Coherus BioSciences, Inc. - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

OR

For the transition period from _________ to _________

Commission File Number: 001-36721

Coherus BioSciences, Inc.  

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 600

Redwood City, California 94065

(650) 649 - 3530

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

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 than 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 and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted 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 and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☒

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

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock, held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2016 (which is the last business day of registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) based upon the closing market price of such stock on the NASDAQ Global Market on that date, was approximately $464.1 million. For purposes of this disclosure, shares of common stock held by each officer and director have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be “affiliates” as that term is defined under the Rules and Regulations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily conclusive.

The number of shares of registrant’s common stock issued and outstanding as of February 28, 2017 was 51,147,165.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III incorporates by reference certain information from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

COHERUS BIOSCIENCES, INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. We make such forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve substantial risks and uncertainties concerning our business, operations and financial performance and condition, as well as our plans, objectives and expectations for our business operations and financial performance and condition. Any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “aim,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “attempt,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “due,” “estimate,” “expect,” “goal,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “plan,” “predict,” “potential,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would” and other similar expressions that are predictions of or indicate future events and future trends, or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or

1

implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors and discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains estimates, projections and other information concerning our industry, our business, and the markets for certain diseases, including data regarding the estimated size of those markets, and the incidence and prevalence of certain medical conditions. Information that is based on estimates, forecasts, projections, market research or similar methodologies is inherently subject to uncertainties and actual events or circumstances may differ materially from events and circumstances reflected in this information. Unless otherwise expressly stated, we obtained this industry, business, market and other data from reports, research surveys, studies and similar data prepared by market research firms and other third parties, industry, medical and general publications, government data and similar sources.

PART I

Overview

We are a late-stage clinical biologics platform company focused on the global biosimilar market. Biosimilars are an emerging class of protein-based therapeutics with high similarity to approved originator products on the basis of various physicochemical and structural properties, as well as in terms of safety, purity and potency. Our goal is to become a global leader in the biosimilar market by leveraging our team’s collective expertise in key areas such as process science, analytical characterization, protein production and clinical-regulatory development. Since our founding in 2010, we have advanced three product candidates into Phase 3 clinical studies or filed for a Biologics License Application (BLA) enabling clinical development, entered into partnerships with two global pharmaceutical companies and entered into an agreement with one strategic biologics manufacturer.

Our business is organized around therapeutic franchises:

Oncology Biosimilars

CHS-1701 stimulates production of granulocytes (a type of white blood cell) in order to promote the body’s ability to fight infections. In March 2015, we initiated a pivotal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) study for CHS-1701 in the U.S. comparing CHS-1701 to Neulasta, which we reported in October 2015. This study met its primary PD endpoints of absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In terms of PK parameters, the study also met bioequivalence for C_max. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) portion of the PK results did not meet bioequivalence due to the presence of a low, anomalous PK profile in the first treatment period Neulasta group. Although this PK/PD study is acceptable to support filing the BLA, we initiated a follow-on PK/PD study in February 2016, which met its primary clinical endpoints in July 2016. We initiated an immunogenicity study in healthy volunteers pursuant to this BLA in May 2015 and reported in February 2016 that CHS-1701 met its immunogenicity endpoints. We filed for marketing approval in the U.S. on August 9, 2016 and have an action date with the FDA of June 9, 2017. We filed for approval in Europe in October 2016 and anticipate an action date with the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in the fourth quarter of 2017. We plan on marketing this product candidate ourselves in the U.S. and we are seeking to partner commercially in Europe.

We are developing master cell banks for several new biosimilar candidates of biologic therapeutics in oncology, including CHS-5217. As we intend to commercialize CHS-1701 in the U.S., we anticipate being able to commercialize other oncology biosimilar candidates in the U.S. as well. We will seek to find a commercial partner for all oncology biosimilars outside the U.S.

2

Anti-TNF Biosimilars

Our clinical-stage pipeline consists of two anti-tumor necrosis factors, or anti-TNFs. TNF is a substance in the body that is involved in the inflammatory response. Our most clinically advanced anti-TNF product candidate, CHS-0214, is an etanercept (Enbrel) biosimilar candidate for which we have partnered with Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, or Daiichi Sankyo, in Japan. Outside of Japan, Coherus has global rights to CHS-0214. We have completed two Phase 3 clinical trials with CHS-0214 in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, which met their primary clinical endpoints in November 2015 and January 2016, respectively. Our second anti-TNF product candidate, CHS-1420, is an adalimumab (Humira) biosimilar candidate, and completed Phase 1 studies in August 2014. In August 2016, we announced positive 12-week results from a Phase 3 study in psoriasis patients and, in January 2017, positive confirmatory results at 24-weeks in the same study for CHS-1420 to support the planned filing of a marketing application in the U.S. and in the European Union (E.U.) in the first half of 2017.

We intend to find commercialization partners for all of our anti-TNF or anti-inflammatory biosimilar candidates.

Overview of the Market Opportunity for Biosimilars

According to Evaluate Pharma, total global annual revenues from the anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha, or anti-TNF-a, adalimumab, etanercept and pegfilgrastim-based originator products exceeded approximately $30 billion in 2016. We intend to pursue a brand strategy for our biosimilar products that projects high similarity to the originator and positive differentiation to competing biosimilars at a competitive price.

The global market opportunity for biosimilars is emerging as a result of several factors. First, through 2020, 30 “blockbuster” biologics, each with worldwide annual sales in excess of $1 billion, face loss of patent exclusivity in at least one major pharmaceutical market. These products achieved approximately $109 billion in aggregate worldwide sales in 2016. Second, regulatory agencies around the world have responded to these upcoming patent expirations by defining new biosimilar approval pathways. We believe these regulatory initiatives will help streamline the approval process across various international regulatory agencies and encourage growth of the overall biosimilar market. Third, implementation of more stringent cost containment practices on the part of governments and insurers has increased demand for high-quality biosimilars, which we believe will result in substantial market growth over time.

While the potential market opportunity is significant, biosimilar product development poses a number of scientific, regulatory and technical challenges that distinguish it from traditional, small-molecule generic product development. We believe our world-class team of biologic therapeutic developers and renowned scientists gives us the critical capabilities to successfully address the complexities underlying these challenges. Our team includes industry veterans with decades of experience in pioneering biologics companies, such as Amgen and Genentech, where they were responsible for leading, and in some cases establishing, these organizations’ core capabilities in process development, protein manufacturing and analytical research and development as well as sales and marketing. We have also assembled a distinguished scientific advisory board of leading scientists who are acknowledged experts in their respective fields.

Our business model places our internal team at the center of a coordinated development effort in which our senior team of experts focuses on the highly-specialized, strategic and technical aspects of biosimilar development that are core to our business and difficult to replicate. For other aspects of our operations that require greater scale or more capital-intensive investments, we have established a network of relationships with highly-competent external organizations and strategic partnerships that we believe will provide the competitive scale required to address the global biosimilar market opportunity. For example, in December 2015, we entered into a strategic manufacturing agreement with KBI Biopharma, Inc. (KBI Biopharma) for long-term commercial manufacturing of CHS-1701. In addition, our dynamic organization allows us to respond to the rapidly evolving biosimilar landscape.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to become a leading global biosimilar company. The five key elements of our strategy are to:

3

Background on Biosimilars

Significant Market Opportunity

According to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, the 2015 global biologics market represented over $200 billion in sales, with virtually the entire market composed of branded originator products. Patent expirations for many commercially successful branded biologic products will provide an unprecedented opportunity for cost containment through the introduction of biosimilars. Through 2020, 30 major branded biologic products, each with worldwide annual sales in excess of $1 billion, face loss of patent exclusivity in at least one major pharmaceutical market. These products achieved approximately $109 billion in aggregate worldwide sales in 2016. We believe this wave of patent expirations will create one of the most significant opportunities for the biotechnology industry in the coming years. The following originator products (all of which are “blockbuster” biologics) are facing loss of patent exclusivity in at least one major market through 2020:

Escalating healthcare costs and healthcare reform have been major drivers for the advancement of the biosimilar market. Governments and insurers are in search of mechanisms to contain costs and expand patient access without sacrificing quality of care. Further, governments and private-payors are using an increasing and disproportionate amount of healthcare spending on biologic therapeutics. According to data from Express Scripts, approximately $4 out of every $10 spent on prescription drugs in 2016 in the U.S. is projected to be spent on specialty medications, mostly complex biologics that are only used by 2% of the population.

4

Compounding the issue is the fact that biologic therapeutic costs are escalating at an increasingly unsustainable rate. IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics also reported that the total spend increase for specialty biologic therapeutics in 2015 was as high as approximately 22%, depending on payor segment. Consequently, we believe there is tremendous cost pressure to bring high-quality, lower-priced biologic therapeutics to market. We further believe our products target payor segments having among the highest rates of spending and anticipated spending growth, including inflammation and cancer.

We expect the biosimilar marketplace to have several distinct characteristics as it develops. First, it is likely to become a branded market without significant participation by generic small molecule manufacturers, who are less likely to have the technical, regulatory and clinical expertise required to succeed in this market. Second, the biosimilar markets we expect to target are unlikely to default to interchangeability in the near to medium term, which means the prescription decision will not exclusively reside in the hands of pharmacists or payors but also in the hands of physicians, requiring commercialization efforts to drive sales. We believe that the biosimilar market adoption and penetration rates for each biosimilar will primarily be determined by four key factors: (1) patient criticality (the degree of severity in the patient’s condition), (2) rapidity of feedback on the safety and efficacy of the drug based on the patient response, (3) the physician and patient share influence relative to the payor in the prescribing decision and (4) the prevalence of payor incentives to drive substitution. We believe there will be strong market adoption and penetration for our CHS-1701, CHS-0214 and CHS-1420 biosimilars particularly due to low patient criticality and payor incentives. We believe that the participation of major pharmaceutical firms, including Pfizer, Inc., or Pfizer, and Sandoz International GmbH, or Sandoz, in the biosimilar markets that we are targeting indicates that there will be a relatively small number of biosimilar competitors, pricing stability and favorable market dynamics.

The Challenge of Biosimilar Product Development

Proteins consist of one or more long chains of amino acids and perform a vast array of functions within living organisms, including catalyzing metabolic reactions, replicating DNA, responding to stimuli and transporting molecules from one location to another. Such protein molecules differ from one another primarily in their sequence of amino acids, which results in folding of the protein into a specific three-dimensional structure that determines its activity.

Although the sequence of amino acids in a protein is consistently replicated, there are a number of changes that can occur following synthesis that create inherent variability. Chief among these is the glycosylation, or the attachment of sugars at certain amino acids. Most protein-based therapeutics, including all monoclonal antibodies, are glycosylated to some degree. Monoclonal antibodies are identical antibodies that have an affinity for the same antigen and are produced by a specific clone or cell line. The glycosylation of monoclonal antibodies and other protein-based therapeutics can be critical to half-life, efficacy and even safety of the therapeutic and is therefore a key consideration for biosimilarity. Defining and understanding the variability of an originator molecule in order to match its glycosylation profile requires significant skill in cell biology, protein purification and analytical protein chemistry. Furthermore, manufacturing proteins with reliable and consistent glycosylation profiles at scale is challenging and highly dependent on the skill of the cell biologist and process scientist.

Protein-based therapeutics are inherently heterogeneous and their structure is highly dependent on the production process and conditions. Products from one production facility can differ within an acceptable range from those produced in another facility. Similarly, physicochemical differences can also exist among different lots produced within a single facility. The physicochemical complexity and size of biologic therapeutics creates significant technical and scientific challenges in the context of their replication as biosimilar products. This is further exacerbated by the fact that some originator product’s quality characteristics, such as glycosylation, have been shown to change or “drift” over time.

Accordingly, inherent variation is a fundamental consideration with respect to establishing biosimilarity to an originator product to support regulatory approval requirements. Since the product quality characteristics of originator molecules exist as a range of values rather than as an absolute, as it is the case for small-molecule therapeutic generics, regulators have issued guidelines that require demonstration of biological similarity and functional equivalence. Thus, we believe the ultimate result of protein heterogeneity and complexity is a biosimilar market where only organizations with great technical skill can compete successfully and will do so in a market of relatively few participants and relatively stable prices.

Our Approach

Our Platform

The essential elements of our platform that distinguish our development approach include:

5

Five Key Steps to Biosimilar Drug Development

We apply our platform to five key steps of biosimilar development that are designed to provide the analytical, nonclinical and clinical basis to establish biosimilarity and support regulatory approval of our product candidates. We have had meetings with regulatory agencies in several of the major regulated markets to discuss our three most advanced product candidates and the data that will be required to support marketing approval. The outcomes of these discussions have informed our clinical designs, product development and regulatory strategies.

Step 1: Cell Line Development and Manufacturing

The amino acid sequence of the candidate biosimilar molecule must precisely match that of the originator. We have found that publicly available data can be unreliable in some instances. Therefore, we validate the amino acid sequence of all candidate biosimilar products prior to developing clones. While all clones are expected to produce proteins with the same primary sequence, it is essential to select clones which produce protein that most closely matches the glycosylation profile of the originator, since such product quality characteristics impact pharmacokinetics, or PK, and pharmacodynamics, or PD, properties as well as safety and efficacy of the molecule. A process to manufacture the desired product must be developed, scaled-up and implemented in a Good Manufacturing Practice, or GMP, facility in order to be used in human clinical trials.

Step 2: Analytical Characterization and In Vitro Comparability

Once a biosimilar product candidate has been manufactured, we use sophisticated analytical methods and equipment as well as highly trained analysts in order to detect, analyze and interpret the chemical and structural similarity between our biosimilar candidate and the originator product. We test for comparability of biologic activity using a battery of sensitive in vitro pharmacology assays that demonstrate binding characteristics, functionality and mechanism of action. These data may be predictive of clinically relevant differences in PK, PD, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between our biosimilar candidate and the originator product.

Step 3: In Vivo Animal Comparability

Following demonstration of in vitro biosimilarity, we compare our biosimilar product candidate to the originator product in relevant animal models using the intended dosage form and route of administration prior to performing human clinical trials. As PK, PD and safety observations from these studies may be predictive of the human clinical trial experience, it is important to perform these studies in animals before proceeding to human clinical trials. Generally speaking, two studies are required in relevant animal models to provide sufficient nonclinical rationale to advance to a pivotal Phase 1 study.

6

Step 4: Pivotal Phase 1 Human Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Study

An essential global regulatory requirement is the completion of a clinical study in a sufficient number of human subjects directly comparing the originator product and our biosimilar product candidate to establish PK/PD similarity. The U.S. and European regulatory agencies have established requirements for bioequivalence with respect to three prospectively defined parameters as follows:

The area under the curve, or the AUC, is a measure of how much of a drug is in a patient’s system over a given time period. In order to calculate the AUC, the concentration of the drug in blood serum or plasma is plotted over time starting at the time the drug is administered and ending when the last time point is collected (AUC _0-t ) or when the serum or plasma concentration would be below the level of detection or zero (AUC _{0- inf} ), and then the area under this curve is calculated. To be deemed bioequivalent, regulators require that, for each parameter, the ratio of the originator product and the biosimilar candidate fall within 80% and 125%, with the identical match being at 100%.

Step 5: Phase 3 Confirmatory Safety and Efficacy Clinical Trials

The final step to support approval is a single Phase 3 confirmatory safety and efficacy study in a therapeutic indication for which the originator product has been approved. The objective of this study is to demonstrate biosimilarity between the originator and biosimilar therapeutics with respect to safety and efficacy. Subject to discussions with regulators and agreement on trial endpoints, we strive to demonstrate that our biosimilar products are as effective and safe as the originators. Trial endpoints include considerations such as the number of subjects, statistical significance, confidence intervals and accumulated safety database size.

7

Development Portfolio

The following chart summarizes key information regarding our current product candidate pipeline:

8

Oncology Biosimilar Pipeline Opportunity

CHS-1701 (Our Pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) Biosimilar Candidate)

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, or G-CSF, is a protein that promotes the survival, proliferation (an increase in the number of cells due to cell growth and cell division) and differentiation of certain types of white blood cells known as neutrophils. Recombinant G-CSF therapies, such as filgrastim (Neupogen) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), are commonly used in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in cancer, which is characterized by an abnormally low level of neutrophils and other white blood cells that aid in the defense against infections. We selected pegfilgrastim as the development target for our biosimilar G-CSF product candidate for the following reasons:

Product Overview

Neulasta, the reference product for CHS-1701, is a PEGylated form of the recombinant human G-CSF analog, filgrastim. Filgrastim produced from E. coli is not glycosylated. We have performed extensive analytical characterization of CHS-1701 and have determined that its basic and higher-order structures are similar to Neulasta. We have also performed in vitro characterization of the biological activity of CHS-1701. The biological effect of CHS-1701 on neutrophils was assessed by measuring the proliferation of NFS-60 cells that are commercially available hematopoietic cells (blood cells that give rise to other blood cells) of neutrophilic lineage expressing G-CSF receptors and have been used extensively for testing G-CSF products. The biological activity of CHS-1701 (proliferation of NFS-60 cells) is a consequence of its binding to G-CSF receptors expressed on NFS-60 cells, activation of this receptor and induction of the proliferation. We determined that CHS-1701 stimulated the proliferation of the NFS-60 cells in a manner consistent with that observed with Neulasta.

Neulasta is approved in the U.S. and Europe and is indicated as a treatment to reduce the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in patients with non-myeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs associated with a clinically significant incidence of febrile neutropenia.

Analysts project the worldwide market for Neulasta in 2017 will exceed $4.5 billion, of which approximately $3.7 billion would be in the U.S. We have concluded that patent expiration in major markets offers a near-term opportunity to introduce biosimilar competitors in the U.S. after October 2015 and in Europe after February 2018.

Current Development Status and Data

Under the 351(k) (biosimilar) pathway, we have successfully submitted a BLA for CHS-1701 on August 9, 2016 and received a Biosimilar User Fee Act, or BSUFA, action date for this BLA from the FDA of June 9, 2017. In October 2016, we filed an MAA for European approval. The BLA and MAA submissions are supported by the successful completion of similarity data from analytical, PK, PD and immunogenicity studies comparing CHS-1701 and Neulasta.

Step 1: Cell Line Development and Manufacturing

As with our other product candidates, we confirmed that the amino acid sequence of CHS-1701 is identical to the originator molecule. CHS-1701 is manufactured in E. coli and PEGylation occurs as a subsequent step in the manufacturing process. For PEGylation of CHS-1701, we used the equivalent polyethylene glycol, or PEG, molecule as Neulasta and established that chemistry

9

and site of attachment of the PEG molecule was the same. In December 2015, we entered into a strategic manufacturing agreement with KBI Biopharma for long-term commercial manufacturing of CHS-1701.

Step 2: Analytical Characterization and In Vitro Comparability

Filgrastim produced from E. coli is not glycosylated. We performed extensive analytical characterization of CHS-1701 and have determined its basic and higher-order structures are similar to Neulasta. We studied the in vitro activity of CHS-1701 in an assay measuring the proliferation of the murine myeloid leukemia cell line, NFS-60. CHS-1701 stimulated the proliferation of the NFS-60 cells in a concentration-dependent manner, consistent with the proliferation seen with Neulasta.

Step 3: In Vivo Animal Comparability

With CHS-1701, we have performed two preclinical pharmacology/toxicology studies: a two-week study in rats and a four-week study in monkeys. We performed a two-week rat study to characterize the toxicity and pharmacodynamics of CHS-1701 administered every four days for two weeks, with a recovery period of one week compared to Neulasta. Doses ranged from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/kg. There was no mortality during the study and no systemic signs of toxicity could be attributed to treatment. There were no differences in clinical observations between the control and treated animals. Dose-proportional increases in absolute neutrophil count, or ANC, and total white blood cell count were observed at all dose levels of CHS-1701. Clinical chemistry findings and mild to moderate splenic enlargement in the CHS-1701-treated animals were consistent with the pharmacological effects of treatment with Neulasta.

We designed a second pharmacology/toxicology study in animals to characterize PK and PD profiles as well as the potential for harmful antibody responses to CHS-1701 or other toxic effects, in order to compare these attributes observed for CHS-1701 with those we observed for Neulasta. We administered either CHS-1701 or Neulasta at dose levels of 0.075, 0.25 and 0.75 mg/kg once weekly for 4 weeks. We found that CHS-1701 performed in a manner similar to Neulasta in that it increased the production of white blood cells in the bone marrow and resulted in an increase in the amount of white blood cells in the blood, in the bone marrow and in lymphoid tissues such as spleen and thymus tissue. Moreover, we found no differences between CHS-1701 and Neulasta in terms of potentially harmful antibody responses or other toxicities, or in terms of PK and PD.

Step 4: Pivotal Phase 1 Human Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Study

While under the 351(a) (novel biologic) regulatory pathway, we conducted a Phase 1, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, two-period crossover study to assess the PK profile, safety and activity of a single subcutaneous 6 mg dose of CHS-1701 compared to Neulasta in 79 healthy human subjects between November 2012 and March 2013.

This Phase 1 study met its primary endpoint for purposes of enabling us to pursue a 351(a) (novel biologic) approval pathway, but did not establish bioequivalence necessary to support a 351(k) (biosimilar) pathway. In October 2014, we met with the FDA to discuss our development plan for CHS-1701. We informed the agency of our decision to transition from a 351(a) (novel biologic) approval pathway to a 351(k) (biosimilar) approval pathway.

Step 5: Further Studies Supporting 351(k) BLA Regulatory Filing.

In March 2015, we received written feedback from the FDA on our development plan for CHS-1701 and we initiated a pivotal PK/PD study for CHS-1701 under the 351(k) (biosimilar) pathway in the U.S. which completed in October 2015. This study met its primary PD endpoints. In terms of PK parameters, the study also met bioequivalence for C _max. The AUC portion of the PK results did not meet bioequivalence due to the presence of a low, anomalous PK profile in the first treatment period Neulasta group. Although this PK/PD study could support the BLA, we initiated a follow-on PK/PD study in the first quarter of 2016 and successfully completed that study in July 2016. This second study, conducted under the 351(k) (biosimilar pathway), met all of its co-primary endpoints for PK, C _max and AUC, and for PD, absolute neutrophil count (ANC _max and ANC AUC). For both PK and PD endpoints, the 90% confidence intervals for the GMR were well contained within the pre-specified margins of 80% to 125%. This randomized, single-blind, three-sequence, three-period crossover study in healthy subjects assessed PK, PD, and safety (including immunogenicity) of a 6 mg subcutaneous (SC) injection of CHS-1701 compared to 6 mg SC dose of Neulasta. A total of 122 healthy volunteer subjects were randomized to one of three treatment sequences, each with three treatments (Neulasta/Neulasta/CHS-1701 or CHS-1701/Neulasta/Neulasta or Neulasta/CHS-1701/Neulasta). Subject inclusion criteria, procedures and study design, as well as other measures, reflected modifications addressing findings in the previous PK/PD study under the 351(k) (biosimilar) pathway, successfully decreasing subject variability and eliminating the extreme subject outliers previously observed.

10

In May 2015, we initiated an immunogenicity study in healthy volunteers pursuant to this BLA, which completed in January 2016 and met its primary endpoints.

We filed the BLA on August 9, 2016 and have a BSUFA action date of June 9, 2017. In October 2016, we filed an MAA for European approval, which was accepted in November 2016.

CHS-5217 (Our Bevacizumab (Avastin) Biosimilar Candidate)

Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks angiogenesis by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A). VEGF-A is a protein that stimulates angiogenesis, which is the formation of blood vessels. In turn, the formation of new blood vessels may promote the growth of certain solid tissues, including solid tumors. Bevacizumab was first approved in 2004 by the FDA for combination use with standard chemotherapy for metastatic colon cancer. It has since been approved for use in certain lung cancers, renal cancers, ovarian cancers and glioblastoma.

Bevacizumab achieved approximately $6.9 billion in worldwide sales in 2015 according to Evaluate Pharma. We selected Avastin as the biosimilar development target for our biosimilar, CHS-5217, for the following reasons:

Current Development Status and Data

Step 1: Cell Line Development and Manufacturing

We have identified the amino acid sequence of CHS-5217 and confirmed that it is identical to the reference product, Avastin. We established Master Cell Banks, or MCBs, and produced toxicology materials in the third quarter of 2015. We are currently transferring the manufacturing process to a U.S. contract manufacturing organization, or CMO, for clinical trial supply. 

Step 2: Analytical Characterization and In Vitro Comparability

We demonstrated CHS-5217 similarity to Avastin with respect to key physicochemical properties that impact PK/PD, safety and efficacy using a broad spectrum of analytical methods. Through in vitro ligand and receptor binding studies, we have shown CHS-5217 to have highly similar pharmacological activity to Avastin.

Step 3: In Vivo Animal Comparability

We compared CHS-5217 to Avastin in a repeat dose study evaluating toxicity in cynomolgus monkeys and no appreciable differences were identified. We also completed a pharmacology study in ovarian carcinoma xenograft model in mice that demonstrated similar dose-dependent inhibition of tumor growth between CHS-5217 and Avastin.

Immunology (Anti-TNF) Pipeline Opportunity

Tumor necrosis factor, or TNF, belongs to a family of soluble protein mediators, or cytokines, that play an important role in disease progression across a number of inflammatory and chronic conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s Disease, psoriasis and ulcerative colitis. Cytokines, such as TNF, are substances produced by cells in the body that can cause a biological effect on other cells in the body. TNF is generally understood as the “master regulator” of the body’s immune response and is the key initiator of immune-mediated inflammation in multiple organ systems. Several biologic agents have been developed that inhibit the inflammatory activity of TNF in the context of these diseases, which are collectively referred to as the anti-TNF class of therapeutics. Anti-TNF products with significant global sales include adalimumab (Humira), etanercept (Enbrel), infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi) and certolizumab pegol injection (Cimzia). These products share a common mechanism of action in that they inhibit TNF, but differ in their dosing schedules as well as the indications for which they are approved. Collectively, these treatments represent a significant revenue opportunity, with projected global sales in excess of $38 billion in 2017.

11

Our anti-TNF biosimilar product candidates, CHS-0214 and CHS-1420, are based on Enbrel and Humira, respectively. We selected these originator products as biosimilar development targets for the following principal reasons:

CHS-0214 (Our Etanercept (Enbrel) Biosimilar Candidate)

Product Overview

Enbrel, the reference product for CHS-0214, is a complex fusion protein that combines the protein for tumor necrosis factor receptor 2, or TNFR-2, to another protein (called IgG1 Fc) which enables the fusion protein to attach to cells in the body. The TNFR-2 portion of the fusion protein binds to soluble and cell bound tumor necrosis factors alpha and beta, or TNF-α and TNF-ß, respectively, and inhibits TNF-α and TNF-ß from binding to cell surface proteins that recognize them. Autoimmune diseases are caused by an overactive immune response. Enbrel treats these diseases by inhibiting TNF-α, thus inhibiting the inflammatory cytokine cascade, which is a sequence of events in the body, caused by cytokines, leading to inflammation in a tissue or organ.

Enbrel has been approved by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, and the FDA for the treatment of the following indications:

Enbrel has been approved by the Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) for the treatment of the following indications only when conventional therapies are not sufficiently effective:

In 2017, sales of Enbrel are projected to exceed approximately $8 billion worldwide. Because patents in the United States, assuming validity and enforceability, provide market exclusivity for the Enbrel originator molecule until 2029, we focused our CHS-0214 regulatory program on Europe and Japan, but harmonized as needed for potential FDA approval. We have licensed CHS-0214 to Daiichi Sankyo in Japan. We have licensed CHS-0214 to Orox for certain Caribbean and Latin American countries. According to Evaluate Pharma, in 2017, sales of Enbrel in Europe, Japan and other territories outside the United States are projected to be approximately $3.2 billion.

12

Current Development Status and Data

We have successfully advanced CHS-0214 through steps 1 through 5 of biosimilar drug development. Our pivotal Phase 1 human PK/PD study was conducted in the U.S. We evaluated CHS-0214 in two randomized Phase 3 clinical trials in patients with psoriasis and in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, both of which met their primary endpoints in November 2015 and January 2016, respectively. We expect to file a European marketing application for CHS-0214 with the EMA in the first half of 2017. If approved, we believe we will be able to extrapolate the data from our trials in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis to gain approval for CHS-0214 in all the indications included in the label for Enbrel.

Step 1: Cell Line Development and Manufacturing

We have identified the amino acid sequence of CHS-0214 and confirmed that it is identical to the reference product, Enbrel. We established Master Cell Banks, or MCBs, and Working Cell Banks, or WCBs, and produced toxicology materials in the third quarter of 2012 and Phase 1 study materials at a U.S. contract manufacturing organization, or CMO. We then transferred the manufacturing process to a European CMO for Phase 3 clinical trial supply and to another European CMO for subsequent commercialization.

Step 2: Analytical Characterization and In Vitro Comparability

We demonstrated CHS-0214 similarity to Enbrel with respect to key physicochemical properties that determine PK/PD, safety and efficacy using a broad spectrum of analytical methods. Through in vitro receptor binding studies, including Fc receptors, complement (C1q) and Fc-mediated functional activities (i.e., antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, or ADCC, and complement-dependent cytotoxicity, or CDC), we have shown CHS-0214 to have highly similar pharmacological activity to Enbrel. ADCC and CDC refer to biological mechanisms of immune system defense which facilitate the body’s ability to use its immune system to target and destroy a given target cell. Comparing the effects of CHS-0214 and Enbrel on these mechanisms provides us a basis for determining how similar CHS-0214 is to Enbrel in terms of pharmacological activity.

Step 3: In Vivo Animal Comparability

We compared CHS-0214 to Enbrel in a single-dose PK study and a 28-day study in evaluating toxicity and PK in cynomolgus monkeys and no appreciable differences were identified.

Step 4: Pivotal Phase 1 Human Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Study

We announced the Phase 1 PK similarity study results for CHS-0214 in October 2013. This study was a single dose cross-over study conducted in 60 healthy adult human volunteers to evaluate the PK and safety of CHS-0214 compared to Enbrel. CHS-0214 met the primary endpoint of clinical PK similarity to Enbrel with the study demonstrating a 98% correlation between CHS-0214 and Enbrel. We also collected safety data in all subjects and both CHS-0214 and Enbrel were well tolerated. Treatment emergent adverse events were similar for each treatment and treatment period, and there were no unusual or unexpected or serious adverse events related to either product. There were no clinically meaningful differences in other safety parameters observed during this study.

Due to the change in the manufacturing location from the U.S. to the E.U., we conducted an additional Phase 1 PK similarity study comparing CHS-0214 to a lot of Enbrel manufactured in Europe, which met its primary endpoint in April 2015. The design of this study was a single-dose, cross-over study similar to the one described above.

In 2016, we initiated a Phase 1 PK bioequivalence study comparing E.U. Enbrel to CHS-0214 produced under a new process and also initiated a Phase 1 PK comparability study comparing CHS-0214 produced under a new process and CHS-0214 under a former process and used in the two Phase 3 trials. We completed these two studies in October 2016. The Phase 1 PK bioequivalence study achieved the primary PK bioequivalence endpoint, as the 90% confidence intervals for the GMR for the two groups was within 80% to 125% for all PK parameters. The Phase 1 PK comparability study provided additional relative bioavailability data for CHS-0214.

Step 5: Phase 3 Confirmatory Safety and Efficacy Clinical Trials

We announced the dosing of the first patient in a Phase 3 rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial in June 2014, and subsequently initiated a separate Phase 3 clinical trial in psoriasis in July 2014. The design of each Phase 3 clinical trial reflects guidance from regulatory agencies regarding key study parameters.

The Phase 3 clinical trial in rheumatoid arthritis was designed as a double blind, multi-center, parallel group study in which patients with DMARD (disease-modifying antirheumatic drug)-refractory active rheumatoid arthritis were put on a stable dose of

13

methotrexate. This trial enrolled 647 subjects who were randomized 1:1 to CHS-0214 50 mg or Enbrel 50 mg, administered subcutaneously weekly over a period of 24 weeks. Following the initial 24-week double-blind period, all patients were moved to a CHS-0214 treatment for a period of 6 months. In January 2016, the trial met its primary end-point of the proportion of subjects achieving ACR20 (20% improvement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria) at 24 weeks, which was within the pre-specified margins for demonstrating equivalence of CHS-0214 compared to Enbrel. There were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety and immunogenicity profiles of the two products.

The Phase 3 clinical trial in psoriasis was designed as a double-blind, parallel group, multi-center study in patients with active psoriasis. This trial enrolled 521 patients who were randomized 1:1 to CHS-0214 or Enbrel, 50 mg administered subcutaneously twice weekly for the first 12 weeks, switching to once weekly and continuing in the same treatment arms for an additional 40 weeks, which included four weeks of follow-up. In November 2015, this trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of mean percent change in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, or PASI, from baseline and the proportion of subjects achieving a 75% improvement in the PASI from baseline (PASI-75), scores at 12 weeks.

In July 2015, we initiated an open-label, safety extension study (OLSES) evaluating the longer-term safety and durability of response of subjects who completed 48 weeks in the confirmatory safety and efficacy Phase 3 trials of CHS-0214 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis. We enrolled 359 subjects in this study.

CHS-1420 (Our Adalimumab (Humira) Biosimilar Candidate)

Product Overview

Humira, which is the reference product, or originator, for CHS-1420, is a monoclonal antibody that can bind to a substance in the body known as tumor necrosis factor, or TNF, thereby inhibiting the known effect of this substance as a potent mediator of inflammation. Humira thus provides a therapeutic benefit for treatment of various inflammatory diseases characterized by increased production of TNF in the body. However, it has also been demonstrated that Humira can bind to receptors on white blood cells which may lessen the ability of the body’s immune system to fight infection.

Humira has been approved by the EMA and the FDA for the treatment of the following indications only when conventional therapies are not sufficiently effective:

Humira has been approved by the PMDA for the treatment of the following indications only when conventional therapies are not sufficiently effective:

Worldwide sales of Humira are projected to exceed $18 billion in 2017, with about $12 billion in the United States and $3.9 billion in Europe, the two primary regions in which we plan to focus our commercialization efforts. CHS-1420 will target a large global anti-TNF market, including but not limited to the worldwide market for the originator product, Humira. According to Evaluate Pharma, in 2017, sales of Humira worldwide and of Enbrel in the United States are projected to exceed $23 billion.

14

Current Development Status and Data

We have successfully advanced CHS-1420 through steps 1 through 5 of biosimilar drug development. In August 2014, we completed a pivotal Phase 1 PK/PD study comparing CHS-1420 to Humira in healthy volunteers. This Phase 1 PK study met the primary endpoint and demonstrated bioequivalence for all prospectively defined endpoints and was conducted under an IND application in the U.S. In August 2015, we initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial in psoriasis and announced positive 12-week data from that trial in August 2016, followed by confirmatory positive 24-week results in January 2017, to support the planned filing of a marketing application in the U.S. and the E.U. in the first half of 2017. We completed a Phase 1 PK bridging study comparing our Phase 3 material to U.S. manufactured Humira in March 2017. In January 2017, we initiated a PK study bridging to E.U. manufactured Humira and a PK study comparing U.S. Humira to E.U. Humira. We reached concurrence with regulatory authorities in the U.S. and Europe with the objective of designing a harmonized global Phase 3 program to support registration in these territories. If approved, we believe we will be able to extrapolate the data from our trial in psoriasis to gain approval for CHS-1420 in all the indications included in the label for Humira.

Step 1: Cell Line Development and Manufacturing

As with all our molecules, we matched the amino acid sequence of CHS-1420 to the originator molecule (Humira) prior to development and demonstrated it to be identical. We established Master Cell Banks, or MCBs, and Working Cell Banks, or WCBs, and transferred the manufacturing process to a U.S. CMO for manufacturing of Phase 1 study and Phase 3 clinical trial supplies.

Step 2: Analytical Characterization and In Vitro Comparability

We accomplished characterization of CHS-1420 and Humira by a multi-dimensional analytical study, demonstrating a high degree of similarity between CHS-1420 and Humira. Through extensive biochemical, biophysical and biological analysis we have shown that CHS-1420 has a structure and in vitro activity similar to that of Humira with respect to primary sequence (the linear sequence of the amino acids in the protein), protein folding (the structure of the protein in three dimensions which is critical to its biological function) and charge profiles (the overall electrical charge characteristic of the protein resulting from the electrical charges of its constituent amino acids), as well as the protein’s glycosylation profile and potency.

We have also shown CHS-1420 to be highly similar to Humira through in vitro receptor binding studies, specifically in its ability to inhibit TNF-a mediated cell death. In all of these studies we demonstrated CHS-1420 to have similar pharmacological activity to Humira by evaluating the binding of both CHS-1420 and, Humira to Fc receptors, complement (C1q) and Fc-mediated functional activities: ADCC and CDC.

Step 3: In Vivo Animal Comparability

We conducted two nonclinical studies in monkeys in order to compare the PK and nonclinical safety profile of CHS-1420 to Humira. Following one month of repeat dosing, we determined the pharmacokinetics of CHS-1420 to be similar to that of Humira.

Step 4: Pivotal Phase 1 Human Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Study

In April 2014, we initiated a Phase 1 pivotal PK study in human subjects. This is a single dose, double-blind parallel group study designed to demonstrate bioequivalence between CHS-1420 and Humira. A secondary objective was to assess the safety and tolerability of CHS-1420 in this population. The study has been successfully completed and met the primary endpoint and demonstrated bioequivalence with respect to the three prospectively defined PK endpoints. CHS-1420 and Humira were both well tolerated in this single-dose study in healthy adult volunteers.

We completed a Phase 1 PK bridging study comparing our Phase 3 material to U.S. manufactured Humira in March 2017.

Step 5: Phase 3 Confirmatory Safety and Efficacy Clinical Trials

In August 2015, we initiated a Phase 3 clinical trial in psoriasis that enrolled 545 subjects. This is a confirmatory, randomized, double-blind, active-control, parallel-group, three-part study in patients with active, moderate to severe, chronic plaque psoriasis. This trial met its primary endpoint demonstrating similarity between CHS-1420 and Humira with respect to percentage of subjects achieving the PASI-75 scores at 12 weeks. Both CHS-1420 and Humira were similarly well tolerated with similar safety profiles. In part two of this trial, from week 16 to week 24, half the subjects randomized to Humira crossed-over to CHS-1420, modeling a chronic patient’s transition to a biosimilar. In January 2017, we reported that maintenance of PASI-75 was similar across the three subsequent treatment groups: CHS-1420 followed by CHS-1420, Humira followed by CHS-1420, and Humira followed by Humira. CHS-1420 and Humira

15

were similarly well tolerated in all groups during part two of the trial. In part three of the trial, all subjects will receive CHS-1420 for an additional 24 weeks. This trial would be considered the primary confirmatory safety and efficacy trial to support a registration filing.

Ophthalmology Pipeline Opportunity

CHS-3351 (Our Ranibizumab (Lucentis) Biosimilar Candidate)

Lucentis is a monoclonal antibody fragment (Fab) created from the same parent mouse antibody as bevacizumab and produced through a microbial culture. It is an anti-angiogenic that has been first approved to treat age-related wet macular degeneration, or AMD. Like bevacizumab Lucentis blocks angiogenesis by inhibiting VEGF-A.

According to Evaluate Pharma, Lucentis achieved approximately $3.3 billion in worldwide sales in 2016, and is expected to decrease to approximately $2.5 billion in 2020, when the composition of matter patent on ranibizumab expires in the United States. We selected Lucentis as the biosimilar development target for our biosimilar, CHS-3351, to leverage the analytics deployed on bevacizumab and because we could address a concentrated market where we believe we can focus resources and establish a therapeutic franchise.

Current Development Status and Data

Step 1: Cell Line Development and Manufacturing

We have identified the amino acid sequence of CHS-3351 and confirmed that it is identical to the reference product, Lucentis. We are currently establishing Master Cell Banks, or MCBs, as well as Working Cell Banks, or WCBs. We are currently transferring the manufacturing process to a U.S. CMO for production of material to supply toxicology studies and clinical trials. 

Early-Stage Biosimilar Pipeline  

We are continuously performing product opportunity reviews of additional biosimilar pipeline candidates in conjunction with our scientific advisory board and we plan to submit one or two new investigational new drug (IND) applications per year.

Small Molecule Therapeutic Candidate in Development

CHS-131 is a novel, first-in-class, well-tolerated, once-daily oral drug candidate for multiple sclerosis (MS) patients which has anti-inflammatory activity in the central nervous system (CNS) and crosses the blood-brain barrier. In June 2016, we announced that a study with CHS-131 in treatment-naïve, relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) subjects demonstrated approximately a 50% decrease in the incidence of new contrast-enhancing (CE) lesions over six months when compared to placebo. CHS-131 was generally well-tolerated and without evidence of immune suppression or the side-effects commonly seen in other oral multiple MS therapies. This Phase 2b trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study that evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of two orally administered doses (3 mg and 1 mg daily) of CHS-131 against placebo for six months in 227 subjects with RRMS. The primary endpoint of the trial was the reduction in the cumulative number of total CE lesions determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from baseline to week 24 of study treatment, a standard endpoint for Phase 2 trials in RRMS. Subjects were assessed clinically and by MRI monthly for six months. All MRIs were read in a blinded fashion at a U.S. imaging center. Patients on CHS-131 experienced a statistically significant reduction in CE lesions that was dose dependent, with the 3 mg dose resulting in a 52% reduction in CE lesions with a p-value of 0.003 compared to placebo. We are currently exploring out licensing opportunities for this asset.   

Sales and Marketing

Our strategy entails licensing our oncology product rights outside of the U.S. to commercially proficient entities, while retaining U.S. rights to commercialization. Because the sales call points for our clinical stage oncology assets (CHS-1701 and CHS-5217) in the U.S. are highly concentrated and addressable by a relatively small commercial organization, the preservation of U.S. rights allows us the flexibility to cost effectively build our own commercial capability.

For our other biosimilar and small molecule drug candidates (CHS-0214, CHS-1420, CHS-3351 and CHS-131), we seek to license rights regionally or globally to commercially proficient partners.

16

Manufacturing

We have entered into agreements with several CMOs for the manufacture and clinical drug supply for our lead products candidates. We continue to screen other contract manufacturers to meet our clinical, commercial and regulatory supply requirements on a product-by-product basis. In December 2015, we entered into a strategic commercial supply agreement with KBI Biopharma for the supply of CHS-1701. For a discussion of risks related to our sources and availability of supplies, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Our Ability to Hire Highly Qualified Personnel and Our Reliance on Third Parties.”

Competition

The development and commercialization of protein-based therapeutics is highly competitive. While we believe that our biologics platform, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources. Such competition includes larger and better-funded pharmaceutical, generic pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, as well as originator companies and any other firms developing the biosimilars that would compete with the product candidates in our pipeline and other novel products with similar indications.

CHS-1701 may face competition from Amgen (which holds rights to Neulasta, the reference product of CHS-1701), Sandoz, Apotex Inc., or Apotex, Pfizer, Mylan N.V., or Mylan, and Teva. CHS-0214 may compete with products developed by Pfizer, (which holds ex-North America rights to Enbrel, the reference product of CHS-0214), Sandoz (which has an FDA-approved biosimilar to Enbrel (Erelzi^TM)), Samsung Bioepis Co Ltd., or Samsung Bioepis, which has an EMA-approved biosimilar to Enbrel (Benepali^TM),  and LG Chem, Ltd., or LG. CHS-1420 may face competition from AbbVie (the holder of rights to Humira, the reference product of CHS-1420), Amgen (which has an FDA-approved biosimilar to Humira (Amjevita^TM)), Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Pfizer, Mylan, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., or Momenta, Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co., Ltd or Fujifilm, and Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, or Boehringer Ingelheim.

Many of our competitors, either alone or with their strategic partners, have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and significantly greater experience in the discovery and development of product candidates, obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of treatments and commercializing those treatments. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we are in obtaining approval for treatments and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ treatments may be more effective or more effectively marketed and sold than any treatment we may commercialize and may render our treatments obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover the expenses of developing and commercializing any of our product candidates.

Mergers and acquisitions in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of our competitors. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical study sites and subject registration for clinical studies, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to or necessary for our programs. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

We expect any products that we develop and commercialize directly or with partners to compete on the basis of, among other things, efficacy, safety, price and the availability of reimbursement from government and other third-party payors. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Collaboration and License Agreements

License Agreement with Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited

In January 2012, we entered into a license agreement with Daiichi Sankyo for the development and commercialization of certain biosimilar products in certain territories. We granted to Daiichi Sankyo an exclusive, royalty-bearing license to develop, commercialize and use biosimilar versions of etanercept (Enbrel) and rituximab (Rituxan) for the treatment of human diseases and conditions in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Daiichi Sankyo has an option, exercisable only within a certain time period, to obtain an exclusive license to develop and commercialize certain biosimilar products in China. Daiichi Sankyo also has an option, exercisable at any time during the term of the agreement, to obtain a license to manufacture licensed products to support development and commercialization of licensed products in the licensed territory, on a product-by-product basis. Prior to Daiichi Sankyo’s exercise of its manufacturing option, we are responsible for manufacturing and supplying to Daiichi Sankyo licensed products pursuant to a manufacturing and supply agreement to be entered under the terms of this agreement.

17

In May 2012, Daiichi Sankyo terminated its licensed rights, solely as to CHS-0214, in Taiwan and South Korea. In August 2012, Daiichi Sankyo declined its right to expand the territory to include China. In July 2014, Daiichi Sankyo terminated all of its licensed rights to a biosimilar rituximab product.

Upon execution of the agreement, we received an upfront payment in cash of $10.0 million and $20.0 million in the form of an equity investment. We are eligible to receive from Daiichi Sankyo tiered royalties based on a percentage of net sales of licensed products in the licensed territory ranging from the low double digits to high teens, on a product-by-product basis. If we are manufacturing product, we are eligible to receive an incremental royalty reflecting our manufacturing costs for each licensed product which, when combined with the base royalty, will result in royalties equal to a percentage of net sales of licensed products ranging from the low- to high-twenties, on a product-by-product basis.

Our agreement with Daiichi Sankyo will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis ten years after receipt of regulatory approval for such product in such country, subject to possible three-year extensions at Daiichi Sankyo’s sole discretion, if Daiichi Sankyo is then manufacturing the relevant product, or otherwise by mutual agreement of the parties, based on the approval of a commercial plan in the year before such extension would take effect. Either party may terminate the agreement for any material breach by the other party that is not cured within a specified time period. Prior to commercialization, Daiichi Sankyo may terminate the agreement on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis within specific time periods after achieving certain development milestones only if Daiichi Sankyo concludes, in good faith, that the product is not commercially viable, there are material safety, efficacy or tolerability issues that cannot be overcome or that there would be difficulties caused by internal or portfolio reasons. After commencement of commercialization, Daiichi Sankyo may terminate the agreement on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis with one year’s prior written notice to us only if Daiichi Sankyo concludes, in good faith, that the product is not commercially viable, that there are material safety, efficacy or tolerability issues that cannot be overcome or that there are difficulties caused by internal or portfolio reasons. Either party may terminate the agreement upon bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party, and we may terminate the agreement if Daiichi Sankyo challenges the licensed patents.

License Agreement with Baxalta Incorporated, Baxalta US Inc., and Baxalta GmbH

We entered into a license agreement in August 2013 and two subsequent amendments thereto with Baxalta Incorporated, Baxalta US Inc., and Baxalta GmbH, collectively Baxalta (then Baxter International, Inc., part of Shire plc, or Shire, as of June 2016), to develop and commercialize an etanercept biosimilar molecule, CHS-0214, worldwide, excluding the U.S., Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, China and most of the Caribbean and South American nations (as amended, the “Baxalta Agreement”). On September 26, 2016, Shire issued a termination notice of the Baxalta Agreement, in its entirety as part of its strategic portfolio review after its acquisition of Baxalta. Under the Baxalta Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $30.0 million and were eligible to receive up to $335.3 million in contingent payments, of which we actually received $215.3 million. Upon the termination of the Baxalta Agreement, we regained from Shire all development and commercial rights previously licensed under the Baxalta Agreement.

Distribution Agreement with Orox Pharmaceuticals B.V.

In December 2012, we entered into a distribution agreement with Orox Pharmaceuticals B.V., or Orox, for the commercialization of biosimilar versions of etanercept (Enbrel), rituximab (Rituxan), adalimumab (Humira) and pegfilgrastim (Neulasta). Under this agreement, we granted to Orox an exclusive license to commercialize the products for the treatment of human diseases and conditions in certain Caribbean and Latin American countries. Under this agreement, Orox has an option, exercisable within a defined time period, to obtain an exclusive license to commercialize certain additional biosimilar products in the same field and territory. We are obligated to manufacture and supply licensed products to Orox.

We are obligated to develop licensed products and achieve regulatory approval for such products outside of the Caribbean and Latin American countries covered by the agreement by specified dates in order to support Orox’s activities under the agreement in its licensed territory. We are eligible to receive from Orox a share of gross profits in the low 20 percent range from the sale of licensed products, on a product-by-product basis.

Our agreement with Orox will expire on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis ten years after regulatory approval of such product in such country, subject to automatic three-year extensions unless Orox notifies us in writing at least 18 months in advance of the date upon which the term would otherwise expire that it does not wish to extend the term for such product in such country. Either party may terminate the agreement for material breach by the other party that is not cured within a specified time period. Orox may terminate the Agreement for convenience on a product-by-product basis at any time upon 12-months prior written notice. Either party may terminate the agreement upon bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party, and we may terminate the agreement immediately upon written notice to Orox if Orox challenges the licensed patents or commits a breach of specified provisions of the agreement.

18

License Agreement with Genentech, Inc.

In July 2013, we entered into a license agreement with Genentech, under which we obtained a royalty-bearing, non-exclusive, sublicensable license under a family of patents, commonly referred to as the Cabilly patents, to manufacture, use and commercialize products containing antibodies that bind to TNF-a. In consideration for the rights granted to us under the agreement, we made a cash upfront payment to Genentech and are required to make a payment of $5.0 million based upon achievement of a regulatory milestone. We will also be required to pay tiered royalties on net sales of products covered by the in-licensed patents ranging from the low- to mid-single digits.

We may terminate the agreement at any time upon sixty days prior written notice to Genentech. Genentech may terminate the agreement for any material breach by us that is not cured within a specified time period or in the event of our insolvency. Genentech may also terminate the agreement if we challenge the licensed patents. Absent earlier termination, the agreement with Genentech will expire on a country-by-country basis on the expiration of the last valid patent claim.

License Agreements with Selexis SA

In April 2011 and June 2012, we entered into license agreements with Selexis SA, or Selexis, under which Selexis granted to us royalty-bearing, non-exclusive, sublicensable licenses under Selexis’s intellectual property rights to manufacture, use and commercialize two of our biosimilar products using Selexis cell lines. In consideration for the rights granted to us under the agreements, we made cash upfront payments to Selexis and are required to make payments based upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and commercial milestones for such biosimilar products, totaling up to €210,000 for each of the two products, or a total aggregate amount of €420,000. In addition, we are also required to pay a royalty as a percentage of revenue on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis in the low-single digits.

We may terminate each agreement at any time upon sixty days written notice to Selexis. Either we or Selexis may terminate an agreement for any material breach by the other party that is not cured within a specified time period or in the event of the other party’s insolvency. Absent earlier termination, the agreements with Selexis terminate on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis on the expiration of the last-to-expire or lapse of the valid patent claims covering such product in such country.

Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of third parties, our ability to obtain and maintain proprietary protection for our technologies where applicable and to prevent others from infringing our proprietary rights. We seek to protect our proprietary technologies by, among other methods, filing U.S. and international patent applications on these technologies, inventions and improvements that are important to our business. We also rely on trade secrets, know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our proprietary position.

The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in countries in which they are obtained. In most countries, including the U.S., the patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest date of filing a non-provisional patent application in the applicable country. In the U.S., a patent’s term may, in certain cases, be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in examining and granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over a commonly owned patent or a patent naming a common inventor and having an earlier expiration date.

In the normal course of business, we pursue patent protection for inventions related to our product candidates, including protein manufacture and formulation inventions. We own a portfolio of issued and pending patent applications pertaining to our product candidates. We have 166 pending patent applications, and six issued patents, in the U.S. and in other countries, related to formulations and manufacture of CHS-0214. These patents and patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in 2032, 2033 and 2035. We have 46 pending patent applications, and four issued patents, in the U.S. and in other countries related to CHS-1420. These patents and patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in 2033, 2035, and 2036.

We have non-exclusive licenses from Selexis under patents and patent applications granted or filed in the U.S. and other countries that cover Selexis’s recombinant cell line technology in two families. One family of patents is directed to methods for transfecting eukaryotic cells with nucleic acid vectors using Matrix Attachment Regions, or MARs, elements to increase stable and transient transfection efficiency. The second family of patents is related to purified and isolated DNA sequences having protein production increasing activity and to the use of MARs for increasing protein production activity in a eukaryotic cell. The licensed patents are expected to expire between 2023 and 2026.

19

We have a non-exclusive license from Genentech under two U.S. patents which are commonly known as the “Cabilly” patents. The Cabilly patents cover key steps of therapeutic antibody manufacturing methods. One of the Cabilly patent covers a process for producing an immunoglobulin molecule (Ig) in a single host cell; the second Cabilly patent covers a method for making an antibody heavy chain and antibody light chain in a recombinant host cell. Both licensed patents are expected to expire in December 2018.

To date we have not licensed any patents from Daiichi Sankyo.

We do not know whether any of the pending patent applications described above will result in the issuance of any patents or whether the rights granted under any patents issuing from these applications will prevent any of our competitors from marketing similar products that may be competitive with our own. Moreover, even if we do obtain issued patents, they will not guarantee us the right to use our patented technology for commercialization of our product candidates. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from commercializing our own products, even if our products use or embody our own, patented inventions.

The validity and enforceability of patents are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. Any patents that may issue on our pending applications may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, which could limit our ability to stop competitors from marketing products similar to ours. Furthermore, our competitors may develop similar or alternative technologies not covered by any patents that may issue to us.

In a merger completed February 12, 2014, we acquired InteKrin Therapeutics Inc., or InteKrin. InteKrin is developing a small molecule peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor, or PPAR, gamma agonist, CHS-131, for the treatment of MS which we believe may be complementary with one or more biologic therapeutics for MS we are currently evaluating as a potential candidate for inclusion in our pipeline of biosimilar products. InteKrin is the exclusive licensee of certain U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications owned by Amgen, covering the specific PPAR gamma agonist molecule that InteKrin is developing. InteKrin also owns pending patent filings related to this PPAR gamma agonist.

InteKrin has an exclusive license from Amgen under 120 patents and patent applications granted or filed in the U.S. and other countries that cover PPAR gamma modulating molecules and therapeutic product compositions that are expected to expire in 2020 and 2021, as well as certain salt forms and polymorphic forms of PPAR gamma modulating molecules that are expected to expire in 2024 (with possible Hatch-Waxman patent term extension). Additionally, InteKrin owns 35 patents and patent applications granted or filed in the U.S. and other countries that cover solid forms of PPAR gamma agonist pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treating disorders including diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease or lipodystrophy. These patents and patent applications, if granted, are expected to expire in 2031, 2034 and 2036.

For technologies for which we do not seek patent protection, we may rely on trade secrets to protect our proprietary position. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We seek to protect our technology and product candidates, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with those who have access to our confidential information, including our employees, consultants, advisors, contractors or collaborators. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our proprietary technology and processes by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our employees, consultants, advisors, contractors and collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. For a discussion of risks related to our proprietary technology and processes, please see “Risk Factors — Risks Related to Intellectual Property.”

Regulatory

Government Regulation and Product Approval

Government authorities at the federal, state and local level in the U.S. and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, marketing, import and export of pharmaceutical products such as those we are developing. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in the U.S. and in foreign countries, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

FDA Approval Process

All of our current product candidates are subject to regulation in the U.S. by the FDA as biological products, or biologics. The FDA subjects biologics to extensive pre- and post-market regulation. The Public Health Service Act, or PHSA, the Federal Food,

20

Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FFDCA, 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 biologics. 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 BLAs, withdrawal of approvals, clinical holds, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, civil penalties or criminal penalties.

The PHSA emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The PHSA also provides authority to the FDA to immediately suspend licenses in situations where there exists a danger to public health, to prepare or procure products in the event of shortages and critical public health needs and to authorize the creation and enforcement of regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of communicable diseases in the U.S. and between states.

The process required by the FDA before a new biologic may be marketed in the U.S. is long, expensive and inherently uncertain. Biologics development in the U.S. typically involves preclinical laboratory and animal tests, the submission to the FDA of an investigational new drug, 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 biologic for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. Developing the data to satisfy 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. An IND is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational new product to humans. The central focus of an IND submission is on the general investigational plan and the protocol(s) for human studies, although the IND must also include the results of preclinical testing and animal testing assessing the toxicology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacology and pharmacodynamic characteristics of the product 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.

An IND must become effective before U.S. clinical trials may begin. A 30-day waiting period after the submission of each IND is required prior to the commencement of clinical testing in humans. If during the 30-day waiting period the FDA raises concerns or questions related to the proposed clinical studies, the sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns or questions before clinical studies can begin. 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.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational new drug or biologic to healthy volunteers or patients with the condition under investigation, all under the supervision of a qualified investigator. Clinical trials must be conducted: (i) in compliance with federal regulations; (ii) in compliance with good clinical practice, or GCP, an international standard meant to protect the rights and health of patients and to define the roles of clinical trial sponsors, administrators and monitors; as well as (iii) under protocols detailing the objectives of the trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol involving testing on U.S. patients and subsequent protocol amendments must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND.

The FDA may order the temporary or permanent discontinuation of a clinical trial at any time or impose other sanctions if it believes that the clinical trial either is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements or presents an unacceptable risk to the clinical trial patients. The study protocol and informed consent information for patients in clinical trials must also be submitted to an institutional review board, or IRB, for approval. An IRB may also require the clinical trial at the site to be halted, either temporarily or permanently, for failure to comply with the IRB’s requirements or may impose other conditions. The study sponsor may also suspend a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a determination that the subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Abbreviated Licensure Pathway of Biological Products as Biosimilar under 351(k)

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, amended the PHSA and created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be highly similar to an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The BPCIA attempts to minimize duplicative testing and thereby lower development costs and increase patient access to affordable treatments. For example, in contrast to the 351(a) (novel biologic) approval pathway discussed above, our experience to date with the FDA indicates that an application for licensure of a biosimilar product under the 351(k) (biosimilar) approval pathway may proceed on the basis of only two clinical study phases (typically termed Phase 1 and Phase 3) with supporting analytical and animal studies, as compared with the requirement for three study phases under the 351(a) (novel biologics) approval pathway. Thus, under the 351(k) (biosimilar)

21

approval pathway, an application for licensure of a biosimilar product must include information demonstrating biosimilarity based upon the following, unless the FDA determines otherwise:

In addition, an application submitted under the 351(k) pathway must include information demonstrating that:

Biosimilarity, as defined in PHSA §351(i), means that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the product. In addition, section 351(k)(4) of the PHSA provides for a designation of “interchangeability” between the reference and biosimilar products, whereby the biosimilar may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product. The higher standard of interchangeability must be demonstrated by information sufficient to show that:

FDA approval is required before a biosimilar may be marketed in the U.S. However, complexities associated with the large and intricate structures of biological products and the process by which such products are manufactured pose significant hurdles to the FDA’s implementation of the 351(k) approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA. For example, the FDA has discretion over the kind and amount of scientific evidence — laboratory, preclinical and/or clinical — required to demonstrate biosimilarity to a licensed biological product. The FDA intends to consider the totality of the evidence, provided by a sponsor to support a demonstration of biosimilarity, and recommends that sponsors use a stepwise approach in the development of their biosimilar products. Biosimilar product applications thus may not be required to duplicate the entirety of preclinical and clinical testing used to establish the underlying safety and effectiveness of the reference product. However, the FDA may refuse to approve a biosimilar application if there is insufficient information to show that the active ingredients are the same or to demonstrate that any impurities or differences in active ingredients do not affect the safety, purity or potency of the biosimilar product. In addition, as with BLAs, biosimilar product applications will not be approved unless the product is manufactured in facilities designed to assure and preserve the biological product’s safety, purity and potency.

The submission of an application via the 351(k) pathway does not guarantee that the FDA will accept the application for filing and review, as the FDA may refuse to accept applications that it finds are incomplete. The FDA will treat a biosimilar application or supplement as incomplete if, among other reasons, any applicable user fees assessed under the Biosimilar User Fee Act of 2012 have not been paid. In addition, the FDA may accept an application for filing but deny approval on the basis that the sponsor has not demonstrated biosimilarity, in which case the sponsor may choose to conduct further analytical, preclinical or clinical studies to demonstrate such biosimilarity under section 351(k) or submit a BLA for licensure as a new biological product under section 351(a) of

22

the PHSA. For example, the potential for different regulatory outcomes depending on the selected approval pathway has been illustrated in connection with our development program for CHS-1701. At the outset of our development effort for this product candidate, we elected to proceed under the 351(a) (novel biologic) approval pathway. However, although our Phase 1 PK/PD trial for CHS-1701 met its primary endpoint and was satisfactory for purposes of pursuing the 351(a) (novel biologic) approval pathway (which does not require bioequivalence to the originator drug), the trial did not establish bioequivalence to Neulasta sufficient to support the 351(k) (biosimilar) approval pathway. In March 2015, we received written feedback from the FDA on our development plan for CHS-1701 and completed two PK/PD studies under the 351(k) (biosimilar) pathway and received acceptance of our BLA for CHS-1701 in October 2016.

The timing of final FDA approval of a biosimilar for commercial distribution depends on a variety of factors, including whether the manufacturer of the branded product is entitled to one or more statutory exclusivity periods, during which time the FDA is prohibited from approving any products that are biosimilar to the branded product. The FDA cannot approve a biosimilar application for 12 years from the date of first licensure of the reference product. Additionally, a biosimilar product sponsor may not submit an application under the 351(k) pathway for four years from the date of first licensure of the reference product. A reference product may also be entitled to exclusivity under other statutory provisions. For example, a reference product designated for a rare disease or condition, or an orphan drug, may be entitled to seven years of exclusivity under section 360cc of the FFDCA, in which case no product that is biosimilar to the reference product may be approved until either the end of the 12-year period provided under §351(k) or the end of the seven year orphan drug exclusivity period, whichever occurs later. In certain circumstances, a regulatory exclusivity period can extend beyond the life of a patent and thus block §351(k) applications from being approved on or after the patent expiration date. In addition, the FDA may under certain circumstances extend the exclusivity period for the reference product by an additional six months if the FDA requests, and the manufacturer undertakes, studies on the effect of its product in children, a so-called pediatric extension.

The first biological product determined to be interchangeable with a branded product for any condition of use is also entitled to a period of exclusivity, during which time the FDA may not determine that another product is interchangeable with the reference product for any condition of use. This exclusivity period extends until the earlier of: (1) one year after the first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable product; (2) 18 months after resolution of a patent infringement suit instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product, based on a final court decision regarding all of the patents in the litigation or dismissal of the litigation with or without prejudice; (3) 42 months after approval of the first interchangeable product, if a patent infringement suit instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product is still ongoing; or (4) 18 months after approval of the first interchangeable product if the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product has not been sued under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6).

Advertising and Promotion

Once a BLA is approved, a product will be subject to continuing post-approval regulatory requirements, including, among other things, requirements relating to recordkeeping, periodic reporting, product sampling and distribution, advertising and promotion and reporting of adverse experiences with the product. For instance, the FDA closely regulates the post-approval marketing and promotion of biologics, including standards and regulations for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in significant penalties, including the issuance of warning letters directing a company to correct deviations from FDA standards, a requirement that future advertising and promotional materials be pre-cleared by the FDA and federal and state civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Biologics may be marketed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. After approval, most changes to the approved product, including changes in indications, labeling or manufacturing processes or facilities, require submission and FDA approval of a new BLA or BLA supplement before the change can be implemented. A BLA 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 BLA supplements as it does in reviewing BLAs. There are also continuing annual user fee requirements for any marketed products and the establishments at which such products are manufactured, as well as new application fees for supplemental applications with clinical data.

Adverse Event Reporting and GMP Compliance

Adverse event reporting and submission of periodic reports are required following FDA approval of a BLA. The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 testing, risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved product, or the FDA may place conditions on an approval that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. In addition, manufacture, packaging, labeling, storage and distribution procedures must continue to conform to current cGMPs after approval. Biologics manufacturers and certain of their subcontractors are required to register their establishments with

23

the FDA and certain state agencies. Registration with the FDA subjects entities to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, during which the agency inspects manufacturing facilities to assess compliance with cGMPs. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to maintain compliance with cGMPs. Regulatory authorities may withdraw product approvals, request product recalls or impose marketing restrictions through labeling changes or product removals if a company fails to comply with regulatory standards, if it encounters problems following initial marketing or if previously unrecognized problems are subsequently discovered.

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

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

Although we currently do not have any products on the market, if our product candidates are approved and we begin commercialization, we will be subject to healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and the states and foreign governments in which we conduct our business. These laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician sunshine laws and regulations.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person from knowingly and willfully offering, soliciting, receiving or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, for an item or service or the purchasing or ordering of a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Anti-Kickback Statute is subject to evolving interpretations. In the past, the government has enforced the Anti-Kickback Statute to reach large settlements with healthcare companies based on sham consulting and other financial arrangements with physicians. Further, the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or collectively, the PPACA, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the criminal statute governing healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of these statutes or specific intent to violate them. In addition, the PPACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act or federal civil money penalties statute. The majority of states also have anti-kickback laws which establish similar prohibitions and in some cases may apply to items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, including commercial insurers.

Additionally, the civil False Claims Act prohibits knowingly presenting or causing the presentation of a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to the U.S. government. Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Violations of the False Claims Act can result in very significant monetary penalties and treble damages. The federal government is using the False Claims Act, and the accompanying threat of significant liability, in its investigation and prosecution of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies throughout the country, for example, in connection with the promotion of products for unapproved uses and other sales and marketing practices. The government has obtained multi-million and multi-billion dollar settlements under the False Claims Act in addition to individual criminal convictions under applicable criminal statutes. Given the significant size of actual and potential settlements, it is expected that the government will continue to devote substantial resources to investigating healthcare providers’ and manufacturers’ compliance with applicable fraud and abuse laws.

In addition, there has been a recent trend of increased federal and state regulation of payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers. The PPACA, among other things, imposes new reporting requirements on drug manufacturers for payments made by them to physicians and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their

24

immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in civil monetary penalties of up to an aggregate of $150,000 per year (or up to an aggregate of $1 million per year for “knowing failures”), for all payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately and completely reported in an annual submission. Certain states also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs, impose restrictions on pharmaceutical manufacturer marketing practices and/or require the tracking and reporting of gifts, compensation and other remuneration to physicians.

The shifting commercial compliance environment and the need to build and maintain robust systems to comply with different compliance and/or reporting requirements in multiple jurisdictions increase the possibility that a healthcare company may violate one or more of the requirements. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results.

International Regulation

In addition to regulations in the U.S., a variety of foreign regulations govern clinical trials, commercial sales and distribution of product candidates. The approval process varies from country to country and the time to approval may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval. In Europe, the approval of a biosimilar for marketing is based on an opinion issued by the EMA and a decision issued by the European Commission. However, substitution of a biosimilar for the originator is a decision that is made at the local (national) level on a country-by-country basis. Additionally, a number of European countries do not permit the automatic substitution of biosimilars for the originator product. Other regions, including Canada, Japan and Korea, also have their own legislation outlining a regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars. In some cases, other countries have either adopted European guidance (Singapore and Malaysia) or are following guidance issued by the World Health Organization (Cuba and Brazil). While there is overlap in the regulatory requirements across regions, there are also still some areas of non-overlap.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

In the U.S. and other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors, including government health administrative authorities, managed care providers, private health insurers and other organizations. Third-party payors are increasingly examining the medical necessity and cost effectiveness of medical products and services in addition to safety and efficacy and, accordingly, significant uncertainty exists as to the reimbursement status of newly approved therapeutics. In addition, the U.S. government, state legislatures and foreign governments have continued implementing cost-containment programs, including price controls, restrictions on coverage and reimbursement and requirements for substitution of generic products. Adoption of price controls and cost-containment measures and adoption of more restrictive policies in jurisdictions with existing controls and measures could further limit our net revenue and results. Decreases in third-party reimbursement for our product candidates or a decision by a third-party payor to not cover our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

Employees

As of December 31, 2016, we had 152 employees, including a total of 37 employees with M.D. or Ph.D. degrees. Within our workforce, 107 employees are engaged in research and development and 45 in business development, finance, legal, human resources, facilities, information technology and general management and administration.

Additional Information

We view our operations and measure our business as one reportable segment operating primarily in the United States. See Note 2 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information. Additional information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to Part II, Item 6 "Selected Financial Data."

We were incorporated in Delaware in September 2010. We completed the initial public offering of our common stock in November 2014. Our common stock is currently listed on The NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “CHRS.”

Our principal executive offices are located at 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 600, Redwood City, CA 94065, and our telephone number is (650) 649-3530.

You may find on our website at http://www.coherus.com electronic copies of our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of

25

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such filings are placed on our website as soon as reasonably possible after they are filed with the SEC. Our most recent charter for our audit, compensation, and nominating and corporate governance committees and our Code of Ethics are available on our website as well. Any waiver of our Code of Ethics may be made only by our Board of Directors. Any waiver of our Code of Ethics for any of our directors or executive officers must be disclosed on a Current Report on Form 8-K within four business days, or such shorter period as may be required under applicable regulation.

You can read our SEC filings over the Internet at the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov. You may also read and copy any document we file with the SEC at its public reference facilities at 100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. You may also obtain copies of the documents at prescribed rates by writing to the Public Reference Section of the SEC at 100 F Street, N.E., Room 1580, Washington, D.C. 20549. Please call the SEC at (202) 551-8090 or (800) 732-0330 for further information on the operation of the public reference facilities.

You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. If any of the following risks are realized, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected. The risks described below are not the only risks facing the Company. Risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or prospects.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Requirements

We have a limited operating history in an emerging regulatory environment on which to assess our business, have incurred significant losses since our inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur significant losses for the foreseeable future.

We are a biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history in an emerging regulatory environment. We have incurred net losses in each year since our inception in September 2010, including net losses of $127.8 million, $223.9 million and $87.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $537.3 million.

We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources to identify and develop our product candidates, including conducting, among other things, analytical characterization, process development and manufacturing, formulation and clinical studies, and providing general and administrative support for these operations. To date, we have financed our operations primarily through the sale of equity securities and convertible notes, as well as through our license agreements with Baxalta Incorporated, Baxalta US Inc., and Baxalta GmbH (collectively “Baxalta”, now subsidiaries of Shire plc), and Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited, or Daiichi Sankyo. In September 2016, we regained development and commercial rights from Baxalta for Europe, Canada, Brazil, the Middle East and other territories. The amount of our future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of our future expenditures and our ability to obtain funding through equity or debt financings or strategic collaborations. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are in Phase 3 clinical development with CHS-1420 (our adalimumab (Humira) biosimilar candidate). We completed Phase 3 or other BLA-enabling development with two other lead products, CHS-1701 (our pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) biosimilar candidate) and CHS-0214 (our etanercept (Enbrel) biosimilar candidate). Our Biologics License Application, or BLA, for CHS-1701 was accepted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in October 2016. Our Market Acceptance Application, or MAA, for CHS-1701 was accepted by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, in November 2016. It may be several months before we file for market approval with the relevant regulatory agencies for CHS-0214 and CHS-1420. We have not yet initiated clinical trials for CHS-5217 (bevacizumab (Avastin) biosimilar) and CHS-3351 (ranibizumab (Lucentis) biosimilar). If we obtain regulatory approval to market a biosimilar product candidate, our future revenue will depend upon the size of any markets in which our product candidates may receive approval and our ability to achieve sufficient market acceptance, pricing, reimbursement from third-party payors and adequate market share for our product candidates in those markets. However, even if one or more of our product candidates gain regulatory approval and are commercialized, we may never become profitable.  

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

26

Further, the net losses we incur may fluctuate significantly from quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year such that a period-to-period comparison of our results of operations may not be a good indication of our future performance quarter-to-quarter and year-to-year due to factors including the timing of clinical trials, any litigation that we may initiate or that may be initiated against us, the execution of collaboration, licensing or other agreements and the timing of any payments we make or receive thereunder.

We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

Although we have received upfront payments, milestone and other contingent payments and/or funding for development from some of our collaboration and license agreements (e.g., Baxalta and Daiichi Sankyo), we have no products approved for commercialization and have never generated any revenue from product sales. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with strategic collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory and marketing approvals necessary to commercialize, one or more of our product candidates. We cannot predict when we will begin generating revenue from product sales, as this depends heavily on our success in many areas, including but not limited to:

27

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs to commercialize any such product. Our expenses could increase beyond our expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA, other regulatory agencies, domestic or foreign, or by any unfavorable outcomes in intellectual property litigation filed against us, to change our manufacturing processes or assays or to perform clinical, nonclinical or other types of studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. In cases where we are successful in obtaining regulatory approvals to market one or more of our product candidates, our revenue will be dependent, in part, upon the size of the markets in the territories for which we gain regulatory approval, the number of biosimilar competitors in such markets, the accepted price for the product, the ability to get reimbursement at any price, the nature and degree of competition from originators and other biosimilar companies (including competition from large pharmaceutical companies entering the biosimilar market that may be able to gain advantages in the sale of biosimilar products based on brand recognition and/or existing relationships with customers and payors) and whether we own (or have partnered) the commercial rights for that territory. If the market for our product candidates (or our share of that market) is not as significant as we expect, the indication approved by regulatory authorities is narrower than we expect or the reasonably accepted population for treatment is narrowed by competition, physician choice or treatment guidelines, we may not generate significant revenue from sales of such products, even if approved. If we are unable to successfully complete development and obtain regulatory approval for our products, our business may suffer. Additionally, if we are not able to generate revenue from the sale of any approved products, we may never become profitable.

We will need to raise substantial additional funding. This additional funding may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate our product development and commercialization efforts or other operations.

We are currently advancing two product candidates through late-stage clinical development, which is expensive.

As of December 31, 2016, our cash and cash equivalents were $124.9 million. We expect that our existing cash and cash equivalents, together with the $120.3 million in cash we received from the issuance of 5,294,902 shares of  common stock pursuant to a follow-on offering in February and March 2017, the $4.2 million in cash from the sale of common stock under our ATM Offering Program in January 2017, and the funding we expect to receive under our license agreement with Daiichi Sankyo, additional projected license agreements that are in negotiation to partner rights to our oncology products ex-US and our anti-TNFs franchise, and proceeds from our ATM Offering Program, will be sufficient to fund our current operations for at least the next 12 months. In addition, our operating plans may change as a result of many factors that may currently be unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

Any additional fundraising efforts may divert our management from their day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates. In addition, we cannot guarantee that future financing will be available in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, if at all. Moreover, the terms of any financing may adversely affect the holdings or the rights of our stockholders, and the issuance of additional securities, whether equity or debt, by us or the possibility of such issuance may cause the market price of our shares to decline. The sale of additional equity or convertible securities would dilute the share ownership of our existing stockholders. The incurrence of indebtedness could result in increased fixed payment obligations and we may be required to agree to certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on

28

our ability to acquire, sell or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. We could also be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborative partners or otherwise at an earlier stage than otherwise would be desirable and we may be required to relinquish rights to some of our technologies or product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us, any of which may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results and prospects. Even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans, we may seek additional capital if market conditions are favorable or for specific strategic considerations.

If we are unable to obtain funding on a timely basis, we may be required to significantly curtail, delay or discontinue one or more of our research or development programs or the commercialization of any product candidates or be unable to expand our operations or otherwise capitalize on our business opportunities, as desired, which could materially affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Discovery and Development of Our Product Candidates

We are heavily dependent on the clinical success, regulatory approval and commercial success of our product candidates. We cannot give any assurance that any of our product candidates will receive regulatory approval, which is necessary before they can be commercialized.

To date, we have invested substantially all of our efforts and financial resources to identify, acquire and develop our product candidates. Our future success is dependent on our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for, and then commercialize and obtain adequate third party coverage and reimbursement for one or more product candidates. We currently do not have any approved products and generate no revenue from sales of any products, and we may never be able to develop or commercialize a marketable product.

Our product candidates are in varying stages of development and will require additional clinical development, management of nonclinical, clinical and manufacturing activities, regulatory approval, adequate manufacturing supplies, commercial organization and significant marketing efforts before we generate any revenue from product sales. Whereas CHS-1701 has completed clinical development, CHS-0214 and CHS-1420 are still completing several clinical trials, and we have not yet initiated clinical trials for CHS-5217 and CHS-3351.

Our clinical trials must use originator products as comparators, and such supplies may not be available on a timely basis to support such trials.

We cannot be certain that any of our product candidates will be successful in clinical trials or receive regulatory approval. Further, our product candidates may not receive regulatory approval even if they are successful in clinical trials. If we and our collaboration partners do not receive regulatory approvals for our product candidates, we may not be able to continue our operations.

We, together with our collaboration partners, generally plan to seek regulatory approval to commercialize our product candidates in the United States, the European Union, or E.U., and in additional foreign countries where we or our partners have commercial rights. To obtain regulatory approval, we and our collaboration partners must comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of such countries regarding safety, efficacy, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, clinical studies, commercial sales and pricing and distribution of our product candidates. Even if we and our collaboration partners are successful in obtaining approval in one jurisdiction, we cannot ensure that we will obtain approval in any other jurisdictions. If we and our collaboration partners are unable to obtain approval for our product candidates in multiple jurisdictions, our revenue and results of operations could be negatively affected.

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

The research, development, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, approval, promotion, advertising, storage, marketing, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting and export and import of biologic products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States, by the EMA and EEA Competent Authorities in the European Economic Area, or EEA, and by other regulatory authorities in other countries, which regulations differ from country to country. Neither we nor any existing or future collaboration partners are permitted to market our product candidates in the United States until we and our collaboration partners receive approval from the FDA, or in the EEA until we and our collaboration partners receive E.U. Commission or EEA Competent Authority approvals.

29

The time required to obtain approval by the FDA and comparable foreign authorities is unpredictable, may take many years following the completion of clinical studies and depends upon numerous factors. In addition, approval policies, regulations or the type and amount of clinical data necessary to gain approval may change during the course of a product candidate’s clinical development and may vary among jurisdictions, which may cause delays in the approval or the decision not to approve an application. Neither we nor any collaboration partner has obtained regulatory approval for any of our product candidates, and it is possible that none of our current or future product candidates will ever obtain regulatory approval.

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

This approval process, as well as the unpredictability of the results of clinical studies, may result in our failure to obtain regulatory approval to market any of our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business. Any delays in the commencement or completion of clinical testing could significantly impact our product development costs and could result in the need for additional financing.

If we are not able to demonstrate biosimilarity of our biosimilar product candidates to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities, we will not obtain regulatory approval for commercial sale of our biosimilar product candidates and our future results of operations would be adversely affected.

Our future results of operations depend, to a significant degree, on our ability to obtain regulatory approval for and to commercialize our proposed biosimilar products. To obtain regulatory approval for the commercial sale of these product candidates, we will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities, among other things, that our proposed biosimilar products are highly similar to biological reference products already licensed by the regulatory authority pursuant to marketing applications, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components, and that they have no clinically meaningful differences as compared to the marketed biological products in terms of the safety, purity and potency of the products. Each individual jurisdiction may apply different criteria to assess biosimilarity, based on a preponderance of the evidence that can be interpreted subjectively in some cases. In the EEA, the similar nature of a biosimilar and a reference product is demonstrated by comprehensive comparability studies covering quality, biological activity, safety and efficacy.

It is uncertain if regulatory authorities will grant the full originator label to biosimilar product candidates when they are approved. For example, an infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar molecule was approved in Europe and in the United States for the full originator label but received a much narrower originator label when approved in Canada. That infliximab biosimilar received full label extension in Canada in 2016 upon providing additional clinical data. A similar outcome could occur with respect to one or more of our product candidates.

30

In the event that regulatory authorities require us to conduct additional clinical trials or other lengthy processes, the commercialization of our proposed biosimilar products could be delayed or prevented. Delays in the commercialization of or the inability to obtain regulatory approval for these products could adversely affect our operating results by restricting or significantly delaying our introduction of new biosimilars.

The structure of complex proteins used in protein-based therapeutics is inherently variable and highly dependent on the processes and conditions used to manufacture them. If we are unable to develop manufacturing processes that achieve a requisite degree of biosimilarity to the originator drug, and within a range of variability considered acceptable by regulatory authorities, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our products.

Protein-based therapeutics are inherently heterogeneous and their structures are highly dependent on the production process and conditions. Products from one production facility can differ within an acceptable range from those produced in another facility. Similarly, physicochemical differences can also exist among different lots produced within a single facility. The physicochemical complexity and size of biologic therapeutics create significant technical and scientific challenges in the context of their replication as biosimilar products.

The inherent variability in protein structure from one production lot to another is a fundamental consideration with respect to establishing biosimilarity to an originator product to support regulatory approval requirements. For example, the glycosylation of the protein, meaning the manner in which sugar molecules are attached to the protein backbone of a therapeutic protein when it is produced in a living cell, is critical to therapeutic efficacy, half-life (how long the drug stays in the body), efficacy and even safety of the therapeutic and is therefore a key consideration for biosimilarity. Defining and understanding the variability of an originator molecule in order to match its glycosylation profile requires significant skill in cell biology, protein purification and analytical protein chemistry. Furthermore, manufacturing proteins with reliable and consistent glycosylation profiles at scale is challenging and highly dependent on the skill of the cell biologist and process scientist.

There are extraordinary technical challenges in developing complex protein-based therapeutics that not only must achieve an acceptable degree of similarity to the originator molecule in terms of characteristics such as the unique glycosylation pattern, but also the ability to develop manufacturing processes that can replicate the necessary structural characteristics within an acceptable range of variability sufficient to satisfy regulatory authorities.

Given the challenges caused by the inherent variability in protein production, we may not be successful in developing our products if regulators conclude that we have not achieved a sufficient level of biosimilarity to the originator product, or that the processes we use are unable to generate our products within an acceptable range of variability.

Clinical drug development involves a lengthy and expensive process and we may encounter substantial delays in our clinical studies or may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our product candidates, we (and/or our collaboration partners) must conduct clinical studies to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans.

Clinical testing is expensive and can take many years to complete, and its outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical study process. The results of preclinical studies and early clinical studies of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical studies. Product candidates that have shown promising results in early-stage clinical studies may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent registration clinical studies. There is a high failure rate for product candidates proceeding through clinical studies, and product candidates in later stages of clinical studies may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy traits despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical studies. A number of companies in the biopharmaceutical industry have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical studies due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles, notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies. Nonclinical and clinical data are also often susceptible to varying interpretations and analyses. We do not know whether any clinical studies we may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval.

We cannot guarantee that any clinical studies will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A failure of one or more clinical studies can occur at any stage of testing, and our future clinical studies may not be successful. Events that may prevent successful or timely completion of clinical development include but are not limited to:

31

Any inability to successfully complete nonclinical and clinical development could result in additional costs to us or impair our ability to generate revenue. In addition, if we make manufacturing or formulation changes to our product candidates, we may need to conduct additional studies to bridge our modified product candidates to earlier versions.

For example, we altered the manufacturing processes for CHS-0214 and CHS-1420 and will need to provide data to the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities demonstrating that the change in manufacturing process has not changed the product candidate. If we are unable to make that demonstration to the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities, we could face significant delays or fail to obtain regulatory approval to market the product, which could significantly harm our business. In October 2016, we completed two clinical pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies for CHS-0214, and the results will be provided to European and Japanese regulatory authorities. In March 2017, we completed a clinical pharmacokinetic bioequivalence study comparing CHS-1420 to U.S. Humira and the results will be provided to the FDA.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable side effects or have other properties that could delay or prevent their regulatory approval, limit the commercial profile of an approved label or result in significant negative consequences following marketing approval, if granted.

As with most pharmaceutical products, use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects or adverse events which can vary in severity (from minor reactions to death) and frequency (infrequent or prevalent). Side effects or adverse events associated with the use of our product candidates may be observed at any time, including in clinical trials or when a product is commercialized. Undesirable side effects caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical studies and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or other comparable foreign authorities. Results of our studies could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of side effects such as toxicity or other safety issues and could require us or our collaboration partners to perform additional studies or halt development or sale of these product candidates or expose us to product liability lawsuits which will harm our business. In such an event, we may be required by regulatory agencies to conduct additional animal or human studies regarding the safety and efficacy of our product candidates which we have not planned or anticipated or our studies could be suspended or terminated, and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of or deny or withdraw approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. There can be no assurance that we will resolve any issues related to any product-related

32

adverse events to the satisfaction of the FDA or any other regulatory agency in a timely manner, if ever, which could harm our business, prospects and financial condition.

Additionally, product quality characteristics have been shown to be sensitive to changes in process conditions, manufacturing techniques, equipment or sites and other such related considerations, hence any manufacturing process changes we implement prior to or after regulatory approval could impact product safety and efficacy.

Drug-related side effects could affect patient recruitment for clinical trials, the ability of enrolled patients to complete our studies or result in potential product liability claims. We currently carry product liability insurance and we are required to maintain product liability insurance pursuant to certain of our license agreements. We believe our product liability insurance coverage is sufficient in light of our current clinical programs; however, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses due to liability. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us could adversely affect our results of operations and business. In addition, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, product liability claims may result in impairment of our business reputation, withdrawal of clinical study participants, costs due to related litigation, distraction of management’s attention from our primary business, initiation of investigations by regulators, substantial monetary awards to patients or other claimants, the inability to commercialize our product candidates and decreased demand for our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale.

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

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

If we receive approval, regulatory agencies including the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, regulations require that we report certain information about adverse medical events if those products may have caused or contributed to those adverse events. The timing of our obligation to report would be triggered by the date we become aware of the adverse event as well as the nature of the event. We may fail to report adverse events we become aware of within the prescribed timeframe. We may also fail to appreciate that we have become aware of a reportable adverse event, especially if it is not reported to us as an adverse event or if it is an adverse event that is unexpected or removed in time from the use of our products. If we fail to comply with our reporting obligations, the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies could take action including criminal prosecution, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, seizure of our products or delay in approval or clearance of future products.

The development, manufacture and commercialization of biosimilar products under various global regulatory pathways pose unique risks.

United States Regulatory Framework for Biosimilars

We and our collaboration partners intend to pursue market authorization globally. In the United States, an abbreviated pathway for approval of biosimilar products was established by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, enacted on March 23, 2010, as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The BPCIA established this abbreviated pathway under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service Act, or PHSA. Subsequent to the enactment of the BPCIA, the FDA issued draft guidance regarding the demonstration of biosimilarity and interchangeability as well as the submission and review of biosimilar applications. Moreover, market acceptance of biosimilar products in the United States is unclear. Numerous states are considering or have already enacted laws that regulate or restrict the substitution by state pharmacies of biosimilars for originator products already licensed by the FDA. Market success of biosimilar products will depend on demonstrating to patients, physicians, payors and relevant authorities that such products are similar in quality, safety and efficacy as compared to the reference product.

33

We will continue to analyze and incorporate into our biosimilar development plans any final regulations issued by the FDA, pharmacy substitution policies enacted by state governments and other applicable requirements established by relevant authorities. The costs of development and approval, along with the probability of success for our biosimilar product candidates, will be dependent upon the application of any laws and regulations issued by the relevant regulatory authorities.

Biosimilar products may also be subject to extensive patent clearances and patent infringement litigation, which may delay and could prevent the commercial launch of a product. Moreover, the BPCIA prohibits the FDA from accepting an application for a biosimilar candidate to a reference product within four years of the reference product’s licensure by the FDA. In addition, the BPCIA provides innovative biologics with 12 years of exclusivity from the date of their licensure, during which time the FDA cannot approve any application for a biosimilar candidate to the reference product.

The BPCIA is complex and only beginning to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. As a result, its ultimate impact, implementation and meaning are evolving and subject to significant uncertainty. Future implementation decisions by the FDA could result in delays in the development or commercialization of our product candidates or increased costs to assure regulatory compliance and could adversely affect our operating results by restricting or significantly delaying our ability to market new biosimilar products. Moreover, a number of Executive Orders and policy statements issued by President Trump in January 2017 have increased the uncertainty regarding the timing for the FDA’s interpretation and implementation of the BPCIA and other requirements under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA.  Some of these executive actions may also negatively affect the FDA’s exercise of regulatory oversight and ability to timely review industry submissions and applications in connection with the drug development and approval process.  Notably, on January 23, 2017, President Trump ordered a hiring freeze for all federal executive departments and agencies, including the FDA, which prohibits the FDA from filling employee vacancies or creating new positions.  Under the terms of the order, the freeze will remain in effect until implementation of a plan to be recommended by the Director for the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to reduce the size of the federal workforce through attrition. An under-staffed FDA could result in increasing delays in the FDA’s responsiveness or in its ability to review applications, issue regulations or guidance, or implement or enforce regulatory requirements in a timely fashion or at all,  Moreover, on January 30, 2017 President Trump issued an Executive Order directing all federal executive agencies, including the FDA, that, for each notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed, unless prohibited by law.  This Executive Order also includes a budget neutrality provision that requires the total incremental cost of all new regulations in the 2017 fiscal year, including repealed regulations, to be no greater than zero, except in limited circumstances.  It is difficult to predict how these requirements will be interpreted and implemented, and the extent to which they will impact the FDA’s ability to continue implementing the BPCIA and engage in its other regulatory authorities under the FDCA.  If these executive actions impose restrictions on FDA’s ability to engage in oversight and implementation activities in the normal course, our business may be negatively impacted.

Regulatory Framework for Biosimilars Outside the United States

In 2004, the European Parliament issued legislation allowing the approval of biosimilar therapeutics. Since then, the European Commission has granted marketing authorizations for more than 20 biosimilars pursuant to a set of general and product class-specific guidelines for biosimilar approvals issued over the past few years. Because of their extensive experience in the review and approval of biosimilars, Europe has more guidelines for these products than the FDA, including data requirements needed to support approval.

Under current E.U. regulations, an application for regulatory approval of a biosimilar drug cannot be submitted in the E.U. until expiration of an eight-year data exclusivity period for the reference (originator) product, measured from the date of the reference product’s initial marketing authorization. Furthermore, once approved, the biosimilar cannot be marketed until expiration of a ten-year period following the initial marketing authorization of the reference product, such ten-year period being extendible to 11 years if the reference product received approval of an additional therapeutic indication, within the first eight years following its initial marketing authorization, representing a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. However, we understand that reference products approved prior to November 20, 2005 (which would include, for example, Enbrel, Humira and Neulasta, approved in the E.U. on March 2, 2000, August 9, 2003 and August 22, 2002, respectively) are subject to a ten-year period of data exclusivity. While the data exclusivity periods for Enbrel, Humira and Neulasta have now expired in Europe, these reference products are presently still subject to unexpired patents and such patents may or may not be susceptible to challenges to their validity and enforceability.

In Europe, the approval of a biosimilar for marketing is based on an opinion issued by the EMA and a decision issued by the European Commission. Therefore, the marketing approval will cover the entire EEA. However, substitution of a biosimilar for the originator is a decision that is made at the national level. Additionally, a number of countries do not permit the automatic substitution of biosimilars for the originator product. Therefore, even if we obtain marketing approval for the entire EEA, we may not receive substitution in one or more European nations, thereby restricting our ability to market our products in those jurisdictions.

34

Other regions, including Canada, Japan and Korea, also have their own legislation outlining a regulatory pathway for the approval of biosimilars. In some cases other countries have either adopted European guidance (Singapore and Malaysia) or are following guidance issued by the World Health Organization (Cuba and Brazil). While there is overlap in the regulatory requirements across regions, there are also some areas of non-overlap. Additionally, we cannot predict whether countries that we may wish to market in, which do not yet have an established or tested regulatory framework could decide to issue regulations or guidance and/or adopt a more conservative viewpoint than other regions. Therefore, it is possible that even if we obtain agreement from one health authority to an accelerated or optimized development plan, we will need to defer to the most conservative view to ensure global harmonization of the development plan. Also, for regions where regulatory authorities do not yet have sufficient experience in the review and approval of a biosimilar product, these authorities may rely on the approval from another region (e.g., the United States or the E.U.), which could delay our approval in that region. Finally, it is possible that some countries will not approve a biosimilar without clinical data from their population and/or may require that the biosimilar product be manufactured within their region.

If other biosimilars of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), etanercept (Enbrel) or adalimumab (Humira) are approved and successfully commercialized before our product candidates for these originator products (CHS-1701, CHS-0214 or CHS-1420, respectively), our business would suffer.

We expect other companies to seek approval to manufacture and market biosimilar versions of Neulasta, Enbrel, or Humira. If other biosimilars of Neulasta, Enbrel or Humira are approved and successfully commercialized before CHS-0214, CHS-1420 or CHS-1701, respectively, we may never achieve significant market share for these products, our revenue would be reduced and, as a result, our business, prospects and financial condition could suffer.

If other biosimilars of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), etanercept (Enbrel) or adalimumab (Humira) are determined to be interchangeable and our biosimilars candidates for these originator products are not, our business would suffer.

The FDA or other relevant regulatory authorities may determine that a proposed biosimilar product is “interchangeable” with a reference product, meaning that the biosimilar product may be substituted for the reference product without the intervention of the health care provider who prescribed the reference product, if the application includes sufficient information to show that the product is biosimilar to the reference product and that it can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient. If the biosimilar product may be administered more than once to a patient, the applicant must demonstrate that the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the biosimilar product candidate and the reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch. To make a final determination of interchangeability, regulatory authorities may require additional confirmatory information beyond what we plan to initially submit in our applications for approval, such as more in-depth analytical characterization, animal testing or further clinical studies. Provision of sufficient information for approval may prove difficult and expensive.

We cannot predict whether any of our biosimilar product candidates will meet regulatory authority requirements for approval not only as a biosimilar product but also as an interchangeable product in any jurisdiction. Furthermore, legislation governing interchangeability could differ by jurisdiction on a state or national level worldwide.

The concept of “interchangeability” is important because, in the United States for example, the first biosimilar determined to be interchangeable with a particular reference, or originator, product for any condition of use is eligible for a period of market exclusivity that delays an FDA determination that a second or subsequent biosimilar product is interchangeable with that originator product for any condition of use until the earlier of: (1) one year after the first commercial marketing of the first interchangeable product; (2) 18 months after resolution of a patent infringement suit instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product, based on a final court decision regarding all of the patents in the litigation or dismissal of the litigation with or without prejudice; (3) 42 months after approval of the first interchangeable product, if a patent infringement suit instituted under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6) against the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product is still ongoing; or (4) 18 months after approval of the first interchangeable product if the applicant that submitted the application for the first interchangeable product has not been sued under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(6). Thus, a determination that another company’s product is interchangeable with the originator biologic before we obtain approval of our corresponding biosimilar product candidates may delay the potential determination that our products are interchangeable with the originator product, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and delay, prevent or limit our ability to generate revenue.

35

CHS-1701, our pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) biosimilar candidate, may not be approved in a timely manner or at all by regulatory agencies. Further, even if CHS-1701 is approved by the FDA or the EMA we may be delayed in selling CHS-1701 due to direct or indirect legal challenges , and/or by a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Sandoz v. Amgen that could require biosimilars to provide 180 days notice of commercial marketing no earlier than upon regulatory approval.

We submitted a BLA for CHS-1701 on August 9, 2016 and received a Biosimilar User Fee Act action date for this BLA from the FDA of June 9, 2017 indicating that the FDA would review our BLA over a period of ten months and the possibility that it may be able to approve CHS-1701 by June 9, 2017. However, the FDA may require us and our third party contractors to furnish additional information. Such additional information could include, for example, further analyses of existing data and/or the production of new data that may cause the FDA to extend its review of our application. For example, Amjevita, a biosimilar of Humira manufactured by Amgen Inc. or Amgen, was reviewed and approved after a 10 month review period by the FDA, however, Erelzi, a biosimilar of Enbrel manufactured by Sandoz International GmbH, or Sandoz, was reviewed and approved after a 13 month review period by the FDA on August 30, 2016, or three months later than its original action date of May 30, 2016. Also, Inflectra, a biosimilar of Remicade manufactured by Celltrion, was reviewed by the FDA over a period of nearly 20 months, from a first BLA submission of August 8, 2014 until its approval on April 5, 2016.

In January 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States, or the Supreme Court, agreed to hear on a consolidated basis two cases (Amgen v. Sandoz and Sandoz v. Amgen), that may impact the timing of commercial launch of all newly approved biosimilars, and is expected to provide its rulings by the end of June 2017. Under Sandoz v. Amgen, the issues under review are (1) whether notice of commercial marketing given before FDA approval can be effective; and (2) whether, in any event, it is improper to treat Section 262(l)(8)(A)–the BPCIA’s “Notice of commercial marketing” provision which states that a biosimilar applicant shall provide notice to the incumbent seller of the biological product “not later than 180 days before the date of the first commercial marketing of the biological product licensed under” an abbreviated pathway for biosimilars–as a stand-alone requirement and as creating an injunctive remedy that delays all biosimilars by 180 days after approval. Under Amgen v. Sandoz, the issues under review are (1) whether a biosimilar applicant is required by 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(2)(A) to provide the reference product sponsor with a copy of its biologics license application and related manufacturing information, which the statute says the applicant “shall provide;” and (2) whether, where an applicant fails to provide that required information, the sponsor’s sole recourse is to commence a declaratory judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 262(l)(9)(C) and/or a patent-infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(C)(ii).  If we receive FDA approval for CHS-1701, and if the Supreme Court does not rule in a timely manner on these cases that now preclude biosimilar manufacturers to launch commercially on the day of market approval, or if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Amgen with respect to the above-mentioned issues presented to the Supreme Court in the Sandoz v. Amgen case, we may be required to wait 180 days after FDA approval to launch CHS-1701 in the U.S.

Even if CHS-1701 receives marketing approval in the U.S. or the E.U., we may also be subject to direct legal challenges from Amgen, the manufacturer of Neulasta, and we could be delayed or prevented from launching CHS-1701 as a result of court orders or as a result of the time necessary to resolve such challenges. Similarly, we may be subject to indirect legal challenges in the U.S.  as a result of new executive orders from the President of the United States or the amendment or reversal of various laws by the U.S. Congress that govern or impact the approval of biosimilars, including the PPACA and the BPCIA, which in aggregate may cause a delay in the approval or the commercial launch of CHS-1701. Additionally, certain factors beyond our control may impact the timeliness of the FDA’s review of our submissions or any applications for approval. For example, with a new administration, the FDA is currently operating with acting temporary leadership. In addition, the new administration has issued a number of Executive Orders that affect the FDA’s ability to fill vacancies, hire new employees, and implement and issue new regulations and guidance. While the BPCIA is not explicitly referenced in any of the recent orders of the new administration, its implementation has been at least temporarily suspended. Although the FDA has not provided guidance on the impact of the hiring freeze or the limitations on its ability to implement new regulations, we anticipate that there will be delays in the FDA’s operations as vacant staff positions are unfilled and regulatory implementation plans are suspended.

Failure to obtain regulatory approval in any targeted regulatory jurisdiction would prevent us from marketing our products to a larger patient population and reduce our commercial opportunities.

We and our collaboration partners have not initiated marketing efforts in any regulatory jurisdiction. Subject to product approvals and relevant patent expirations, we or our collaboration partners intend to market our etanercept (Enbrel) biosimilar product, CHS-0214 in Japan (through our licensee Daiichi Sankyo) and certain Latin American countries (through our licensee Orox). We intend to market our pegfilgrastim (Neulasta) biosimilar product, CHS-1701, and future oncology biosimilar candidates in the United States and may seek to partner commercially all oncology biosimilars outside the United States. We intend to find favorable strategic commercialization partners or retain rights for some or all of our immunology (anti-TNF) biosimilar candidates.

In order to market our products in the E.U., the United States and other jurisdictions, we and our collaboration partners must obtain separate regulatory approvals and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements. The EMA is responsible for the

36

centralized procedure for the regulation and approval of human medicines. This procedure results in a single marketing authorization that is valid in all E.U. countries, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The time required to obtain approval abroad may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. The foreign regulatory approval process may include all of the risks associated with obtaining FDA approval and we may not obtain foreign regulatory approvals on a timely basis, if at all. Approval by the FDA does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries, and approval by one foreign regulatory authority does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA. We or our collaboration partners may not be able to file for regulatory approvals and may not receive necessary approvals to commercialize our products within the United States or in any market outside the United States. Failure to obtain these approvals would materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

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

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

Any regulatory approvals that we or our collaboration partners 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 may contain requirements for potentially costly additional clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. We will be required to report certain adverse events and production problems, if any, to the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities. Any new legislation addressing drug safety issues could result in delays in product development or commercialization or increased costs to assure compliance. We will have to comply with requirements concerning advertising and promotion for our products. Promotional communications with respect to prescription drugs are subject to a variety of legal and regulatory restrictions and must be consistent with the information in the product’s approved label. As such, we may not promote our products for indications or uses for which they do not have approval. If our product candidates are approved, we must submit new or supplemental applications and obtain approval for certain changes to the approved products, product labeling or manufacturing process. We or our collaboration partners could also be asked to conduct post-marketing clinical studies to verify the safety and efficacy of our products in general or in specific patient subsets. If original marketing approval is obtained via an accelerated biosimilar approval pathway, we could be required to conduct a successful post-marketing clinical study to confirm clinical benefit for our products. An unsuccessful post-marketing study or failure to complete such a study could result in the withdrawal of marketing approval.

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

37

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

Adverse events involving an originator product, or other biosimilars of such originator product, may negatively affect our business.

In the event that use of an originator product, or other biosimilar for such originator product, results in unanticipated side effects or other adverse events, it is likely that our biosimilar product candidate will be viewed comparably and may become subject to the same scrutiny and regulatory sanctions as the originator product or other biosimilar, as applicable. Accordingly, we may become subject to regulatory supervisions, clinical holds, product recalls or other regulatory actions for matters outside of our control that affect the originator product, or other biosimilar, as applicable, if and until we are able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of our regulators that our biosimilar product candidate is not subject to the same issues leading to the regulatory action as the originator product or other biosimilar, as applicable.

Risks Related to Our Ability to Hire Highly Qualified Personnel and Our Reliance on Third Parties

We are highly dependent on the services of our key executives and personnel, including our President and Chief Executive Officer, Dennis M. Lanfear, and if we are not able to retain these members of our management or recruit additional management, clinical and scientific personnel, our business will suffer.

We are highly dependent on the principal members of our management and scientific and technical staff. The loss of service of any of our management or key scientific and technical staff could harm our business. In addition, we are dependent on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified additional management, clinical and scientific personnel. If we are not able to retain our management, particularly our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Lanfear, and to attract, on acceptable terms, additional qualified personnel necessary for the continued development of our business, we may not be able to sustain our operations or grow.

Our future performance will also depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate newly hired executive officers into our management team and our ability to develop an effective working relationship among senior management. Our failure to integrate these individuals and create effective working relationships among them and other members of management could result in inefficiencies in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, harming future regulatory approvals, sales of our product candidates and our results of operations. Additionally, we do not currently maintain “key person” life insurance on the lives of our executives or any of our employees.

We will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, scientific, operational, financial, commercial and other resources in order to successfully pursue our clinical development and commercialization efforts. Our success also depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management and scientific personnel. We may not be able to attract or retain qualified management and scientific and clinical personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology, pharmaceutical and other businesses, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. If we are not able to attract, retain and motivate necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience constraints that will significantly impede the achievement of our development objectives, our ability to raise additional capital and our ability to implement our business strategy.

We will need to expand our organization and we may experience difficulties in managing this growth, which could disrupt our operations.

As of December 31, 2016, we had 152 employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to need additional managerial, operational, sales, marketing, financial, legal and other resources. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational mistakes, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of our current and potential future product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate and/or grow revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize product candidates and compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

38

We rely on third parties to conduct our nonclinical and clinical studies and perform other tasks for us. 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 our product candidates and our business could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third-party CROs to monitor and manage data for our ongoing nonclinical and clinical programs. We rely on these parties for execution of our nonclinical and clinical studies and control only certain aspects of their activities. Nevertheless, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our CROs and other vendors are required to comply with cGMP, current good clinical practices, or cGCP, and Good Laboratory Practices, or GLP, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the Competent Authorities of the Member States of the EEA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for all of our product candidates in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of study sponsors, principal investigators, study sites and other contractors. If we, any of our CROs, service providers or investigators fail to comply with applicable regulations or cGCPs, the data generated in our nonclinical and clinical studies may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, EMA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional nonclinical and clinical studies before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical studies comply with cGCP regulations. In addition, our clinical studies must be conducted with product generated under cGMP regulations. Failure to comply by any of the participating parties or ourselves with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical studies, which would delay the regulatory approval process. Moreover, our business may be implicated if our contract research organization, or CRO, or any other participating parties violate federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

If any of our relationships with these third-party CROs terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs or do so on commercially reasonable terms. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our on-going nonclinical and clinical programs. If CROs 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 data they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, our clinical studies may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, our results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates would be harmed, our costs could increase and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, a transition period is necessary when a new CRO commences work, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we strive to carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, there can be no assurance that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse impact on our business, prospects and financial condition.

We rely on third parties, and in some cases a single third party, to manufacture nonclinical and clinical drug supplies of our product candidates and to store critical components of our product candidates for us. Our business could be harmed if those third parties fail to provide us with sufficient quantities of product candidates or fail to do so at acceptable quality levels or prices.

We do not currently have the infrastructure or capability internally to manufacture supplies of our product candidates for use in our nonclinical and clinical studies, and we lack the resources and the capability to manufacture any of our product candidates on a clinical or commercial scale. We rely on third party manufacturers to manufacture and supply us with our product candidates for our preclinical and clinical studies. Successfully transferring complicated manufacturing techniques to contract manufacturing organizations and scaling up these techniques for commercial quantities is time consuming and we may not be able to achieve such transfer or do so in a timely manner. Moreover, the availability of contract manufacturing services for protein-based therapeutics is highly variable and there are periods of relatively abundant capacity alternating with periods in which there is little available capacity. If our need for contract manufacturing services increases during a period of industry-wide production capacity shortage, we may not be able to produce our product candidates on a timely basis or on commercially viable terms. Although we will plan accordingly and generally do not begin a clinical study unless we believe we have a sufficient supply of a product candidate to complete such study, any significant delay or discontinuation in the supply of a product candidate for an ongoing clinical study due to the need to replace a third-party manufacturer could considerably delay completion of our clinical studies, product testing and potential regulatory approval of our product candidates, which could harm our business and results of operations.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails additional risks, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality assurance, the possible breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party and the possible termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or inconvenient for us. In addition, third party manufacturers

39

may not be able to comply with cGMP or similar regulatory requirements outside the United States. Our failure or the failure of our third party manufacturers to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our product candidates or any other product candidates or products that we may develop. Any failure or refusal to supply the components for our product candidates that we may develop could delay, prevent or impair our clinical development or commercialization efforts. If our contract manufacturers were to breach or terminate their manufacturing arrangements with us, the development or commercialization of the affected products or product candidates could be delayed, which could have an adverse effect on our business. Any change in our manufacturers could be costly because the commercial terms of any new arrangement could be less favorable and because the expenses relating to the transfer of necessary technology and processes could be significant.

If any of our product candidates are approved, in order to produce the quantities necessary to meet anticipated market demand, any contract manufacturer that we engage may need to increase manufacturing capacity. If we are unable to build and stock our product candidates in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements for the launch of these candidates or to meet future demand, our revenue and gross margins could be adversely affected. Although we believe that we will not have any material supply issues, we cannot be certain that we will be able to obtain long-term supply arrangements for our product candidates or materials used to produce them on acceptable terms, if at all. If we are unable to arrange for third-party manufacturing, or to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to complete development of our product candidates or market them.

We have entered into collaborations with third parties in connection with the development of certain of our product candidates. Even if we believe that the development of our technology and product candidates is promising, our partners may choose not to proceed with such development.

We have collaborations with several partners for the development and commercialization of certain of our product candidates. Our existing agreements with our collaboration partners are generally subject to termination by the counterparty on short notice under certain circumstances. Accordingly, even if we believe that the development of certain product candidates is worth pursuing, our partners may choose not to continue with such development. If any of our collaborations are terminated, we may be required to devote additional resources to the development of our product candidates or seek a new collaboration partner on short notice, and the terms of any additional collaborations or other arrangements that we establish may not be favorable to us or available at all.

We are also at risk that our collaborations or other arrangements may not be successful. Factors that may affect the success of our collaborations include the following:

If we cannot maintain successful collaborations, our business, financial condition and operating results may be adversely affected.

We are dependent on Daiichi Sankyo and Orox for the commercialization of our biosimilar product candidates in certain major markets and may seek additional commercialization partners, and their failure to commercialize in those markets could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results.

Our exclusive licensee, Daiichi Sankyo, is responsible for commercialization of CHS-0214 in Japan. Our exclusive licensee, Orox Pharmaceuticals B.V., or Orox, is responsible for commercialization of certain of our products, including CHS-1701, CHS-0214 and CHS-1420, in certain Caribbean and Latin American countries (excluding Brazil, and in the case of CHS-1701, also excluding Argentina). We intend to seek a commercialization partner for CHS-0214 in Europe and other jurisdictions outside the U.S. (excluding Japan and certain Caribbean and Latin American countries). If these entities fail to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to market and sell our products in their respective licensed jurisdictions or are otherwise ineffective in doing so, our business will be harmed and

40

we may not be able to adequately remedy the harm through negotiation, litigation, arbitration or termination of the license agreements. Moreover, any disputes with our collaboration partners concerning the adequacy of their commercialization efforts will substantially divert the attention of our senior management from other business activities and will require us to incur substantial costs associated with litigation or arbitration proceedings.

We are subject to a multitude of manufacturing risks. Any adverse developments affecting the manufacturing operations of our biosimilar product candidates could substantially increase our costs and limit supply for our product candidates.

The process of manufacturing our product candidates is complex, highly regulated and subject to several risks, including but not limited to:

Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes for any of our product candidates could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. For example, we have experienced failures with respect to the manufacturing of certain lots of each of our product candidates resulting in delays prior to our taking corrective action. Additionally, if microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination.

For example, in October 2014, as part of our quality process and upon routine visual inspection during storage, four syringes containing CHS-0214 (our etanercept (Enbrel) biosimilar candidate) from a production lot in use in our ongoing Phase 3 clinical trials were observed to contain small dark particles. We immediately initiated a visual inspection of remaining unlabeled inventory of this lot as well as a subsequent lot. Based on our investigation, we concluded that the particulates did not result from any instability in the CHS-0214 protein product or its formulation, but were most likely a result of a non-recurring anomaly related to first use of new process equipment.  

Any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, withdrawals or recalls or other interruptions in the supply of our product candidates. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for product candidates that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek costlier manufacturing alternatives.

We currently engage single suppliers for manufacture, clinical trial services, formulation development and product testing of our product candidates. The loss of any of these suppliers or vendors could materially and adversely affect our business.

For each of our lead products, CHS-1701, CHS-0214 and CHS-1420, we currently engage a distinct vendor or service provider for each of the principal activities supporting our manufacture and development of these lead products, such as manufacture of the biological substance present in each of the products, manufacture of the final filled and finished presentation of these products, as well as laboratory testing, formulation development and clinical testing of these products.  For example, in December 2015, we entered into a strategic manufacturing agreement with KBI Biopharma, Inc. for long-term commercial manufacturing of CHS-1701. Because we currently have not engaged back up suppliers or vendors for these single-sourced services, and although we believe that there are alternate sources that could fulfill these activities, we cannot assure you that identifying and establishing relationships with alternate suppliers and vendors would not result in significant delay in the development of our product candidates.  Additionally, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative service providers on commercially reasonable terms or at all.  A delay in the development of our product candidates, or having to enter into a new agreement with a different third party on less favorable terms than we have with our current suppliers, could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We and our collaboration partners and contract manufacturers are subject to significant regulation with respect to manufacturing our product candidates. The manufacturing facilities on which we rely may not continue to meet regulatory requirements or may not be able to meet supply demands.

All entities involved in the preparation of therapeutics for clinical studies or commercial sale, including our existing contract manufacturers for our product candidates, are subject to extensive regulation. Components of a finished therapeutic product approved for commercial sale or used in late-stage clinical studies must be manufactured in accordance with cGMP. These regulations govern manufacturing processes and procedures (including record keeping) and the implementation and operation of quality systems to control and assure the quality of investigational products and products approved for sale. Poor control of production processes can

41

lead to the introduction of contaminants or to inadvertent changes in the properties or stability of our product candidates that may not be detectable in final product testing. We, our collaboration partners or our contract manufacturers must supply all necessary documentation in support of a BLA or MAA on a timely basis and must adhere to GLP and cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA and other regulatory agencies through their facilities inspection program. Some of our contract manufacturers may have never produced a commercially approved pharmaceutical product and therefore have not obtained the requisite regulatory authority approvals to do so. The facilities and quality systems of some or all of our collaboration partners and third-party contractors must pass a pre-approval inspection for compliance with the applicable regulations as a condition of regulatory approval of our product candidates or any of our other potential products. In addition, the regulatory authorities may, at any time, audit or inspect a manufacturing facility involved with the preparation of our product candidates or our other potential products or the associated quality systems for compliance with the regulations applicable to the activities being conducted. For example, an FDA inspection in the fourth quarter of 2016 of KBI Biopharma, our contract manufacturer for CHS-1701 bulk drug substance, resulted in various form 483 observations. KBI Biopharma submitted corrective actions to the FDA that are now under review.  Although we oversee the contract manufacturers, we cannot control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, our contract manufacturing partners for compliance with the regulatory requirements. If these facilities do not pass a pre-approval plant inspection, regulatory approval of the products may not be granted or may be substantially delayed until any violations are corrected to the satisfaction of the regulatory authority, if ever.

The regulatory authorities also may, at any time following approval of a product for sale, audit the manufacturing facilities of our collaboration partners and third-party contractors. If any such inspection or audit identifies a failure to comply with applicable regulations or if a violation of our product specifications or applicable regulations occurs independent of such an inspection or audit, we or the relevant regulatory authority may require remedial measures that may be costly and/or time consuming for us or a third party to implement and that may include the temporary or permanent suspension of a clinical study or commercial sales or the temporary or permanent closure of a facility. Any such remedial measures imposed upon us or third parties with whom we contract could materially harm our business.

If we, our collaboration partners or any of our third-party manufacturers fail to maintain regulatory compliance, the FDA or other applicable regulatory authority can impose regulatory sanctions including, among other things, refusal to approve a pending application for a new product candidate, withdrawal of an approval or suspension of production. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially harmed.

Additionally, if supply from one approved manufacturer is interrupted, an alternative manufacturer would need to be qualified through a BLA supplement or MAA variation or equivalent foreign regulatory filing, which could result in further delay. The regulatory agencies may also require additional studies if a new manufacturer is relied upon for commercial production. Switching manufacturers may involve substantial costs and is likely to result in a delay in our desired clinical and commercial timelines.

These factors could cause us to incur additional costs and could cause the delay or termination of clinical studies, regulatory submissions, required approvals or commercialization of our product candidates. Furthermore, if our suppliers fail to meet contractual requirements and we are unable to secure one or more replacement suppliers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, our clinical studies may be delayed or we could lose potential revenue.

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

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

42

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

Our biosimilar product candidates, if approved, will face significant competition from the reference products and from other pharmaceuticals approved for the same indication as the originator products. Our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration and expansion.

We expect to enter highly competitive pharmaceutical markets. Successful competitors in the pharmaceutical market have demonstrated the ability to effectively discover, obtain patents, develop, test and obtain regulatory approvals for products, as well as an ability to effectively commercialize, market and promote approved products. Numerous companies, universities and other research institutions are engaged in developing, patenting, manufacturing and marketing of products competitive with those that we are developing. Many of these potential competitors are large, experienced pharmaceutical companies that enjoy significant competitive advantages, such as substantially greater financial, research and development, manufacturing, personnel and marketing resources. These companies also have greater brand recognition and more experience in conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials of product candidates and obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals of products.

If an improved version of an originator product, such as Enbrel, Humira or Neulasta, is developed or if the market for the originator product significantly declines, sales or potential sales of our biosimilar product candidates may suffer.

Originator companies may develop improved versions of a reference product as part of a life cycle extension strategy and may obtain regulatory approval of the improved version under a new or supplemental BLA filed with the applicable regulatory authority. Should the originator company succeed in obtaining an approval of an improved biologic product, it may capture a significant share of the collective reference product market in the applicable jurisdiction and significantly reduce the market for the reference product and thereby the potential size of the market for our biosimilar product candidates. In addition, the improved product may be protected by additional patent rights that may subject our follow-on biosimilar to claims of infringement.

Biologic reference products may also face competition as technological advances are made that may offer patients a more convenient form of administration or increased efficacy or as new products are introduced. As new products are approved that compete with the reference product to our biosimilar product candidates, or sales of the reference originator products may be adversely impacted or rendered obsolete. If the market for the reference product is impacted, we may lose significant market share or experience limited market potential for our approved biosimilar products or product candidates, and the value of our product pipeline could be negatively impacted. As a result of the above factors, our business, prospects and financial condition could suffer.

If efforts by manufacturers of originator products to delay or limit the use of biosimilars are successful, our sales of biosimilar products may suffer.

Many manufacturers of originator products have increasingly used legislative, regulatory and other means, such as litigation, to delay regulatory approval and to seek to restrict competition from manufacturers of biosimilars. These efforts may include or have included:

43

For example, in 2012, Abbott Laboratories filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA asking the agency to refrain from accepting biosimilar applications under the BPCIA arguing that to approve such applications, without compensation to the originator, would constitute an unconstitutional taking of an originator company’s valuable trade secrets under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  The FDA rejected Abbott Laboratories’ petition on September 23, 2016.

We face intense competition and rapid technological change and the possibility that our competitors may develop therapies that are similar, more advanced or more effective than ours, which may adversely affect our financial condition and our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies. Some of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies we expect to compete with include, for example, Apotex Inc., or Apotex, Sandoz, Amgen, Pfizer Inc., or Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, or Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., or Teva, and Samsung Bioepis, Ltd., or Samsung Bioepis, (a Merck/Biogen/Samsung biosimilar venture), Mylan Inc., or Mylan, as well as other smaller companies. We are currently aware that such competitors are engaged in the development of biosimilar product candidates to pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), etanercept (Enbrel) and adalimumab (Humira). For example, we understand that Sandoz and Apotex have each submitted a Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) biosimilar product candidate for market approval in the United States and that Sandoz received a complete response letter from the FDA at the end of June 2016.  We understand that Mylan appears to have submitted a Neulasta biosimilar candidate for market approval in the E.U. Similarly, we understand that Sandoz and Samsung Bioepis are each currently engaged in the development of competing biosimilar product candidates for etanercept (Enbrel). Both Sandoz and Samsung Bioepis have each submitted an etanercept biosimilar product candidate for market approval in the E.U. and Sandoz has filed a BLA for its candidate in the United States.  On January 16, 2016, the European Commission (EC) approved Samsung Bioepis’ entanercept biosimilar (Benepali) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis (ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis) and plaque psoriasis. In August 2016, the FDA approved Sandoz’ etanercept biosimilar (Erelzi, etanercept-szzs) for multiple inflammatory diseases. Boehringer Ingelheim, Amgen, Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis and Pfizer are examples of companies engaged in development of biosimilar product candidates for adalimumab (Humira). We understand Boehringer Ingelheim’s program and Pfizer’s program are in Phase 3, and that Amgen and Samsung Bioepis have each submitted a Humira biosimilar candidate for market approval in the United States and in the E.U., respectively. In September 2016, the FDA approved Amgen’s adalimumab biosimilar (Amjevita, adalimumab-atto) for multiple inflammatory diseases.

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. Additional mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry may result in even more resources being concentrated in our competitors. As a result, these companies may obtain regulatory approval more rapidly than we are able to and may be more effective in selling and marketing their products. Smaller or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large, established companies. Our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we may develop; they may also obtain patent protection that could block our products; and they may obtain regulatory approval, product commercialization and market penetration earlier than we do. Biosimilar product candidates developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical, less desirable or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against competitors. Competitors may also assert in their marketing or medical education programs that their biosimilar products demonstrate a higher degree of biosimilarity to the originator products than do ours or other competitor’s biosimilar products, thereby seeking to influence health care practitioners to select their biosimilar products, versus ours or other competitors.

We currently have no marketing and sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales and marketing capabilities in jurisdictions for which we choose to retain commercialization rights or if we are unable to enter into agreements with third parties to market and sell our product candidates, we may be unable to generate any revenue.

We currently have no marketing or sales organization. Although our employees may have sold other biologic products in the past while employed at other companies, our products have not yet been approved for sale, and thus we as a company have no experience selling and marketing our product candidates. To successfully commercialize any products that may result from our development programs, we will need to develop these capabilities, either on our own or with others. If our product candidates receive regulatory approval, we intend to establish a sales and marketing organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution

44

capabilities to commercialize our product candidates in major markets where we may choose to retain commercialization rights. Doing so will be expensive, difficult and time consuming. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of our products.

Further, given our lack of prior experience in marketing and selling biopharmaceutical products, our initial estimate of the size of the required sales force may be materially more or less than the size of the sales force actually required to effectively commercialize our product candidates. As such, we may be required to hire substantially more sales representatives to adequately support the commercialization of our product candidates or we may incur excess costs as a result of hiring more sales representatives than necessary. With respect to certain geographical markets, we may enter into collaborations with other entities to utilize their local marketing and distribution capabilities, but we may be unable to enter into such agreements on favorable terms, if at all. If our future collaboration partners do not commit sufficient resources to commercialize our future products, if any, and we are unable to develop the necessary marketing capabilities on our own, we will be unable to generate sufficient product revenue to sustain our business. We expect competition from companies such as Sandoz, Samsung Bioepis, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Amgen that currently have extensive and well-funded marketing and sales operations. Without an internal team or the support of a third party to perform marketing and sales functions, we may be unable to compete successfully against these more established companies.

We may need to enter into alliances with other companies that can provide capabilities and funds for the development and commercialization of our product candidates. If we are unsuccessful in forming or maintaining these alliances on favorable terms, our business could be adversely affected.

Because we have limited or no internal capabilities for late-stage product development, manufacturing, sales, marketing and distribution, we have found it necessary to enter into alliances with other companies. For example, in 2012, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Daiichi Sankyo for the development and commercialization of CHS-0214 in Japan. For commercialization of our biosimilar product candidates in certain Caribbean and Latin American countries, we entered into an exclusive distribution arrangement with Orox in 2012. In the future, we may also find it necessary to form alliances or joint ventures with major pharmaceutical companies to jointly develop and/or commercialize specific biosimilar product candidates. In such alliances, we would expect our collaboration partners to provide substantial capabilities in clinical development, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, sales and marketing. We may not be successful in entering into any such alliances. Even if we do succeed in securing such alliances, we may not be able to maintain them if, for example, development or approval of a product candidate is delayed or sales of an approved product are disappointing. If we are unable to secure or maintain such alliances, we may not have the capabilities necessary to continue or complete development of our product candidates and bring them to market, which may have an adverse effect on our business.

In addition to product development and commercialization capabilities, we may depend on our alliances with other companies to provide substantial additional funding for development and potential commercialization of our product candidates. We may not be able to obtain funding on favorable terms from these alliances, and if we are not successful in doing so, we may not have sufficient funds to develop a particular product candidate internally or to bring product candidates to market. Failure to bring our product candidates to market will prevent us from generating sales revenue, and this may substantially harm our business. Furthermore, any delay in entering into these alliances could delay the development and commercialization of our product candidates, reduce their competitiveness even if they reach the market, and harm our business and operating results.

The commercial success of any current or future product candidate will depend upon the degree of market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community.

Even with the requisite approvals from the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend in part on the medical community, patients and third-party payors accepting our product candidates as medically useful, cost-effective and safe. Any product that we bring to the market may not gain market acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of any of our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on a number of factors, including:

45

Even if a potential product displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in nonclinical and clinical studies, market acceptance of the product will not be fully known until after it is launched and may be negatively affected by a potential poor safety experience and the track record of other biosimilar product candidates. Our efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of the product candidates may require significant resources, may be under-resourced compared to large well-funded pharmaceutical entities and may never be successful. If our product candidates are approved but fail to achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients, third-party payors and others in the medical community, we will not be able to generate sufficient revenue to become or remain profitable.

Policies and practices governing the naming of biosimilar product candidates are neither fully established nor fully harmonized and are subject to debate and change. Failure to achieve a non-proprietary name sufficiently close to the reference product or be competitively disadvantaged in this regard, could adversely affect the commercial performance of our biosimilar product candidate.

United States Adopted Name, and International Nonproprietary Names, or INN, two important bodies involved in nonproprietary nomenclature, have no policy for the naming of biosimilar product candidates, and products are named on a case-by-case basis. Non-glycosylated proteins can follow the approach established for small molecule generics, which is to retain the same non-proprietary name if it is synthesized by a different route provided the substance is the same. Glycosylated proteins from different sources are given distinct names, as these proteins are expected to differ in their glycosylation profile. The same approach is valid for all other modifications to the protein that can occur in a cell after the cell has finished making the protein. A system currently under discussion at the World Health Organization that would enable the clear definition of all Similar Biotherapeutic Proteins would include the INN of the reference product in the first part of the name, and some form of biological qualifier that could uniquely identify the substance. Currently the FDA and EMA have final authority regarding names in the United States and the E.U. respectively, and it is unclear how they will handle nonproprietary nomenclature in the future. However, if they adopt policies requiring non-proprietary names that are distinct from the reference product or chose to assign a competing biosimilar product candidate to a Coherus product with a lower degree of nomenclature distinction from the reference product, payors, providers and patients may be more hesitant to use our biosimilar product candidate, believing the difference in nomenclature to be indicative of an important difference in quality of function from the reference product or the competing biosimilar product candidate. If this were to occur, our business could be negatively affected.

The third-party coverage and reimbursement status of newly-approved products is uncertain. Failure to obtain or maintain adequate coverage and reimbursement for new or current products could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

Pricing, coverage and reimbursement of our biosimilar product candidates, if approved, may not be adequate to support our commercial infrastructure. Our per-patient prices may not be sufficient to recover our development and manufacturing costs and potentially achieve profitability. Accordingly, the availability and adequacy of coverage and reimbursement by governmental and private payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments such as ours, if approved. Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be paid for by health maintenance, managed care, pharmacy benefit and similar healthcare management organizations or reimbursed by government authorities, private health insurers and other third-party payors. If coverage and reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be adequate to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a return on our investment.

46

There is significant uncertainty related to third-party coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the United States, third-party payors, including private and governmental payors such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, play an important role in determining the extent to which new drugs and biologics will be covered and reimbursed. The Medicare program covers certain individuals aged 65 or older or those who are disabled or suffering from end-stage renal disease. The Medicaid program, which varies from state to state, covers certain individuals and families who have limited financial means. The Medicare and Medicaid programs increasingly are used as models for how private payors and other governmental payors develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. It is difficult to predict at this time what third-party payors will decide with respect to the coverage and reimbursement for our biosimilar product candidates, if approved. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for biologics exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for biologics can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the process for obtaining favorable coverage determinations often is time-consuming and costly and may require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be obtained. For example, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) issued a proposed Part B rule in the third quarter of 2015 on biosimilar payment and coding which requires that multiple biosimilars to the same reference product be grouped and issued the same J-code for Medicare reimbursement purposes and that the payment amount for a billing code that describes a biosimilar is based on the average sales price (ASP) of all biosimilar products that reference a common biological product’s license application. This reimbursement rule could potentially create greater pricing pressure for biosimilars reimbursed in the medical benefit (Part B) segment.  On October 30, 2015, CMS finalized the proposed rule, which clarifies that the payment amount for a biosimilar is based on the ASP of all National Drug Codes assigned to the biosimilars included within the same billing and payment code.

Outside the United States, pharmaceutical businesses are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations. 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 our product candidates. In many countries, the prices of medical products are subject to varying price control mechanisms as part of national health systems. Other countries allow companies to fix their own prices for medical products, but monitor and control company profits. Additional foreign price controls or other changes in pricing regulation could restrict the amount that we are able to charge for our product candidates. Accordingly, in markets outside the United States, the reimbursement for our products may be reduced compared with the United States and may be insufficient to generate commercially reasonable revenue and profits.

Increasing efforts by governmental and third-party payors in the United States and abroad to control healthcare costs may cause such organizations to limit both coverage and the level of reimbursement for new products approved and, as a result, they may not cover or provide adequate payment for our product candidates. While cost containment practices generally benefit biosimilars, severe cost containment practices may adversely affect our product sales. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any of our product candidates due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative changes.

Our biosimilar product candidates, if approved, could face price competition from other biosimilars of the same reference products for the same indication. This price competition could exceed our capacity to respond, detrimentally affecting our market share and revenue as well as adversely affecting the overall financial health and attractiveness of the market for the biosimilar.

We expect to enter highly competitive biosimilar markets. Successful competitors in the biosimilar market have the ability to effectively compete on price through payors and their third-party administrators who exert downward pricing pressure. It is possible our biosimilar competitors’ compliance with price discounting demands in exchange for market share could exceed our capacity to respond in kind and reduce market prices beyond our expectations. Such practices may limit our and our collaboration partners’ ability to increase market share and will also impact profitability.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

If we infringe or are alleged to infringe intellectual property rights of third parties, our business could be harmed. Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in large part on avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. There have been many lawsuits and other proceedings involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions and reexamination proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. As the pharmaceutical industry expands and more patents are issued, the risk increases that our product candidates may be subject to claims of infringement of the patent rights of third parties.

47

Our research, development and commercialization activities may infringe or otherwise violate or be claimed to infringe or otherwise violate patents owned or controlled by other parties. The companies that originated the products for which we intend to introduce biosimilar versions, such as Amgen, AbbVie Inc., or AbbVie, and Genentech, as well as other competitors (including other companies developing biosimilars) have developed, and are continuing to develop, worldwide patent portfolios of varying sizes and breadth, many of which are in fields relating to our business, and it may not always be clear to industry participants, including us, which patents cover various types of products or methods of use.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. We are aware of third-party patents or patent applications with claims, for example, to compositions, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. While we have conducted freedom to operate analyses with respect to our lead product candidates CHS-1701, CHS-0214 and CHS-1420, as well as our pipeline candidates, we cannot guarantee that any of our analyses are complete and thorough, nor can we be sure that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant or necessary to the commercialization of our product candidates. Moreover, because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications that may later result in issued patents covering our product candidates.  With respect to products we are evaluating for inclusion in our future biosimilar product pipeline, our freedom to operate analyses, including our research on the timing of potentially relevant patent expirations, are ongoing.

There may also be patent applications that have been filed but not published and if such applications issue as patents, they could be asserted against us. For example, in most cases, a patent filed today would not become known to industry participants for at least 18 months given patent rules applicable in most jurisdictions which do not require publication of patent applications until 18 months after filing.  Moreover, some U.S. patents may issue without any prior publication in cases where the patent applicant does not also make a foreign filing.  We may also face claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may have no deterrent effect. In addition, coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our product candidates, products or methods either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent or that the patent claims are invalid and/or unenforceable, and we may not be able to do this. Proving that a patent is invalid or unenforceable is difficult. For example, in the United States, proving invalidity requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Also in proceedings before courts in Europe, the burden of proving invalidity of the patent usually rests on the party alleging invalidity. Even if we are successful in these proceedings, we may incur substantial costs and the time and attention of our management and scientific personnel could be diverted in pursuing these proceedings, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, we may not have sufficient resources to bring these actions to a successful conclusion.

Third parties could bring claims against us that would cause us to incur substantial expenses and, if successful against us, could cause us to pay substantial monetary damages. Further, if a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced to stop or delay research, development, manufacturing or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. Ultimately, we could be prevented from commercializing a product or be forced to cease some aspect of our business operations, if, as a result of actual or threatened patent infringement claims, we are unable to enter into licenses on commercially acceptable terms or at all. If, as a result of patent infringement claims or to avoid potential claims, we choose or are required to seek licenses from third parties, these licenses may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Even if we are able to obtain a license, the license may obligate us to pay substantial license fees or royalties or both, and the rights granted to us might be nonexclusive, which could result in our competitors gaining access to the same intellectual property. Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would likely involve substantial litigation expense and would likely be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may, in addition to being blocked from the market, have to pay substantial monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

In addition to infringement claims against us, we may become a party to other patent litigation and other proceedings, including interference, IPR, derivation or post-grant proceedings declared or granted by the USPTO and similar proceedings in foreign countries, regarding intellectual property rights with respect to our current or future products. An unfavorable outcome in any such proceedings could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party or could cause us to lose valuable intellectual property rights. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, if any license is offered at all. Litigation or other proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may also become involved in disputes with others regarding the ownership of intellectual property rights. For example, we jointly develop intellectual property with certain parties, and disagreements may therefore arise as to the ownership of the intellectual property developed pursuant to these relationships. If we are unable to resolve these disputes, we could lose valuable intellectual property rights.  

48

AbbVie holds numerous patents and patent applications related to Humira, including certain patents on which we have filed IPR petitions.  Some of AbbVie’s patents may be successfully challenged, while others may withstand challenge.  AbbVie patents that we cannot avoid or successfully challenge will delay or prevent our ability, or a collaborator’s ability, to launch a Humira biosimilar until expiration of such patents, or earlier if third parties are able to successfully challenge such patents.  For example, if we are unable to successfully avoid or challenge certain AbbVie formulation patents, we may be unable to launch a Humira biosimilar until such formulation patents reach their expected expiration in 2022, or earlier if such patents are successfully challenged by third parties.  Similarly, if we are unable to successfully avoid or challenge certain AbbVie indication/dosage patents, such as AbbVie’s U.S. patent 8,889,135 covering 40 mg biweekly RA dosing, we may be unable to market a Humira biosimilar directed to such indications prior to expiration, or earlier if such patents are successfully challenged by third parties.  

On November 9, 2015 and December 7, 2015, we filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) in the United States Patent Office against three AbbVie patents:  U.S. patents 8,889,135 (Case No. IPR2016-00172, filed November 9, 2015) (or “‘135”); 9,017,680 (Case No. IPR2016-00188, filed December 7, 2015) (or “‘680”); and 9,073,987 (Case No. IPR2016-00189, filed December 7, 2015) (or “‘987”), all of which generally concern a 40 mg biweekly subcutaneous dosing regimen for treating rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”) with Humira® (Adalimumab).  This treatment regimen is referenced in the approved FDA label for Humira.  On May 9, 2016, we filed a petition for IPR of AbbVie U.S. patent 9,114,166 (Case No. IPR2016-01018) (or “‘166”) entitled “Formulation of Human Antibodies for Treating TNF-α Associated Disorders”.  The ‘166 patent generally concerns an isotonic formulation of TNF-α IgG1 antibody at a protein concentration of 50 mg/ml and pH of 4.0 to 8.0.  On January 31, 2017, we filed four petitions for IPR against AbbVie’s U.S. patent 9,085,619 (Case Nos. IPR2017-00822; IPR2017-00823; IPR2017-00826; and IPR2017-00827) (or “‘619”) entitled “Anti-TNF Antibody Formulations”.  Our IPR petitions against the ‘619 patent address certain aspects of the patent claims directed to pharmaceutical formulations of adalimumab that do not comprise a buffering system.  We expect the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (the “PTAB”) to decide whether to institute these IPR proceedings in August 2017. On March 2, 2017, we amended and refiled IPR2017-00826 and IPR2017-00827 to provide additional argument supporting our legal position (Case Nos. IPR2017-01009 and IPR2017-01008).

IPR filings, including ours, are a matter of public record and can be viewed at the USPTO PTAB website.  On May 17, 2016 and on June 13, 2016, the PTAB instituted each of our petitions for IPR of the ‘135 patent, the ‘680 patent and the ‘987 patent, respectively. An oral hearing on these three IPR proceedings was held on February 16, 2017, and we expect a final written decision from the PTAB on or before May 17, 2017 for the ‘135 IPR proceeding and on or before June 13, 2017 for the ‘680 and ‘987 IPR proceedings.  We note further that on December 29, 2015, Boehringer Ingelheim filed two IPRs against the ‘135 patent which the PTAB instituted in July 2016.  If we do not prevail in the IPR proceedings or in any subsequent litigation that may occur between us and AbbVie concerning AbbVie’s RA dosing patents, and if other parties are not successful in challenging the validity of these patents, we could be precluded from marketing a 40 mg biweekly subcutaneous dosage for RA until the expiration of AbbVie’s patents directed to this treatment regimen.  On November 7, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of our petition for IPR of the ‘166 patent; however, we and others may challenge this patent in future IPRs or in district court litigation. On December 2, 2016, we filed a request with the PTAB for rehearing of our ‘166 IPR petition.  The PTAB denied our request on February 2, 2017.  If the PTAB issues a final written decision upholding the validity of any or all of the claims of the ‘135, ‘680, ‘987, or ‘619 patents, the arguments we raised in those IPRs may not be used in district court litigation.  However, other biosimilar entities may be in a position to challenge the patents in IPRs or district court litigation, and we may assert certain other grounds of invalidity or unenforceability that are not available in IPR proceedings.  If the ‘166 patent is not invalidated and we are not successful in developing a formulation that does not infringe the ‘166 patent, or other potentially relevant patents of AbbVie, we may be precluded from marketing a biosimilar of adalimumab until the expiration of the ‘166 patent which we understand is August 2022.

Third parties may submit applications for patent term extensions in the United States or other jurisdictions where similar extensions are available and/or Supplementary Protection Certificates in the E.U. states (including Switzerland) seeking to extend certain patent protection which, if approved, may interfere with or delay the launch of one or more of our biosimilar products.

The cost to us of any patent litigation or other proceeding, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial. Patent litigation and other proceedings may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. The companies that originated the products for which we intend to introduce biosimilar versions, as well as other competitors (including other biosimilar companies) may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could impair our ability to compete in the marketplace.

So called “submarine” patents may be granted to our competitors that may significantly alter our launch timing expectations, reduce our projected market size, cause us to modify our product or process or block us from the market altogether.

The term “submarine” patent has been used in the pharmaceutical industry and in other industries to denote a patent issuing from an application that was not published, publically known or available prior to its grant. Submarine patents add substantial risk and

49

uncertainty to our business. Submarine patents may issue to our competitors covering our biosimilar product candidates or our pipeline candidates and thereby cause significant market entry delay, defeat our ability to market our products or cause us to abandon development and/or commercialization of a molecule.

Examples of submarine patents include Brockhaus, et al., U.S. patents 8,063,182 and 8,163,522 (controlled by Amgen), which are directed to the fusion protein in Enbrel. If challenges to the scope, validity or enforceability of the Brockhaus patents are not initiated, or, if initiated, are not successful, these patents, unless licensed to us by Amgen, will preclude our ability to introduce an etanercept (Enbrel) biosimilar product candidate in the U.S. market until at least 2029.

The issuance of one or more submarine patents may harm our business by causing substantial delays in our ability to introduce a biosimilar candidate into the U.S. market.

We may not identify relevant patents or may incorrectly interpret the relevance, scope or expiration of a patent which might adversely affect our ability to develop and market our products.

We cannot guarantee that any of our patent searches or analyses, including but not limited to the identification of relevant patents, the scope of patent claims or the expiration of relevant patents, are complete and thorough, nor can we be certain that we have identified each and every patent and pending application in the United States and abroad that is relevant to or necessary for the commercialization of our product candidates in any jurisdiction.

The scope of a patent claim is determined by an interpretation of the law, the written disclosure in a patent and the patent’s prosecution history. Our interpretation of the relevance or the scope of a patent or a pending application may be incorrect, which may negatively impact our ability to market our products or pipeline molecules. We may incorrectly determine that our products are not covered by a third party patent.

Many patents may cover a marketed product, including but not limited to the composition of the product, methods of use, formulations, cell line constructs, vectors, growth media, production processes and purification processes. The identification of all patents and their expiration dates relevant to the production and sale of an originator product is extraordinarily complex and requires sophisticated legal knowledge in the relevant jurisdiction. It may be impossible to identify all patents in all jurisdictions relevant to a marketed product. Our determination of the expiration date of any patent in the United States or abroad that we consider relevant may be incorrect which may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

Our failure to identify and correctly interpret relevant patents may negatively impact our ability to develop and market our products.

Although we are not currently involved in any federal district court patent litigation, we may be involved in lawsuits or IPR proceedings to protect or enforce our patents, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

We may discover that competitors are infringing our issued and pending patents. Expensive and time-consuming litigation may be required to abate such infringement. Although we are not currently involved in any litigation to enforce patents, if we or one of our collaboration partners, such as Daiichi Sankyo or Orox, were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including but not limited to lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone involved in the prosecution of the patent withheld relevant or material information related to the patentability of the invention from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if we cannot obtain a license from the prevailing party on commercially reasonable terms. Third parties may request an IPR of our patents in the USPTO. An unfavorable decision may result in the revocation of our patent or a limitation to the scope of the claims of our patents.  Our defense of litigation, interference or IPR proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. In addition, the uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

50

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during any litigation we initiate to enforce our patents. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock.

We may be subject to claims that our employees, consultants, or independent contractors have wrongfully used or disclosed confidential information of third parties or that our employees have wrongfully used or disclosed alleged trade secrets of their former employers.

We employ individuals, retain independent contractors and consultants and members on our board of directors or scientific advisory board who were previously employed at universities or other pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. For example, our Chief Executive Officer, Dennis M. Lanfear, and our Chief Technical Officer, Peter K. Watler, Ph.D., are former employees of Amgen. Our Chief Scientific Officer, Alan C. Herman, Ph.D., is a former employee of Amgen and Genentech. Mr. Lanfear and Drs. Watler and Herman were employed at Amgen during periods when Amgen’s operations included the development and commercialization of Neupogen, Neulasta and Enbrel. Our Chief Medical Officer, Barbara K. Finck, M.D., is a former employee of Immunex Corporation, or Immunex (the company that initially discovered the drug Enbrel and was later acquired by Amgen). Dr. Finck was involved in the clinical development of etanercept (Enbrel) while at Immunex and is a named inventor on at least four U.S. patents assigned to Amgen directed to the use of etanercept (Enbrel) for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Senior members of our commercial team who will be responsible for any launch of our Neulasta biosimilar formerly held positions at Amgen.  Our board of directors and scientific advisory board include members that were former employees of Genentech, Amgen and Abbott Laboratories. Although we try to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees or consultants have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of a former employer or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

On March 3, 2017, Amgen Inc. and Amgen USA Inc. filed an action against us, KBI BioPharma Inc., our employee Howard S. Weiser and Does 1-20 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura. The complaint alleges that we engaged in unfair competition and improperly solicited and hired certain former Amgen employees in order to acquire and access trade secrets and other confidential information belonging to Amgen.  The complaint alleges (i) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., (ii) misappropriation of trade secrets, (iii) breach of contract, (iv) violation of Penal Code Section 502, (v) breach of duty of loyalty, (vi) aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and (vii) tortious interference with contract, and seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain effective patent rights for our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may not be able to prevent competitors from using technologies we consider important in our successful development and commercialization of our product candidates, resulting in loss of any potential competitive advantage our patents may have otherwise afforded us.

While our principal focus in matters relating to intellectual property is to avoid infringing the valid and enforceable rights of third parties, we also rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect our own intellectual property related to our product candidates and development programs. Our ability to enjoy any competitive advantages afforded by our own intellectual property depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain patents and other intellectual property protection in the United States and in other countries with respect to various proprietary elements of our product candidates, such as, for example, our product formulations and processes for manufacturing our products and our ability to maintain and control the confidentiality of our trade secrets and confidential information critical to our business.

We have sought to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the United States and abroad related to our products that are important to our business. This process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. There is no guarantee that any patent application we file will result in an issued patent having claims that protect our products. Additionally, while the basic requirements for patentability are similar across jurisdictions, each jurisdiction has its own specific requirements for patentability. We cannot guarantee that we will obtain identical or similar patent protection covering our products in all jurisdictions where we file patent applications.

51

The patent positions of biopharmaceutical companies generally are highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which legal principles remain unresolved. As a result, the patent applications that we own or license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries for many reasons. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, considered or cited during patent prosecution, which can be used to invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue, and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patent claims being narrowed, found unenforceable or invalidated. Our patents and patent applications, even if they are unchallenged, may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competitors from using the technologies claimed in any patents issued to us, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

In addition, recent changes to the patent laws of the United States provide additional procedures for third parties to challenge the validity of issued patents based on patent applications filed after March 15, 2013. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold or pursue with respect to our current or future product candidates is challenged, then it could threaten our ability to prevent competitive products using our proprietary technology. Further, because patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time, typically for 18 months after filing, we cannot be certain that we were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our patents or patent applications. Furthermore, for applications filed before March 16, 2013 or patents issuing from such applications, an interference proceeding can be provoked by a third party or instituted by the USPTO to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications and patents. As of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications claiming the same invention are filed by different parties. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO before we do, could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. The change to “first-to-file” from “first-to-invent” is one of the changes to the patent laws of the United States resulting from the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the Leahy-Smith Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011. Among some of the other significant changes to the patent laws are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and provide opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. It is not yet 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.

Patents granted by the European Patent Office may be opposed by any person within nine months from the publication of their grant and, in addition, may be challenged before national courts at any time. If the breadth or strength of protection provided by the patents and patent applications we hold, license or pursue with respect to our product candidates is threatened, it could threaten our ability to prevent third parties from using the same technologies that we use in our product candidates.

We have issued patents and have filed patent applications, which are currently pending, covering various aspects of our product candidates. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened or infringed by third parties. Any successful actions by third parties to challenge the validity or enforceability of any patents which may issue to us could deprive us of the ability to prevent others from using the technologies claimed in such issued patents. Further, if we encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced.

While our business is based primarily on the timing of our biosimilar product launches to occur after the expiration of relevant patents, we have filed a number of patents covering our own proprietary formulations and processes for our product candidates when we have believed securing such patents may afford a competitive advantage. For example, the companies that originated Enbrel and Humira (Amgen and AbbVie, respectively) own patents directed to formulations for these products.  We have developed our own proprietary formulations for these products which we believe are not covered by valid, enforceable third party patents, including Amgen or AbbVie’s formulation patents, and we have filed patent applications covering our formulations, some of which have now issued in the U.S., namely U.S. patents 9,340,611; 9,340,612; 9,346,880; and 9,382,371, and others of which are currently pending in the U.S. and globally. We cannot guarantee that our proprietary formulations will avoid infringement of third party patents. Moreover, because competitors may be able to develop their own proprietary product formulations, it is uncertain whether any of our issued patents or pending patent applications directed to formulations of etanercept (Enbrel) and adalimumab (Humira) would cover the formulations of any competitors.  As in the case of formulations, originators have also filed patents directed to methods for manufacturing their products.  We have filed patent applications, currently pending, both in the U.S. and globally, directed to aspects of our manufacturing processes for CHS-0214 and CHS-1420.  We believe the proprietary technologies embodied in our process-related patent filings may provide us with competitive advantage and are not covered by valid, enforceable intellectual property rights of third party patents, including AbbVie and Amgen.  However, as in the case of our formulation patent filings, it is highly uncertain

52

and we cannot predict whether our patent filings on process enhancements will afford us a competitive advantage against third parties, and we cannot guarantee that the methods we use to manufacture our products will avoid infringement of third party patents.  

We do not consider it necessary for us or our competitors to obtain or maintain a proprietary patent position in order to engage in the business of biosimilar development and commercialization. Hence, while our ability to secure patent coverage on our own proprietary developments may improve our competitive position with respect to the product candidates we intend to commercialize, we do not view our own patent filings as a necessary or essential requirement for conducting our business nor do we rely on our own patent filings or the potential for any commercial advantage they may provide us as a basis for our success.

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

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent process. In many cases, an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

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

Filing, prosecuting, defending and enforcing patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Further, licensing partners may choose not to file patent applications in certain jurisdictions in which we may obtain commercial rights, thereby precluding the possibility of later obtaining patent protection in these countries. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States or importing products made using our inventions into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and may also export infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but the ability to enforce our patents is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our products and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions, whether or not successful, could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Governments of foreign countries may force us to license our patents to third parties on terms that are not commercially reasonable or acceptable to us. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Changes in U.S. patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

As is the case with other biopharmaceutical companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biopharmaceutical industry involves both technological and legal complexity. Therefore, obtaining and enforcing biopharmaceutical patents is costly, time consuming and inherently uncertain. In addition, the United States has recently enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Recent Supreme Court rulings have narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations.

In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents, once obtained. Depending on future actions by the United States Congress, the Federal Courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

53

If we are unable to maintain effective (non-patent) proprietary rights for our product candidates or any future product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

While we have filed patent applications to protect certain aspects of our own proprietary formulation and process developments, we also rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary scientific, business and technical information and know-how that is not or may not be patentable or that we elect not to patent. However, confidential information and trade secrets can be difficult to protect. Moreover, the information embodied in our trade secrets and confidential information may be independently and legitimately developed or discovered by third parties without any improper use of or reference to information or trade secrets. We seek to protect the scientific, technical and business information supporting our operations, as well as the confidential information relating specifically to our product candidates by entering into confidentiality agreements with parties to whom we need to disclose our confidential information, for example, our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, board members, contractors, potential collaborators and investors. However, we cannot be certain that such agreements have been entered into with all relevant parties. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems, but it is possible that these security measures could be breached. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. Our confidential information and trade secrets thus may become known by our competitors in ways we cannot prove or remedy.

Although we expect all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed. We cannot guarantee that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. For example, any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret. We cannot guarantee that our employees, former employees or consultants will not file patent applications claiming our inventions. Because of the “first-to-file” laws in the United States, such unauthorized patent application filings may defeat our attempts to obtain patents on our own inventions.

We may be subject to claims challenging the inventorship of our patent filings and other intellectual property.

Although we are not currently aware of any claims challenging the inventorship of our patent applications or ownership of our intellectual property, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an interest in our patent applications or patents we may be granted or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. For example, we may have inventorship or ownership disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of or right to use valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

If we fail to comply with our obligations in the agreements under which we license intellectual property and other rights from third parties or otherwise experience disruptions to our business relationships with our licensors, we could lose license rights that are important to our business.

We are a party to certain non-exclusive intellectual property license agreements with Genentech (pertaining to the production of monoclonal antibodies) and Selexis SA and other vendors (pertaining to cell lines for CHS-0214, CHS-1420 and CHS-5217) that are important to our business, and we expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our existing license agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose, various diligence, milestone payment, royalty and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements or we are subject to a bankruptcy, we may be required to make certain payments to the licensor, we may lose the exclusivity of our license or the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we would not be able to develop or market products covered by the license. Additionally, the milestone and other payments associated with these licenses will make it less profitable for us to develop our product candidates.

54

In the event we breach any of our obligations related to such agreements, we may incur significant liability to our licensing partners. Disputes may arise regarding intellectual property subject to a licensing agreement, including but not limited to:

If disputes over intellectual property and other rights 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 and that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to our product candidates through acquisitions and in-licenses.

We currently have rights to certain intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patent applications that we own, to develop CHS-0214 and CHS-1420. Because we may find that our programs 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 compositions, methods of use, processes or other third party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, financial resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities. In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment.

If we are unable to successfully obtain required third party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have, we may have to abandon development of that program and our business and financial condition could suffer.

Our ability to market our products in the United States may be significantly delayed or prevented by the BPCIA patent dispute resolution mechanism.

The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, Title VII, Subtitle A of the Patent Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L.No.111-148, 124 Stat.119, Sections 7001-02 signed into law March 23, 2010, and codified in 42 U.S.C. §262, or the BPCIA, created an elaborate and complex patent dispute resolution mechanism for biosimilars that, if we choose to implement it, could prevent us from launching our product candidates in the United States or could substantially delay such launches.  However, even if we elect not to implement this mechanism, the launch of our products in the United States could still be prevented or substantially delayed by intellectual property disputes with originator companies that market the reference products on which our biosimilar products are based.

The BPCIA establishes a patent disclosure and briefing process between the biosimilar applicant and the originator that is demanding and time-sensitive.  While certain aspects of this process are still being tested in the federal courts, the Federal Circuit, as discussed further below, recently ruled that this process is not mandatory, such that a biosimilar applicant may elect to engage in this process, but is not required to do so.  The following is an overview of the patent exchange and patent briefing procedures established by the BPCIA for biosimilar applicants that elect to employ them:

55

On July 21, 2015 the Federal Circuit court in litigation between Amgen and Sandoz ruled that the BPCIA patent exchange process is optional and that applicants that choose not to engage in it must comply with the BPCIA’s requirement to provide the originator 180 days prior notice of commercial marketing.  The court also ruled that such notice is not effective unless given after FDA licensure. Thus, biosimilar applicants that opt out of the BPCIA patent exchange process must wait at least 180 days after licensure to launch their biosimilar products.  On February 16, 2016 Sandoz filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to reverse the Federal Circuit court’s decision that the BPCIA 180-day pre-marketing notification can only be given after FDA has approved the biosimilar product.  On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court decided to review the Federal Court ruling in Amgen v. Sandoz as it pertains to (i) issues regarding whether the so-called “patent dance” is optional or mandatory; and (ii) issues regarding the 180-day pre-marketing notification, including whether the notice may be given prior to licensure of the biosimilar product.

On December 9, 2015, in litigation between Amgen and Apotex (Amgen v. Apotex, relating to Apotex’s biosimilar for Neulasta (pegfilgrastim)), the Florida District court ruled that although Apotex had engaged in the BPCIA patent exchange process voluntarily, it was nonetheless required to provide 180 days prior notice of commercial marketing to Amgen, and that it could only provide such notice upon regulatory approval.  Apotex appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit.  In July 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Florida District Court decision and if such decision is not overturned by the Supreme Court, all 351(k) biosimilar applicants will be required to refrain from launching an approved biosimilar product for 180 days following 351(k) regulatory approval, without regard to whether such applicants elected to participate in the BPCIA patent exchange process. On December 12, 2016, the Supreme Court declined to hear Amgen v. Apotex, however, on January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted Apotex leave to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court’s review of the Amgen v. Sandoz decision.

A significant legal risk for a biosimilar applicant that pursues regulatory approval under the 351(k) regulatory approval route, and also elects to engage in the above-described BPCIA patent exchange mechanism, is that the process could result in the initiation of patent infringement litigation prior to FDA approval of a 351(k) application, and such litigation could result in blocking the market entry of the biosimilar product.  However, even if biosimilar applicants opt out of the BPCIA patent exchange process, originators will still have the right to assert patent infringement as a basis to enjoin a biosimilar product launch.  Thus, whether or not we engage in

56

the BPCIA patent exchange process, there is risk that patent infringement litigation initiated by originators could prevent us indefinitely from launching our biosimilar products.

The legal and strategic considerations weighing for or against a decision to voluntarily engage in the BPCIA patent exchange process are complex and will differ on a product-by-product basis.  If we decide to engage in the BPCIA patent exchange process, preparing for and conducting the patent exchange, briefing and negotiation process outlined above will require extraordinarily sophisticated legal counseling and extensive planning, all under extremely tight deadlines. Moreover, it may be difficult for us to secure or retain such legal support if large, well-funded originators have already entered into engagements with highly qualified law firms or if the most highly qualified law firms choose not to represent biosimilar applicants due to their long standing relationships with originators.

Furthermore, we could be at a serious disadvantage in this process, as an originator company such as Amgen (in the case of CHS-1420 or CHS-0214) or AbbVie (in the case of CHS-1420) may be able to apply substantially greater legal and financial resources to this process than we could.

If we file a 351(k) regulatory approval application for one or more of our products, we may consider it necessary or advisable to adopt the strategy of selecting one or more patents of the originator to litigate in the above described BPCIA process (for example in steps 3 and 7, of the process, as outlined above), either to assert our non-infringement of such patents or to challenge their validity, or both; but we may ultimately not be successful in that strategy and could be prevented, indefinitely, from marketing the product in the United States.

Under the complex, and uncertain rules of the BPCIA patent provisions, coupled with the inherent uncertainty surrounding the legal interpretation of any originator patents that might be asserted against us in this new process, we see substantial risk that the BPCIA process may significantly delay or defeat our ability to market our products in the United States.

Risks Related to Our Business Operations

We may not be successful in our efforts to identify, develop or commercialize additional product candidates.

Although a substantial amount of our effort will focus on the continued clinical testing, potential approval and commercialization of our existing product candidates, the success of our business also depends upon our ability to identify, develop and commercialize additional product candidates. Research programs to identify new product candidates require substantial technical, financial and human resources. We may focus our efforts and resources on potential programs or product candidates that ultimately prove to be unsuccessful. Our development efforts may fail to yield additional product candidates suitable for clinical development and commercialization for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the following:

If any of these events occur, we may be forced to abandon our development efforts for a program or programs or we may not be able to identify, develop or commercialize additional product candidates, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and could potentially cause us to cease operations.

We incur significant increased costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to compliance initiatives. We may fail to comply with the rules that apply to public companies, including Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which could result in sanctions or other penalties that would harm our business.

We incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses as a public company, including costs resulting from public company reporting obligations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and regulations regarding corporate governance practices. The listing requirements of The NASDAQ Global Market require that we satisfy certain corporate governance requirements relating to director independence, distributing annual and interim reports, stockholder meetings, approvals

57

and voting, soliciting proxies, conflicts of interest and a code of conduct. Our management and other personnel must devote a substantial amount of time to ensure that we maintain compliance with all of these requirements. Moreover, the reporting requirements, rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time consuming and costly. Any changes we make to comply with these obligations may not be sufficient to allow us to satisfy our obligations as a public company on a timely basis, or at all. These reporting requirements, rules and regulations, coupled with the increase in potential litigation exposure associated with being a public company, may also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors or board committees or to serve as executive officers, or to obtain certain types of insurance, including directors’ and officers’ insurance, on acceptable terms.

We are subject to Section 404 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, and the related rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, which generally require our management and independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.  Under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or JOBS Act, we previously took advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404. Based on our non-affiliated market capitalization as of June 30, 2015, we ceased to be an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act and, therefore, are now required to include an opinion from our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting.

Stockholder activism, the current political environment and the current high level of government intervention and regulatory reform may also lead to substantial new regulations and disclosure obligations, which may lead to additional compliance costs and impact the manner in which we operate our business in ways we cannot currently anticipate. Our management and other personnel will need to devote a substantial amount of time to these compliance initiatives. Moreover, these rules and regulations will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time consuming and costly. For example, we expect these rules and regulations to make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance and we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain our current levels of such coverage.

We previously experienced a material weakness in our internal controls over financial reporting.

In connection with the audit of our financial statements from inception through December 31, 2013, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The material weakness related to a deficiency in the design and operating effectiveness of our internal control related to the valuation of complex securities.

We implemented changes to our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting to remediate the material weakness identified above. We strengthened the operation of our internal controls over the accounting for non-routine, complex equity transactions, including increasing the depth and experience within our accounting and finance organization, as well as designing and implementing improved processes and internal controls to identify such matters. We have hired additional personnel to build our financial management and reporting infrastructure, including the hiring of our Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance, in the third and fourth quarter of 2014, respectively.

Although we have taken steps that we believe have addressed the underlying causes of the material weakness described above and although no other material weakness have been identified to date, other material weaknesses or deficiencies in our control environment may be identified in the future and we may be unable to accurately report our financial results, or report them within the time frames required by law or exchange regulations.

Healthcare legislative reform measures may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be a number of legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, or together, the PPACA, was passed, which substantially changes the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The PPACA, among other things, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, adds a provision to increase the Medicaid rebate for line extensions or reformulated drugs, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs and promotes a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program. Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the PPACA in the future, particularly in light of the new presidential administration and U.S.

58

Congress. In addition, Congress could consider subsequent legislation to replace repealed elements of the PPACA. Further, on January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies with authorities and responsibilities under the PPACA to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision of the PPACA that would impose a fiscal or regulatory burden on states, individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices. At this time, the full effect that the PPACA, the Executive Order and any subsequent legislation would have on our business remains unclear.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the PPACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, created measures for spending reductions by Congress. A Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, tasked with recommending a targeted deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021, was unable to reach required goals, thereby triggering the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers up to 2% per fiscal year, which went into effect on April 1, 2013 and will stay in effect through 2024 unless additional Congressional action is taken. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed into law the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to certain providers, including physicians, hospitals and cancer treatment centers. We expect that additional state and federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures, such as a single reimbursement code for biosimilar products.

We may be subject, directly or indirectly, to federal and state healthcare laws, including fraud and abuse, false claims, physician payment transparency and health information privacy and security laws. If we are unable to comply or have not fully complied with such laws, we could face substantial penalties.

If we obtain FDA approval for any of our product candidates and begin commercializing those products in the United States, our operations may be directly or indirectly through our customers subject to various federal and state fraud and abuse laws, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act and physician sunshine laws and regulations. These laws may impact, among other things, our proposed sales, marketing and education programs. In addition, we may be subject to patient privacy regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. The laws that may affect our ability to operate include:

59

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. In addition, recent health care reform legislation has strengthened these laws. For example, the PPACA, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal anti-kickback and criminal healthcare fraud statutes. A person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it. Moreover, the PPACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from participation in government health care programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, imprisonment and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

The international aspects of our business expose us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States.

We currently have limited international operations of our own and have a number of international collaborations. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including but not limited to:

Sanctions against Russia, and Russia’s response to those sanctions, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Due to Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, the United States and the E.U. have imposed sanctions on certain individuals and one financial institution in Russia and have proposed the use of broader economic sanctions. In response, Russia has imposed entry bans on certain U.S. lawmakers and officials. Our wholly owned subsidiary, InteKrin Therapeutics, Inc., or InteKrin, which we acquired in February 2014 is majority owner of a Russian pharmaceutical development entity, ZAO InteKrin, which holds $312,000 of cash in Russian banks as of December 31, 2016. This Russian subsidiary of InteKrin conducts research and development activities for a product we acquired as part of our acquisition of InteKrin. The product is a small molecule peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor, or PPAR, gamma modulator that may hold promise in treatment of multiple sclerosis, or MS. While not a biosimilar, this PPAR gamma modulator compound may be complementary to biosimilar products for treatment of MS that we are currently evaluating for inclusion in our pipeline. If the United States and the E.U. were to impose sanctions on Russian businesses, or if Russia were to take retaliatory action against U.S. companies operating in Russia, our research and development activities related to the InteKrin PPAR gamma modulator product could be materially adversely affected.

60

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

Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and our manufacturers and suppliers are subject to laws and regulations governing the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of these hazardous materials. In some cases, these hazardous materials and various wastes resulting from their use are stored at our and our manufacturers’ facilities pending their use and disposal. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our commercialization efforts, research and development efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly cleanup and liabilities under applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, handling and disposal of these materials and specified waste products. Although we believe that the safety procedures utilized by us and our third-party manufacturers for handling and disposing of these materials generally comply with the standards prescribed by these laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that this is the case or eliminate the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials. In such an event, we may be held liable for any resulting damages and such liability could exceed our resources and state or federal or other applicable authorities may curtail our use of certain materials and/or interrupt our business operations. Furthermore, environmental laws and regulations are complex, change frequently and have tended to become more stringent. We cannot predict the impact of such changes and cannot be certain of our future compliance. We do not currently carry biological or hazardous waste insurance coverage.

We or the third parties upon whom we depend may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

Our corporate headquarters and laboratory are located in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Southern California (Camarillo), respectively, and one of our collaboration partners, Daiichi Sankyo, is located in Japan. These locations have in the past experienced severe earthquakes and other natural disasters. We do not carry earthquake insurance. Earthquakes or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations or those of our collaboration partners and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters, that damaged critical infrastructure (such as the manufacturing facilities of our third-party contract manufacturers) or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time. The disaster recovery and business continuity plans we have in place currently are limited and are unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile, and purchasers of our common stock could incur substantial losses.

The market price of our common stock has been highly volatile since our IPO and the intraday sales price per share has ranged from $12.04 to $38.10 per share during the period from November 6, 2014 through March 10, 2017 and could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to various factors, some of which are beyond our control. These factors include those discussed in the “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and others such as:

61

In addition, biopharmaceutical companies in particular have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance.

Our principal stockholders and management own a significant percentage of our stock and will be able to exert significant control over matters subject to stockholder approval.

As of December 31, 2016 our executive officers, directors, five percent stockholders and their affiliates beneficially owned approximately 60.5% of our voting stock (assuming no exercise of outstanding options or conversion of our outstanding convertible notes). These stockholders have the ability to influence us through their ownership positions, which may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our common stock that you may believe are in your best interest as one of our stockholders.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could cause our stock price to fall.

If our existing stockholders sell or indicate an intention to sell substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market after the lock-up and other legal restrictions on resale lapse, the market price of our common stock could decline. As of December 31, 2016, there were 45,808,163 shares of common stock outstanding. Of these shares, the shares of our common stock sold in our IPO and our follow-on offerings and pursuant to our at-the-market equity offering program are currently freely tradable, without restriction (except as otherwise applicable), in the public market.

62

In addition, as of December 31, 2016, approximately 11.7 million shares of common stock that are either subject to outstanding options or reserved for future issuance under our equity incentive plans were eligible or may become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting schedules and Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act. If these additional shares of common stock are sold or if it is perceived that they will be sold in the public market, the market price of our common stock could decline.

Future sales and issuances of our common stock or rights to purchase common stock, including pursuant to our equity incentive plans and convertible notes, could result in additional dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could cause our stock price to fall.

We will need additional capital in the future to continue our planned operations. To the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may experience substantial dilution. We may sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in one or more transactions at prices and in a manner we determine from time to time. If we sell common stock, convertible securities or other equity securities in more than one transaction, investors may be materially diluted by subsequent sales. These sales may also result in material dilution to our existing stockholders, and new investors could gain rights superior to our existing stockholders.

Pursuant to our 2014 Equity Incentive Award Plan, or the 2014 Plan, our management is authorized to grant stock options and other equity-based awards to our employees, directors and consultants. Under the 2014 Plan, the number of shares of our common stock initially reserved for issuance is 2,300,000 plus the number of shares remaining available for future awards under the 2010 Plan. The number of shares available for future grant under the 2014 Plan will be increased by (i) the number of shares pursuant to outstanding awards under the 2010 Plan that are forfeited or lapse unexercised and which following the effective date are not issued under the 2010 Plan and (ii) an annual increase on the first day of each fiscal year beginning in 2015 and ending in 2024, equal to 4% of the shares of stock outstanding as of the last day of the preceding fiscal year, or such smaller number of shares as determined by our board of directors. Pursuant to our 2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, or 2014 ESPP, eligible employees are able to acquire shares of our common stock at a discount to the prevailing market price, and an aggregate of 320,000 shares are initially available for issuance under the 2014 ESPP. The number of shares available for issuance under the 2014 ESPP will automatically increase on the first day of each fiscal year beginning in 2015 and ending in 2024, equal to 1% of the shares of common stock outstanding on the last day of the immediately preceding fiscal year or such smaller number of shares as determined by our board of directors. If our board of directors elects to increase the number of shares available for future grant under the 2014 Plan or the 2014 ESPP, our stockholders may experience additional dilution, which could cause our stock price to fall. Pursuant to our 2016 Employment Commencement Incentive Plan, or the 2016 Plan, our management is authorized to grant stock options and other equity-based awards to our new employees. The 2016 Plan is designed to comply with the inducement exemption contained in Nasdaq’s Rule 5635(c)(4), which provides for the grant of non-qualified stock options, restricted stock units, restricted stock awards, performance awards, dividend equivalents, deferred stock awards, deferred stock units, stock payment and stock appreciation rights to a person not previously an employee or director, or following a bona fide period of non-employment, as an inducement material to the individual’s entering into employment with us. We reserved for future issuance under the 2016 Plan a total of 1,000,000 share of common stock for new employees. The 2016 Plan does not provide for any annual increases in the number of shares available.

In February 2016, we issued and sold $100.0 million aggregate principal amount of our 8.2% senior convertible notes due March 2022. The holders may convert their convertible notes at their option at any time prior to the close of business on the business day immediately preceding March 31, 2022. Upon conversion of the convertible notes by a holder, the holder will receive shares of our common stock, together, if applicable, with cash in lieu of any fractional share. The initial conversion rate is 44.7387 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of convertible notes, which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $22.35 per share, and is subject to adjustment in certain events.

In October 2016, we entered into a Sales Agreement with Cowen under which we may offer and sell our common stock, having aggregate gross sale proceeds of up to $100.0 million, from time to time through an at-the-market equity offering program. In November 2016, December 2016 and January 2017, we sold 2,164,814 shares of common stock at a weighted average price of $28.10 per share. We received total gross proceeds from the ATM Offering Program of $60.8 million.

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

We have incurred substantial losses during our history and do not expect to become profitable in the near future, and we may never achieve profitability. To the extent that we continue to generate taxable losses, unused losses will carry forward to offset future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire. Under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if a corporation undergoes an “ownership change,” generally defined as a greater than 50 percentage point change (by value) in its equity ownership by certain stockholders over a three-year period, the corporation’s ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards, or NOLs, and other pre-change tax attributes (such as research tax credits) to offset its post-change

63

income or taxes may be limited. We have experienced ownership changes in the past and may experience ownership changes in the future as a result of shifts in our stock ownership (some of which shifts are outside our control). As a result, if we earn net taxable income, our ability to use our pre-change NOLs to offset such taxable income will be subject to limitations. Similar provisions of state tax law may also apply to limit our use of accumulated state tax attributes. In addition, at the state level, there may be periods during which the use of NOLs is suspended or otherwise limited, which could accelerate or permanently increase state taxes owed. As a result, even if we attain profitability, we may be unable to use a material portion of our NOLs and other tax attributes, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock so any returns will be limited to the value of our stock.

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently anticipate that we will retain future earnings for the development, operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate declaring or paying any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any return to stockholders will therefore be limited to the appreciation of their stock.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us or increase the cost of acquiring us, even if doing so would benefit our stockholders or remove our current management.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of us or changes in our management. Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and bylaws include provisions that:

These provisions, alone or together, could delay, deter or prevent hostile takeovers and changes in control or changes in our management.

In addition, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which limits the ability of stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock to merge or combine with us.

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

64

Not applicable.

Our headquarters are located in Redwood City, California, where we occupy office space under a lease that will expire in November 2022 with a five year renewal option. Our analytical and process development laboratories are located in Camarillo, California under a lease that expires in June 2019 with a three year renewal option.

We believe that our existing facilities are adequate for our current needs.  When our leases expire, or if we need to hire more employees, we may exercise our renewal option or look for additional or alternate space for our operations and we believe that suitable additional or alternative space will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

We are a party to the following legal proceedings:

On November 9, 2015 and December 7, 2015, we filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42, petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of AbbVie’s U.S. patents 8,889,135 (Case No. IPR2016-00172, filed November 9, 2015) (the “‘135”); 9,017,680 (Case No. IPR2016-00188, filed December 7, 2015) (the “‘680”); and 9,073,987 (Case No. IPR 2016-00189, filed December 7, 2015) (the “‘987”), each entitled “Methods of Administering Anti-TNFα Antibodies” and generally concern a 40 mg biweekly subcutaneous dosing regimen for treating rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”) with Humira® (Adalimumab). On May 17, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (“PTAB”) instituted our petition for IPR in the ‘135 patent. On June 13, 2016, the PTAB instituted our petitions for IPR in the ‘680 and ‘987 patents.  An oral hearing on the ‘135, ‘680, and ‘987 proceedings was held on February 16, 2017 and we expect a final written decision for the ‘135 IPR proceeding on or before May 17, 2017, and  for the ‘987 and ‘680 IPR proceedings on or before June 13, 2017.

On May 9, 2016, we filed a petition for IPR of AbbVie’s U.S. patent 9,114,166 (Case No. 2016-01018) (the “‘166”) entitled “Formulation of Human Antibodies for Treating TNF-α Associated Disorders”.  The ‘166 patent generally concerns an isotonic formulation of TNF-α IgG1 antibody at a protein concentration of 50 mg/ml and pH of 4.0 to 8.0. On November 7, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of our petition for IPR of the ‘166 patent. On December 2, 2016 we filed a request with the PTAB for rehearing of our ‘166 IPR petition.  The PTAB denied our request on February 2, 2017.

On January 31 2017, we filed four petitions for IPR against AbbVie’s U.S. patent 9,085,619 (Case Nos. IPR2017-00822; IPR2017-00823; IPR2017-00826; and IPR2017-00827) (the “‘619”) entitled “Anti-TNF Antibody Formulations”. Our IPR petitions against the ‘619 patent address certain aspects of the patent claims directed to pharmaceutical formulations of adalimumab that do not comprise a buffering system. We expect the PTAB to decide whether to institute these IPR proceedings in August 2017. On March 2, 2017, we amended and refiled IPR2017-00826 and IPR2017-00827 to provide additional argument supporting our legal position (Case Nos. IPR2017-01009 and IPR2017-01008).

On March 3, 2017, Amgen Inc. and Amgen USA Inc. filed an action against us, KBI BioPharma Inc., our employee Howard S. Weiser and Does 1-20 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura. The complaint alleges that we engaged in unfair competition and improperly solicited and hired certain former Amgen employees in order to acquire and access trade secrets and other confidential information belonging to Amgen.  The complaint alleges (i) unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., (ii) misappropriation of trade secrets, (iii) breach of contract, (iv) violation of Penal Code Section 502, (v) breach of duty of loyalty, (vi) aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and (vii) tortious interference with contract, and seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

We are not a party to any other material legal proceedings on the date of this report.

Not applicable.

65

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock has been listed on The NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “CHRS” since November 6, 2014. Prior to that there was no public trading market for our common stock. The following table details the quarterly high and low sales prices for our common stock as reported by The NASDAQ Global Market for CHRS from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016.

On February 28, 2017, the closing sale price of our common stock was $23.60.

Common Stockholders

As of February 28, 2017, there were approximately 45 stockholders of record of our common stock. The actual number of stockholders 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 other nominees. This number of holders of record also does not include stockholders whose shares may be held in trust by other entities.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Payment of cash dividends, if any, in the future will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on then-existing conditions, including our financial condition, operating results, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant. In February 2016, we entered into senior convertible notes which preclude the Company, directly or indirectly, to declare dividends so long as any of the notes are outstanding.

66

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph shows the total stockholder’s return on an investment of $100 in cash at market close on November 6, 2014 (the first day of trading of our common stock), through December 31, 2016 for (i) our common stock, (ii) the NASDAQ Composite Index and (iii) the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index. Pursuant to applicable Securities and Exchange Commission rules, all values assume reinvestment of the full amount of all dividends, however, no dividends have been declared on our common stock to date. The stockholder return shown on the graph below is not necessarily indicative of future performance, and we do not make or endorse any predictions as to future stockholder return. This graph shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language in any such filing.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Equity Securities

From January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, there were no sales or issuance of unregistered securities.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

We did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

67

You should read the following selected consolidated financial data together with the information under “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included in this Form 10-K. The consolidated statement of operations data for each of the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K. The selected consolidated statement of operations data for the year ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 are derived from our audited financial statements which are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Consolidated Statement of Operations Data:

68

Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:

69

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form-10-K, or Form 10-K. This Form 10-K, including the following sections, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. For a detailed discussion of these risks and uncertainties, see the “Risk Factors” section in Item 1A of this Form 10-K. We caution the reader not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect management’s analysis only as of the date of this Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements, which reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this Form 10-K.

Overview

We are a late-stage clinical biologics platform company focused on the global biosimilar market. Biosimilars are an emerging class of protein-based therapeutics with high similarity to approved originator products on the basis of various physicochemical and structural properties, as well as in terms of safety, purity and potency. Our goal is to become a global leader in the biosimilar market by leveraging our team’s collective expertise in key areas such as process science, analytical characterization, protein production and clinical-regulatory development.

Our clinical-stage biosimilar pipeline includes the following product candidates:

70

Our revenue to date has been generated primarily from collaboration and license payments pursuant to our license agreements with Daiichi Sankyo and Baxalta. We have not generated any commercial product revenue. We have incurred significant losses in the past and expect to incur significant and increasing losses in the foreseeable future as we advance our product candidates into later stages of development and, if approved, commercialization. Our net losses were $127.8 million, $223.9 million and $87.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, we had an accumulated deficit of $537.3 million.

In February 2016, we issued and sold $100.0 million aggregate principal amount of our 8.2% senior convertible notes due 2022 (the “Convertible Notes”). These Convertible Notes require quarterly interest distributions at a fixed coupon rate of 8.2% until maturity, redemption or conversion, which will be no later than March 31, 2022. If we fail to satisfy certain registration or reporting requirements, then additional interest will accrue on the Convertible Notes at a rate of up to 0.50% per annum in the aggregate. The holders of the Convertible Notes are Healthcare Royalty Partners III, L.P. and three of its related entities, which hold $75.0 million in aggregate principal amount, and three related party investors, KKR Biosimilar L.P., which holds $20.0 million, MX II Associates LLC, which holds $4.0 million, and KMG Capital Partners, LLC, which holds $1.0 million. The Convertible Notes are convertible into shares of common stock at an initial conversion rate of 44.7387 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of the Convertible Notes (equivalent to a conversion price of approximately $22.35 per share of common stock, representing a 60% premium over the average last reported sale price of our common stock over the 15 trading days preceding the date the Convertible Notes were issued), subject to adjustment in certain events. Upon conversion of the Convertible Notes by a holder, the holder will receive shares of our common stock, together, if applicable, with cash in lieu of any fractional share. After March 31, 2020, the full amount of the Convertible Notes not previously converted are redeemable for cash at our option if the last reported sale price per share of our common stock exceeds 160% of the conversion price on 20 or more trading days during the 30 consecutive trading days preceding the date on which we send notice of such redemption to the holders of the Convertible Notes. At maturity or redemption, if not earlier converted, we will pay 109% of the principal amount of the Convertible Notes, together with accrued and unpaid interest, in cash.

In January 2016, our shelf registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-208625), or the Shelf Registration Statement, was declared effective by the SEC. In May and June 2016, we drew 4,025,000 shares of common stock down from the Shelf Registration Statement and issued and sold 4,025,000 shares of common stock at a price of $18.00 per share. We received total gross proceeds from the offering of $72.5 million. After deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $3.0 million and offering expense of $0.5 million, the net proceeds to us were $69.0 million.

In October 2016, we entered into a sales agreement (the “Sales Agreement”) with Cowen and Company, LLC (“Cowen”) to sell shares of our common stock, with aggregate gross sale proceeds of up to $100.0 million, from time to time through an at-the-market equity offering program under which Cowen will act as our sales agent (the “ATM Offering Program”). Cowen is entitled to compensation for its services equal to 3.0% of the gross proceeds of any shares of common stock sold through Cowen under the Sales Agreement. The shares will be issued pursuant to our Shelf Registration Statement. We filed a prospectus supplement, dated October 28, 2016, with the SEC in connection with the offer and sale of the shares pursuant to the Sales Agreement. In November 2016, December 2016 and January 2017, we drew 2,164,814 shares of common stock down from the Shelf Registration Statement and issued and sold 2,164,814 shares of common stock at a weighted average price of $28.10 per share. We received total gross proceeds from the ATM Offering Program of $60.8 million. After deducting commissions of $1.8 million and offering expenses of $0.2 million, the net proceeds to us were $58.8 million.

In February and March 2017, we drew 5,294,902 shares of common stock down from the Shelf Registration Statement and issued and sold 5,294,902 shares of common stock at a price of $24.25 per share. We received total gross proceeds from the offering of $128.4 million. After deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $7.7 million and offering expense of $0.4 million, the net proceeds to us were $120.3 million.

Financial Operations Overview

Revenue

We have not generated any revenue from commercial product sales to date. Our revenue has been generated from license and collaboration agreements, which is composed of license payments and milestone and other contingent payments under our license agreements.

71

Research and Development Expenses

Research and development expenses represent costs incurred to conduct research, such as the discovery and development of our product candidates. We recognize all research and development costs as they are incurred. We currently track only the external research and development costs incurred for each of our product candidates. Our external research and development expenses consist primarily of:

Internal costs are associated with activities performed by our research and development organization and generally benefit multiple programs. These costs are not separately allocated by product candidate. Unallocated, internal research and development costs consist primarily of:

The largest component of our total operating expenses has historically been our investment in research and development activities, including the clinical development of our product candidates. We expect our research and development expenses to be similar or slightly lower in the future as our late-stage product candidates work through the regulatory approval process and we prepare for commercialization. Also, if we receive regulatory approval, a substantial portion of our future manufacturing costs will be capitalized as inventory and subsequently expensed as costs of goods sold when the inventory is sold.

The process of conducting the necessary clinical research to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time consuming. Furthermore, in the past we have entered into collaborations with third parties to participate in the development and commercialization of our product candidates, and we may enter into additional collaborations in the future. In situations in which third parties have substantial influence over the development activities for product candidates, the estimated completion dates are not fully under our control. For example, pursuant to our collaboration agreements with respect to CHS-0214, our partners in licensed territories may exert considerable influence on the regulatory filing process globally. Therefore, we cannot forecast with any degree of certainty the duration and completion costs of these or other current or future clinical trials of our product candidates. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. In addition, we may enter into other collaboration arrangements for our other product candidates, which could affect our development plans or capital requirements.

The following table summarizes our research and development expenses incurred during the respective periods:

72

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel costs, allocated facilities costs and other expenses for outside professional services, including legal, human resources, audit and accounting services. Personnel costs consist of salaries, benefits and stock-based compensation. If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval for commercial sale, we expect to incur significant additional expenses associated with the establishment of our sales force in the U.S., as we undertake commercial infrastructure initiatives to implement information technology systems, quality and compliance systems and personnel support for the commercial organization.

Interest Expense

Interest expense consists primarily of interest incurred on our outstanding indebtedness and non-cash interest related to the amortization of debt discount and debt issuance costs associated with our various debt agreements outstanding during the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2014.

Other Expense, Net

Other expense, net for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 consists primarily of losses resulting from the remeasurement of our contingent consideration and foreign exchange gains and losses resulting from currency fluctuations. Additionally, for the year ended December 31, 2014, other expense, net includes gains and losses resulting from the remeasurement of the fair value of our convertible preferred stock warrant liability, derivative liability associated with our convertible notes, and the gain on the extinguishment of our convertible notes issued in 2013. In November 2014, in connection with the closing of our IPO all of our outstanding warrants for convertible preferred stock were exercised, for cash or on a net basis, and the convertible preferred stock warrant liability was reclassified to equity. As such, we no longer record adjustments to reflect the remeasurement of the fair values. In March 2015, the contingent consideration related to the Earn-Out Payment was settled for shares and cash, and the contingent liability related to the Earn-Out Payment was reclassified to equity. As such, we ceased recording adjustments to reflect the remeasurement of the Earn-Out Payment to fair value.  We will still continue to record adjustments to the estimated fair value of our contingent consideration related to the Compound Transaction Payment until the contingency settles or expires.  

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles, or U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated 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 consolidated financial statements, as well as the reported revenue generated and expenses incurred during the reporting periods. On an on-going basis, we evaluate our critical accounting policies and estimates. Our estimates are based on our historical experience and on various other factors that we believe are reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying value of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; transfer of technology has been completed, services have been performed or products have been delivered; the fee is fixed and determinable; and collection is reasonably assured.

Our collaboration and license agreements may provide for reimbursement by our collaborators of a portion of our research and development expenses, and we make judgments that affect how these reimbursements are recorded. In collaborations where we and our partner are actively and jointly engaged in the research activities and for which both parties are sharing costs, amounts reimbursed by our partner are recognized as a reduction of research and development expense. For example, Daiichi Sankyo reimburses certain of our research and development costs in quarterly advance payments pursuant to the cost-sharing provision of our collaboration and license agreement with them. Because Daiichi Sankyo is an active participant in the research and development activities, we account for these reimbursements as reductions in our research and development expense when the applicable research and development activity has been performed. Under our prior agreement with Baxalta, on the other hand, we recognized reimbursement of our research and development expenses thereunder as revenue because Baxalta is not actively participating in research and development activities.

For revenue agreements with multiple-elements, we identify the deliverables included within the agreement and evaluate which deliverables represent separate units of accounting based on the achievement of certain criteria including whether the deliverable has stand-alone value to the collaborator. Upfront payments received in connection with licenses of our technology rights are deferred if facts and circumstances dictate that the license does not have stand-alone value and are recognized as license revenue over the estimated period of performance that is generally consistent with the terms of the research and development obligations contained in the specific collaboration and license agreement. We periodically review our estimated periods of performance based on the progress under each arrangement and account for the impact of any changes in estimated periods of performance on a prospective basis.

73

At the inception of each agreement that includes milestone payments, we evaluate whether each milestone is substantive and at risk to both parties on the basis of the contingent nature of the milestone. We evaluate factors such as the scientific, regulatory, commercial and other risks that must be overcome to achieve the respective milestone, the level of effort and investment required to achieve the respective milestone and whether the milestone consideration is reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement in making this assessment. Non-refundable payments that are contingent upon achievement of a substantive milestone are recognized in their entirety in the period in which the milestone is achieved, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met. Other contingent payments in which a portion of the milestone consideration is refundable or adjusts based on future performance or non-performance (e.g., through a penalty or claw-back provision) are not considered to relate solely to past performance, and therefore, not considered substantive. Amounts that are not recognized as revenue due to the uncertainty as to whether they will be retained or because they are expected to be refunded are recorded as a liability. We recognize non-substantive milestone payments over the remaining estimated period of performance once the milestone is achieved.

Contingent payments associated with the achievement of specific objectives in certain contracts that are not considered substantive because we do not contribute effort to the achievement of such milestones are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the objective, as long as there are no undelivered elements remaining and no continuing performance obligations by us, assuming all other revenue recognition criteria are met.

We also generate revenue from a Russian government contract.  The government contract is an agreement that provides us with payments for certain types of expenditures in return for research and development activities over a contractually defined period.  Revenue from the government contract is recognized as other revenue in the consolidated statement of operations in the period during which the related costs are incurred and the related services are rendered, provided that the funds received are not refundable and applicable conditions under the government contract have been met.  Funds received in advance are recorded as deferred revenue.

Accrued Research and Development Expenses

As part of the process of preparing financial statements, we are required to estimate and accrue expenses, the largest of which are research and development expenses. This process involves the following:

Examples of estimated research and development expenses that we accrue include:

We base our expense accruals related to clinical trials on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contracts with multiple research institutions and CROs that conduct and manage clinical trials on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. Payments under some of these contracts depend on factors, such as the successful enrollment of patients and the completion of clinical trial milestones. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed and the level of effort to be expended in each period. If we do not identify costs that we have begun to incur or if we underestimate or overestimate the level of services performed or the costs of these services, our actual expenses could differ from our estimates.

Due to the nature of these estimates, we cannot assure you that we will not make changes to our estimates in the future as we become aware of additional information about the status or conduct of our clinical trials and other research activities.

74

Derivative Liabilities

There were two contingent payments associated with the acquisition of InteKrin: (i) the completion of the first dosing of a human subject in the first Phase 2 clinical trial for InteKrin, or the Earn-Out Payment and (ii) upon the execution of any license, sublicense, development, collaboration, joint venture, partnering or similar agreement between us and the third-party, or the Compound Transaction Payment. The contingent consideration is accounted for as a liability and remeasured to estimated fair value as of each balance sheet date and the related remeasurement adjustment is recognized as other expense, net in the consolidated statement of operations through the date of settlement. We determined the fair value of the remaining contingent consideration associated with the Compound Transaction Payment using a probability-weighted discounted cash flow approach. A probability-weighted value was determined by summing the probability of achieving the contingent payment threshold by the respective contingent payment. The expected cash flows were discounted at a rate selected to capture the risk of achieving the contingent payment thresholds and earning the contingent payment. This risk is comprised of InteKrin’s continued development, a specific risk factor associated with meeting the contingent consideration threshold and related payout and counterparty risk associated with the payment of the contingent consideration.

Stock-Based Compensation

Common Stock Options

Stock-based compensation expense related to stock options granted to employees is measured at the date of grant, based on the estimated fair value of the award and recognized as an expense over the employee’s requisite service period on a straight-line basis. We estimate the grant date fair value and the resulting stock-based compensation expense using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model.

We account for stock-based compensation arrangements with non-employees using a fair value approach. The fair value of these options is measured using the Black-Scholes option pricing model reflecting the same assumptions as applied to employee options in each of the reported periods, other than the expected life, which is assumed to be the remaining contractual life of the option. The fair value of the unvested options under these arrangements is subject to remeasurement over the vesting terms as earned.

We recorded non-cash stock-based compensation expense related to options granted to employees and non-employees of $27.4 million, $16.7 million and $6.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The Black-Scholes option-pricing model requires the use of highly subjective assumptions which determine the fair value of stock-based awards. These assumptions include:

In addition to the Black-Scholes assumptions, we estimate our forfeiture rate based on an analysis of our actual forfeitures and will continue to evaluate the adequacy of the forfeiture rate based on actual forfeiture experience, analysis of employee turnover behavior and other factors. The impact from any forfeiture rate adjustment would be recognized in full in the period of adjustment and if the actual number of future forfeitures differs from our estimates, we might be required to record adjustments to stock-based compensation in future periods.

Historically, for all periods prior to our IPO, the fair values of the shares of common stock underlying our share-based awards were estimated on each grant date by our board of directors. In order to determine the fair value of our common stock underlying option grants, our board of directors considered, among other things, valuations of our common stock prepared by an unrelated third-party valuation firm in accordance with the guidance provided by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Practice Guide, Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation. Given the absence of a public trading market for our common stock, our board of directors exercised reasonable judgment and considered a number of objective and subjective factors to determine the best estimate of the fair value of our common stock, including our stage of development; progress of our research and development efforts; the rights, preferences and privileges of our preferred stock relative to those of our common stock; equity market conditions affecting comparable public companies; and the lack of marketability of our common stock.

75

Founders’ Shares

In October 2010 and January 2011, we issued 4,130,173 shares and 968,804 shares of common stock, respectively, at $0.0083 per share to our founders under the founder stock agreements. These founders’ shares are subject to a repurchase option in our favor that lapses over time subject to continued service. As such, we recorded stock-based compensation based on the fair value of the common stock on the date of issuance. One of the holders of the founders’ shares is a consultant, therefore the fair value of the consultant’s founder shares is measured using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model reflecting the same assumptions as applied to employee options in each of the reported years, other than the expected life, which is assumed to be the remaining contractual life of the vesting period. We recorded non-cash stock-based compensation expense related to the founders’ shares of $0, $9,000 and $1.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  As of December 31, 2016, there were no shares subject to repurchase.

Common Stock Warrants

In March 2014, we issued warrants to purchase 553,274 shares of common stock with an exercise price of $1.667 per share to two employees and a member of our board of directors in his capacity as a consultant to us for past services. We valued the warrants at $2.7 million using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model on the date of grant. Due to the immediate exercisability of the warrants upon issuance, we immediately recognized $1.3 million and $1.4 million in research and development expense and general and administrative expense, respectively, in the consolidated statement of operations. In connection with the closing of our IPO, all outstanding warrants for common stock were exercised on a net basis into 491,580 shares of common stock.

Income Taxes

We file U.S. federal and state income tax with varying statutes of limitations.  The tax years from 2011 forward remain open to examination due to the carryover of unused net operating losses and tax credits. To date, we have not been audited by the Internal Revenue Service or any state income tax authority.

We use the liability method of accounting for income taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on the differences between the financial reporting and the tax bases of assets and liabilities and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. We assess the likelihood that the resulting deferred tax assets will be realized. A valuation allowance is provided when it is more likely than not that some portion or all of a deferred tax asset will not be realized.

As of December 31, 2016, our total net deferred tax assets, net of gross deferred tax liabilities, were $177.8 million. Due to our lack of earnings history, the net deferred tax assets have been fully offset by a valuation allowance. The deferred tax assets were primarily comprised of federal and state tax net operating losses and tax credit carryforwards. Utilization of the net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards may be subject to an annual limitation due to historical or future ownership percentage change rules provided by the Internal Review Code of 1986, and similar state provisions. The annual limitation may result in the expiration of certain net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards before their utilization.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which amends the existing accounting standards for revenue recognition. Subsequently, the FASB has issued the following standards related to ASU 2014-09: ASU No. 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations; ASU No. 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing; and ASU No. 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients. We must adopt ASU 2016-08, ASU 2016-10 and ASU 2016-12 with ASU 2014-09 (collectively, the “new revenue standard”) which is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017 and early adoption is permitted.

The new revenue standard permits two methods of adoption: retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented (full retrospective method), or retrospectively with the cumulative effect of initially applying the guidance recognized at the date of initial application (the modified retrospective method). We plan to adopt the standard in the first quarter of 2018 using the modified retrospective method.  We have evaluated our contracts and assessed that our license agreement with Daiichi Sankyo is the only contract that would be impacted by the new revenue standard, and we are currently evaluating the materiality that this contract may have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.  

In August 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15, Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. ASU 2014-15 is effective for our annual reporting period ending December 31, 2016 and all annual and interim

76

reporting periods thereafter. ASU 2014-15 aligns the interpretation of substantial doubt with the definition of “probable” pursuant to ASC 450, Contingencies, meaning that a company’s inability to meet obligations as they come due within one year after the issuance date must be likely to occur. If substantial doubt exists, we are required to disclose as such and to assess whether our plans will or will not alleviate substantial doubt, the results of such assessment determines other specific disclosure requirements. We adopted this standard in the fourth quarter of 2016, performed the requisite analysis and determined that no additional disclosures are necessary.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. ASU 2016-01 makes amendments to the classification and measurement of financial instruments and revises the accounting related to: (1) the classification and measurement of investments in equity securities, and (2) the presentation of certain fair value changes for financial liabilities measured at fair value. In addition, the update also amends certain disclosure requirements associated with the fair value of financial instruments. ASU 2016-01 is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods during the year ending December 31, 2018, and all annual and interim reporting periods thereafter. Early adoptions of certain amendments within the update are permitted.  We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-01 will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases. ASU 2016-02 is aimed at making leasing activities more transparent and comparable, and requires substantially that all leases be recognized by lessees on their balance sheet as a right-of-use asset and corresponding lease liability, including leases currently accounted for as operating leases. ASU 2016-02 is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods during the year ending December 31, 2019, and all annual and interim reporting periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-02 will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09, Compensation-Stock Compensation: Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. ASU 2016-09 simplifies several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions, including: (1) the income tax consequences, (2) classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and (3) classification on the statement of cash flows. ASU 2016-09 is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods beginning January 1, 2017, and all annual and interim reporting periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-09 will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows: Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments (ASU 2016-15). The amendment to this update addresses eight specific cash flow issues with the objective of reducing the existing diversity in practice. ASU 2016-15 is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods during the year ending December 31, 2018, and all annual and interim reporting periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-15 will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-16, Income Taxes: Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory (ASU 2016-16). This update is to improve the accounting for the income tax consequences of intra-entity transfers of assets other than inventory. ASU 2016-16 amends the guidance to recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory when the transfer occurs. Consequently, the amendments in this update eliminate the exception for an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory. The amendments in this update do not include new disclosure requirements; however, existing disclosure requirements might be applicable when accounting for the current and deferred income taxes for an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory. ASU 2016-16 is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods during the year ending December 31, 2018, and all annual and interim reporting periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-16 will have on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other: Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment (ASU 2017-04), which is to simplify the current requirements for testing goodwill for impairment by eliminating the second step of the two-step impairment test to measure the amount of an impairment loss. ASU 2017-04 is effective for our interim and annual reporting periods during the year ending December 31, 2020, and all annual and interim reporting periods thereafter. Early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2017-04 will have on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

As of January 1, 2016, we adopted ASU 2015-03, Simplifying the Presentation of Debt Issuance Costs, that requires debt issuance costs related to a recognized debt liability to be presented in the consolidated balance sheet as a direct deduction from the carrying amount of that debt liability, consistent with debt discounts. This ASU 2015-03 requires retrospective application. ASU 2015-03 is limited to the presentation of debt issuance costs applied retrospectively to all prior periods presented in the consolidated financial statements and does not affect the recognition and measurement of debt issuance costs.

77

We have reviewed other recent accounting pronouncements and concluded they are either not applicable to the business or that no material effect is expected on the consolidated financial statements as a result of future adoptions.

Results of Operations

Comparison of Years Ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014

Revenue