisted of purchases of property and equipment.

Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2022 was approximately $120.3 million. The $120.3 million primarily consisted of net proceeds from a private placement offering and ATM offering totaling $100.5 million and $19.5 million from net proceeds related to the closing of a Loan Agreement. The remaining $0.3 million was the result of proceeds from the exercise of employee stock options and proceeds from employee stock purchases.

Net cash provided by financing activities for the year ended December 31, 2021 was approximately $93.0 million. The $93.0 million primarily consisted of net proceeds from the sale of shares of our common stock through two follow-on offerings totaling $78.5 million and $14.4 million from net proceeds related to the closing of a Loan Agreement. The remaining $0.1 million was the result of proceeds from the exercise of common stock warrants and employee stock options and proceeds from employee stock purchases.

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

From time-to-time new accounting pronouncements are issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, or other standard setting bodies and adopted by us as of the specified effective date. Unless otherwise discussed in Note 2 to our financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report, we believe that the impact of recently issued standards that are not yet effective will not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations upon adoption.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND USE OF ESTIMATES

Our management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations is based on our financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or Generally Accepted Accounted Principles (“U.S. GAAP”). The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, as well as the reported expenses during the reporting periods. These items are monitored and analyzed by us for changes in facts and circumstances, and material changes in these estimates could occur in the future. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances; the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Changes in estimates are reflected in reported results for the period in which they become known. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates.

Our significant accounting policies are more fully described in Note 2 to our financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report. Of our significant accounting policies, we believe that the following are the most critical:

Stock-Based Compensation

Our stock-based compensation consists of common stock options and restricted stock issued to certain employees and nonemployees and our Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”). We recognize compensation expense based on an estimated grant date fair value using the Black-Scholes option-pricing method. We have elected to account for forfeitures as they occur.

The inputs for the Black-Scholes valuation model require management’s significant assumptions. Prior to our IPO, the price per share of common stock was determined by our board based on recent prices of common stock sold in private offerings. Subsequent to the IPO, the price per share of common stock is determined by using the closing market price on the Nasdaq Capital Market on the grant date. The risk-free interest rates are based on the rate for U.S. Treasury securities at the date of grant with maturity dates approximately equal to the expected life at the grant date. The expected life was based on the simplified method in accordance with SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin Nos. 107 and 110. The expected volatility was estimated based on historical volatility information of peer companies that are publicly available in combination with our calculated volatility since being publicly traded.

All assumptions used to calculate the grant date fair value of nonemployee options are generally consistent with the assumptions used for options granted to employees. In the event we terminate any of our consulting agreements, the unvested options issued in connection with such agreements would also be cancelled.

For grants of restricted stock, we record compensation expense based on the quoted fair value of the shares on the grant date over the requisite service period. Compensation expense for ESPP rights is recorded in line with each respective offering period.

Clinical Trial Costs

The Company records prepaid assets or accrued expenses for prepaid or estimated clinical trial costs conducted by third-party service providers, which includes the conduct of preclinical studies and clinical trials. These costs can be a significant component of the Company’s research and development expenses. The Company primarily relies on a compilation of progress reports from third-party service providers, including the respective invoicing, to record actual expenses, along with determining changes to prepaid assets and accrued liabilities. To date, the company believes utilization of third-party reports most accurately reflects expenses. As the current VIKTORIA-1 Phase 3 trial ramps up site activation and patient enrollment, the Company may need to estimate expenses in future periods and actual services performed may vary from these estimates. Changes in these estimates that result in material changes to the Company’s prepaid assets or accrued expenses could materially affect the Company’s results of operations.

ITEM 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

As a smaller reporting company, we are not required to provide disclosure pursuant to this item.

ITEM 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and

Stockholders of Celcuity Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Celcuity Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2022, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the financial statements). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2022 and 2021, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2022, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matters

Critical audit matters are matters arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. We determined that there were no critical audit matters.

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1. Financial Statements

Celcuity Inc.

Balance Sheets

See accompanying notes to the financial statements

Celcuity Inc.

Statements of Operations

See accompanying notes to the financial statements

Celcuity Inc.

Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity