IDEAYA Biosciences, Inc. - Annual Report: 2021 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number 001-38915

IDEAYA Biosciences, Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (650) 443-6209

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on The NASDAQ Stock Market on June 30, 2021, was $629.1 million. Shares of common stock held by each executive officer and director and by each other person who may be deemed to be an affiliate of the registrant, have been excluded from this computation. The determination of affiliate status for this purpose is not necessarily a conclusive determination for other purposes.

As of March 14, 2022, the registrant had 38,627,222 shares of common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement relating to the 2022 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated herein by reference in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. The proxy statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Form 10-K, including statements regarding our future results of operations and financial position, business strategy, prospective products, product approvals, research and development costs, timing and likelihood of success, plans and objectives of management for future operations and future results of anticipated products, are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “project,” “contemplate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions described under the sections in this Annual Report on Form 10-K entitled “Risk Factors” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These forward-looking statements are subject to numerous risks, including, without limitation, the following:

ii

Moreover, we operate in an evolving environment. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties.

Because forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not occur or be achieved, and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

Summary of Principal Risks Associated with Our Business

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those described in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should carefully consider these risks and uncertainties when investing in our securities. The principal risks and uncertainties affecting our business include the following:

iii

iv

PART I

Item 1. Business.  

Company Overview

We are a synthetic lethality-focused precision medicine oncology company committed to the discovery and development of targeted therapeutics for patient populations selected using molecular diagnostics. Our approach integrates small molecule drug discovery with extensive capabilities in identifying and validating translational biomarkers to develop targeted therapies for select patient populations most likely to benefit. We are applying these capabilities to develop a robust pipeline in precision medicine oncology, with a research and development focus in synthetic lethality—which represents an emerging class of precision medicine targets.

We believe synthetic lethality, as an emerging class of precision medicine, represents one of the most exciting, potentially impactful new areas of development in oncology, and we are investing a significant portion of our resources to become a leader in this emerging field.  We are establishing a broad pipeline of clinical and preclinical programs directed to synthetic lethality targets.  We are also investing in and enhancing our capabilities for identification and validation of new synthetic lethality targets. For targets of interest, we plan to discover therapeutic drugs and relevant biomarkers.

Our most advanced synthetic lethality product candidate is IDE397, a clinical-stage methionine adenosyltransferase 2a, or MAT2A, inhibitor for patients with solid tumors having methylthioadenosine phosphorylase, or MTAP, deletions – a patient population estimated to represent approximately 15% of solid tumors.  We are enrolling patients into a Phase 1 clinical trial designated as IDE397-001 to evaluate IDE397 under an investigational new drug application, or IND.  We are leading research and development of IDE397 through early clinical development, in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline pursuant to the Collaboration, Option and License Agreement, or the GSK Collaboration Agreement, with an affiliate of GlaxoSmithKline, GLAXOSMITHKLINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (NO. 4), Limited, or GSK.  

We are currently enrolling patients having tumors with MTAP deletion into Cohort 6 of the dose escalation portion of the IDE397 Phase 1 clinical trial.  We have completed enrollment in Cohorts 1 through 5 without observing a dose limiting toxicity, or DLT, during the DLT window that begins following the first dose of IDE397. As considered across evaluated cohorts, we observed dose-proportional pharmacokinetic exposures and robust, dose- and/or exposure-dependent pharmacodynamic modulation of S-adenosyl methionine, or SAM, in plasma samples and of symmetric dimethyl arginine, or SDMA, in tumor biopsy samples.      

We have several preclinical synthetic lethality research programs in our pipeline advancing toward the clinic. We are targeting poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase, or PARG, for patients having tumors with a defined biomarker based on genetic mutations and/or molecular signatures.   We own or control all commercial rights in our PARG program.  We are targeting DNA Polymerase Theta, or Pol Theta or POLQ, in collaboration with GSK, for solid tumors with homologous recombination deficiency, or HRD, including BRCA mutations.  We are also targeting Werner Helicase, or WRN, in collaboration with GSK, in tumors with high microsatellite instability, or MSI high.  Additionally, we have multiple wholly-owned early preclinical research programs targeting MTAP synthetic lethality, or MTAP-SL, target distinct DNA Damage Targets, or DDTs, for patients with solid tumors characterized by a proprietary biomarker or a gene signature.  

Another clinical-stage product candidate, darovasertib or IDE196, is a protein kinase C, or PKC, inhibitor that we are evaluating as a synthetic lethal combination therapy in patients having genetically-defined cancers having GNAQ or GNA11 gene mutations.  Darovasertib, which we in-licensed from Novartis, is being clinically evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial designated as IDE196-001. Our current clinical strategy includes evaluation of darovasertib in metastatic uveal melanoma, or MUM patients, adjuvant primary uveal melanoma, or UM patients, and in skin melanoma patients having tumors with GNAQ or GNA11, or GNAQ/11, mutations.  

We are evaluating darovasertib in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in combination with crizotinib, an investigational cMET inhibitor, pursuant to our Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement, or Pfizer Agreement, with Pfizer in MUM and in skin melanoma patients having tumors with GNAQ/11 mutations.  We have expanded our relationship with Pfizer. Subject to FDA guidance, we will evaluate darovasertib and Pfizer’s cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, as a combination therapy in MUM in a Phase 2 potentially registration-enabling clinical trial pursuant to a second Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement, or the Second Pfizer Agreement. We also plan to evaluate, subject to preclinical validation, darovasertib and Pfizer’s cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, as a combination therapy in other cMET-driven tumors such as non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, and/or in hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC, in a Phase 1 clinical trial pursuant to a third Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement, or the Third Pfizer Agreement, or collectively with the Pfizer Agreement and the

1

Second Pfizer Agreement, the Pfizer Agreements. We are planning to initiate evaluation of darovasertib in adjuvant UM patients through an investigator sponsor clinical trial, or IST.

We are preclinically evaluating potential expansion opportunities in oncology for darovasertib, including in combination with a cMET inhibitor in certain cMET-driven solid tumors, and in combination with a KRAS inhibitor in certain KRAS-driven solid tumors. In addition, we are exploring potential expansion opportunities in GNAQ/11 rare diseases, such as Sturge Weber Syndrome, or SWS, and Port Wine Stain, or PWS.

We have assembled a team of cancer biologists, drug discovery chemists, translational biologists and drug development professionals with broad experience at leading oncology organizations. Our team is led by our Chief Executive Officer, Yujiro S Hata.  We are also guided by a renowned scientific advisory board made up of key scientific and clinical thought leaders.    

Strategy

Our objective is to develop and commercialize innovative precision medicine drugs that indirectly or directly target the genetic drivers of cancer in order to provide therapies for defined patient populations. The principal components of our strategy are to:

2

Pipeline

We are applying our capabilities and approach to develop a portfolio of targeted therapeutics for defined patient populations, with a focus in synthetic lethality.  

Our precision medicine pipeline includes clinical-stage assets IDE397, a MAT2A inhibitor being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with solid tumors having MTAP deletion, and darovasertib, a PKC inhibitor being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients harboring certain GNAQ/11 mutations.   Our pipeline also includes preclinical research programs directed to synthetic lethality targets PARG, Pol Theta, Werner Helicase, and certain DNA Damage Targets, the profiles of which are summarized below. All data and the status of each program are as of March 1, 2022, unless otherwise noted.

IDE397 (MTAP Gene Deletion)

PARG Program (Defined Biomarker)

3

Pol Theta Program (HRD, including BRCA)

WRN Program (MSI-High)

DNA Damage Targets (Defined Biomarkers)

Synthetic Lethality Target and Biomarker Discovery Platform

Darovasertib (GNAQ or GNA11 Mutations)

4

Therapies Based on Synthetic Lethality

Synthetic Lethality Pipeline Overview

We are actively pursuing the discovery and development of small molecule inhibitors of selected targets based on synthetic lethality. Our pipeline in synthetic lethality comprises our clinical stage product candidate, IDE397, and multiple preclinical programs targeting PARG, Pol Theta, Werner Helicase and DNA Damage Targets, designated as DDT1 and DDT2.  Our synthetic lethality pipeline is complemented by a robust target and biomarker discovery platform. For each synthetic lethality target, we are simultaneously pursuing identification and validation of both therapeutic and tumor-associated biomarker(s) for patient selection.

In addition to these programs, we are actively identifying and validating novel synthetic lethality targets through our internal research as well as through collaborations with academic and clinical institutions, including the University of California, San Diego, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, or Broad Institute, and Cancer Research UK.

Scientific Rationale

Synthetic lethality is emerging as an important therapeutic paradigm in the treatment of cancer. It was first defined by Calvin Bridges in 1922 based on the observation that certain combinations of gene mutations resulted in lethality despite the fact the single mutations in either gene were viable.

Cancer cells often contain genetic changes that lead to alterations in pathways such as DNA repair and metabolism. These changes endow the cancer cells with certain properties such as the ability to replicate by bypassing normal control mechanisms. However, removing these important regulators of cell function may also make these cancer cells more dependent on backup pathways that can then be targeted to achieve a therapeutic effect. We are using small molecule inhibitors against targets in DNA damage repair, or DDR, pathways or in tumor metabolism pathways, that have potentially less effects on the viability of normal cells, but are designed to result in lethality in cancer cells having specific underlying genetic alterations. Cancer targets based on synthetic lethality are ideal for precision medicine approaches because each product candidate inherently has a tumor-associated genetic biomarker to facilitate patient selection.

MAT2A Inhibitors in Tumors Containing MTAP Deletion

Our most advanced synthetic lethality product candidate is IDE397, a clinical stage MAT2A inhibitor for patients with solid tumors having MTAP deletions.

MTAP-null cells lack the ability to metabolize 5-methylthioadenosine, or MTA, which is an essential step in a biochemical pathway involved in salvaging metabolite S-adenosyl methionine, or SAM. Increased levels of MTA partially inhibit the methyltransferase PRMT5 for which SAM is the methyl-donor substrate for methylation of various proteins. This partial inhibition of PRMT5 by increased levels of MTA renders MTAP-null cells more dependent on the activity of methionine adenosyltransferase II alpha or MAT2A, an enzyme that is responsible for the synthesis of SAM. Because of this enhanced dependence, loss of MTAP results in synthetic lethality when MAT2A is pharmacologically inhibited.

5

The prevalence of MTAP deletions is estimated to be approximately 15% of all human tumors, translating to an estimated addressable population in major market countries, consisting of the US, EU5 (composed of Germany, Italy, Spain, France and the UK) and Japan, for patients having solid tumors with MTAP deletion to be approximately 75,000 annually.  In China, the estimated addressable population for esophageal cancer with MTAP deletion is about 30,000 annually, and for non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, with MTAP deletion is about 20,000 annually.

We are leading development of IDE397 through early clinical development, in collaboration with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.  Our initial clinical development plans to evaluate IDE397 include the ongoing dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial.  We are enrolling patients having solid tumors with MTAP deletion identified by commercial or institutional next generation sequencing, or NGS, panels or by MTAP immunohistochemistry, or IHC, assay with confirmation by NGS.  

We are currently enrolling patients into Cohort 6 of the dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial.  As of March 1, 2022, we have enrolled an aggregate total of 16 patients in the Phase 1 IDE397 clinical.  These patients collectively have various solid tumor types with MTAP-deletion, including NSCLC, pancreatic cancer, thymic cancer, adenoid cystic carcinoma, gastroesophageal cancer, and bladder cancer. As of March 1, 2022, IDE397 has been generally well tolerated with mainly Grade 1/2 drug-related adverse events, and one patient who experienced drug-related Grade 3 asthenia that resolved after reducing the dose of IDE397. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events, or SAEs, no observed DLTs, and IDE397 had not yet reached its MTD.

Subject to satisfactory completion of the dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial, we plan to enroll patients having solid tumors with MTAP deletion into one or more monotherapy expansion arms focused on one or more selected solid tumor indications. We also plan to evaluate IDE397 in combination with one or more combination agents in patients having tumors with MTAP-deletion. Potential solid tumors we are considering for future evaluation in one or more expansion arm(s) and/or combination arm(s) of the clinical trial evaluating IDE397 include NSCLC, head and neck cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer and esophagogastric cancer, among others.

We have submitted a protocol amendment to the FDA to support cohort expansion as monotherapy in NSCLC, esophagogastric cancer, and other indications, including potentially in one or more basket cohorts. This amendment will also support evaluation of IDE397 combination therapies with taxanes and other potential combination agents, for example, in NSCLC, esophagogastric and/or pancreatic cancer.

We are obtaining patient biopsies from the dose escalation and expansion portions of the clinical trial for translational research, including evaluation of certain pharmacodynamic biomarkers, such as peripheral or plasma SAM, tumor SAM, and SDMA.

We observed dose-proportional pharmacokinetic exposures across dose ranges of Cohort 1 through Cohort 5 of the Phase 1 dose escalation.  The observed exposures at doses of Cohort 4 and Cohort 5 exceeded active exposure targets established from preclinical models.

We observed preliminary clinical activity with monotherapy in early dose escalation cohorts, including pharmacodynamic response in plasma SAM, modulation of tumor SDMA, and tumor size reductions in multiple patients with MTAP deleted advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

We observed a dose- and/or exposure-dependent pharmacodynamic modulation, reflected as a reduction in plasma SAM, a proximal pharmacodynamic marker, in evaluable plasma samples across dose ranges of Cohort 1 through Cohort 5 of the IDE397 Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial, satisfying the clinical protocol threshold of approximately 60% or greater. The clinical protocol threshold was established based on IDE397 preclinical in vivo efficacy data in MTAP-deletion xenograft models.  

We have obtained tumor biopsy cohorts in the IDE397 Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate tumor pharmacodynamic biomarkers, including SDMA. We observed robust, dose- and/or exposure-dependent pharmacodynamic modulation of symmetric dimethyl arginine, or SDMA, in evaluable tumor biopsies from Cohort 4 and Cohort 5.  In an interim analysis, IDE397 showed exposure-dependent reduction of SDMA in target tumor types – including in biopsies from patients having pancreatic cancer (Cohorts 3 and 4) and NSCLC (Cohort 5). Treatment with IDE397 in a Cohort 5 patient resulted in a 95% reduction of tumor SDMA in NSCLC as measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) score.  

6

We also observed tumor shrinkage in multiple patients in early dose escalation Cohorts 2 and 3 (n=3, n=2, respectively), including in a Cohort 2 NSCLC patient (~15% reduction in target lesions) and in a Cohort 3 adenoid cystic carcinoma patient with a lung metastasis (~11% reduction in target lesions), pursuant to RECIST v1.1 criteria.

We are leading research and development of IDE397 through early clinical development, in collaboration with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.  Following initiation of an expansion cohort or establishing a MTD, we plan to submit an option data package to GSK, which would trigger an evaluation period for GSK to make a decision on whether to exercise its option to develop IDE397. The GSK option is exercisable within a certain period after we deliver a data package comprising preclinical data and clinical data from the IDE397 monotherapy dose escalation study of the Phase 1 clinical trial, including safety and tolerability data, pharmacokinetic data and pharmacodynamic modulation of SAM and tumor SDMA.  Subject to GSK’s election to opt‐in and, if required, HSR clearance, we are entitled to receive a $50 million opt‐in payment from GSK.

If GSK exercises its option and makes the related $50 million payment to us, GSK would lead later-stage global clinical development. We will be responsible for 20% of future development costs and GSK will be responsible for 80%. Assuming GSK decides to exercise the option, we will be eligible to receive future development and regulatory milestones of up to $465 million.  If GSK decides to exercise its option and upon commercialization, we will also be entitled to receive 50% of U.S. net profits and tiered royalties on global non-U.S. net sales ranging from high single digit to sub-teen double digit percentages, as well as certain commercial milestones of up to $475 million.

Our evaluation of IDE397 as a clinical candidate is supported by preclinical data.  We have evaluated the efficacy of IDE397 as monotherapy in over forty solid tumor patient derived xenograft, or PDX, models with homozygous MTAP deletions. Results of this IDE397 MTAP-deletion PDX panel study were reported at AACR 2021 and showed in vivo efficacy in multiple MTAP-null xenograft models demonstrating tumor growth inhibition, or TGI, when MAT2A was pharmacologically inhibited with IDE397 as monotherapy. In this study, we observed greater than 60% tumor growth inhibition, or TGI, in approximately 75% of the models and greater than 75% TGI in approximately 50% of models, in each case across major solid tumor types. We also observed tumor regressions, with greater than 100% TGI, in multiple PDX models and across multiple solid tumor types, including in NSCLC as well as in bladder and gastric cancer PDX models.

In NSCLC, data from the preclinical PDX panel study has shown > 60% TGI in 12 independent NSCLC PDX models out of 14 models evaluated, including in seven NSCLC adenocarcinoma PDX models out of nine evaluated and in five NSCLC squamous carcinoma PDX models out of five evaluated. Tumor regressions were observed in three of five NSCLC squamous PDX models, including a complete response in one model.

We observed preclinical in vivo efficacy of IDE397 plus standard-of-care combination agents, including with paclitaxel in head and neck cancer.  Additional preclinical combination tolerability and efficacy studies are ongoing, in collaboration with GSK, to evaluate IDE397 in combination with potential oncology agents.

Additionally, we have observed preclinical dose-dependent modulation of selected pharmacodynamic biomarkers, including SDMA, ADMA and SAM, in these in vivo models, including in NSCLC and HCT-116 MTAP deletion CDX models.  We also observed a correlation of in vivo efficacy with dose-dependent PD modulation in MTAP-deletion CDX model in NSCLC.  We have ongoing mechanistic studies, including evaluating various pathway constituents such as SAM, MTA, SDMA, ADMA and other downstream metabolic and gene expression changes in in vitro and in vivo models.

Through our participation in the DepMap (Cancer Dependency Map) consortium led by the Broad Institute, and in collaboration with GSK, we have conducted a PRISM screen of a panel of over 800 cell lines for pharmacological sensitivity to IDE397.  This PRISM screen has identified differential selectivity across tumor lineages, potentially enabling additional biomarker discovery and clinical opportunity expansion for IDE397.

Preclinical tolerability and efficacy studies are ongoing with IDE397 and various potential combination agents. Based on preliminary results, we have observed in vivo efficacy with enhanced tumor growth inhibition for IDE397 in combination with a taxane in a pancreatic cancer PDX model. We have also observed preclinical in vivo efficacy of IDE397 plus standard-of-care combination agents, including with paclitaxel in head and neck cancer PDX model. We have also observed in vivo efficacy with enhanced tumor growth inhibition in CDX / PDX models for IDE397 in combination with other DNA Damage Response, or DDR, target inhibitors, and for IDE397 in combination with certain precision medicine target inhibitors in tumors having certain identified genetic alterations as co-alterations with MTAP.  

7

PARG Inhibitors in Tumors with Defined Biomarker

We are advancing our preclinical research for an inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase, or PARG, for patients having tumors with homologous recombination deficiencies, or HRD, and potentially other genetic and/or molecular signatures.

PARG is a novel target in a clinically validated biological pathway.  PARG functions as a regulator of DNA repair in the same biochemical pathway as poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase, or PARP. In particular, PARG hydrolyzes poly (ADP-ribose), or PAR, chains that are polymerized by PARP enzymes, completing the PAR cycle. Small molecule inhibitors of PARG result in a dose dependent increase in cellular PAR after DNA damage.

We are evaluating the efficacy of our PARG inhibitors as monotherapy across a number of solid tumor CDX and PDX models with specific genetic alterations.  One of our PARG inhibitor compounds, designated as IDB-PARG, has been observed to show dose-dependent in vivo efficacy as monotherapy with tumor regression or stasis in multiple PDX models and in multiple CDX models.  We observed tumor regressions (greater than 100% TGI) in multiple breast cancer PDX models with defined genetic and subtyping profiles.  We also observed tumor regressions and enhanced TGI relative to niraparib in multiple CDX models, including in vivo efficacy in a niraparib-resistant resistant CDX model.    

We are preclinically evaluating and conducting IND-enabling studies for IDE161, our PARG inhibitor development candidate.  Such studies include evaluation of IDE161 as monotherapy in in vivo efficacy studies ongoing in multiple genetic settings, as well as in cell panel studies to validate and potentially identify new biomarker hypotheses.  We are supplementing our data set for indications and patient settings which are sensitive to pharmacological inhibition of our PARG inhibitors.  

In January 2022, we exercised our option under the Evaluation, Option and License Agreement between IDEAYA and Cancer Research Technologies, also known as Cancer Research United Kingdom, or Cancer Research UK, and the University of Manchester, pursuant to which we hold exclusive worldwide license rights covering a broad class of PARG inhibitors.

We have an ongoing strategic collaboration with the Broad Institute focused on synthetic lethality target and biomarker discovery. Through this collaboration with the Broad Institute, we are evaluating paralog CRISPR knockdown in selected cell lines in conjunction with pharmacological inhibition of PARG to inform patient selection and combination strategies in ovarian and breast cancer.

We own or control all commercial rights in our PARG program, subject to certain economic obligations pursuant to our exclusive, worldwide license with Cancer Research UK / University of Manchester.  

Pol Theta Inhibitors in Tumors with Homologous Recombination Deficiency

We are progressing our program targeting DNA Polymerase Theta, or Pol Theta or POLQ, in collaboration with GSK for patients having solid tumors with BRCA or other homologous recombination deficiency, or HRD, mutations.  

Pol Theta is involved in a DNA repair process called microhomology mediated end joining, or MMEJ, that is utilized when homologous recombination mediated repair is compromised, as happens in the case of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The expression of Pol Theta is largely absent in normal cells, but tumor cells harboring double strand break repair defects, such as BRCA1 or BRCA2, show synthetic lethality when Pol Theta is knocked down with siRNA.

Pol Theta is a large protein with two functional domains: a DNA polymerase domain and an ATP-dependent DNA helicase domain, sometimes referred to as an ATPase domain, linked by a RAD51 binding domain.  We have established independent research programs to discover small molecule inhibitors of each of the Pol Theta polymerase domain and helicase or ATPase domain. We also have established an independent research approach based on a protein degradation.

We have observed combination activity with multiple PARP inhibitors, including niraparib. We have observed synergistic in vivo efficacy of a Pol Theta inhibitor with niraparib: the combination of our Pol Theta inhibitor with niraparib enhanced the activity of niraparib in the DLD1 BRCA2-/- xenograft model.  Tumor regressions were observed for all animals in the study which were administered the combination, which was well tolerated.  

We plan to continue further development of our POLQ program, including both protein degraders and small molecule inhibitors in collaboration with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.    

8

WRN Inhibitors in Tumors with High Microsatellite Instability

We are also continuing to advance our preclinical research in collaboration with GSK for an inhibitor targeting Werner Helicase protein, or WRN, for patients having tumors with high microsatellite instability, or MSI.  

WRN protein is a RecQ enzyme involved in the maintenance of genome integrity. Germline loss of function mutations in WRN lead to premature aging and pre-disposition to cancer. MSI is a change in the DNA content of a tumor cell in which the number of repeats of microsatellites, short repeated sequences of DNA, differ as cells divide. High MSI is present in about 15% of gastrointestinal tumor cancers, including in approximately 22% of stomach adenocarcinoma and 16% of colorectal cancer.  Tumors with high MSI are routinely assessed in multiple diagnostic profiling tests.

WRN is a protein having several functional domains, and we have shown that the helicase functional domain of WRN is responsible for this synthetic lethal interaction, as reflected in our publication in Cell Press - iScience, Werner Syndrome Helicase is Required for the Survival of Cancer Cells with Microsatellite Instability (March 2019).

We have observed dose-dependent cellular viability effect and a dose-dependent cellular pharmacodynamic response in multiple endogenous MSI high cell lines.  We have also observed in vivo efficacy and PD response in a relevant MSI high model, including approximately 100% TGI observed in a MSI high CDX model.

For this program, we plan to continue further development in collaboration with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.

DNA Damage Targets

We have initiated early preclinical research programs to identify small molecule inhibitors for two distinct DNA Damage Targets, or DDTs, for patients with solid tumors characterized by a proprietary biomarker or a gene signature.

Synthetic Lethality Target and Biomarker Discovery Platform

Synthetic lethality has been since inception of our company, and continues to be, our core research focus.  We have invested significantly and continue to invest in capabilities for identification and validation of new synthetic lethality targets and biomarkers for patient selection.  For targets of interest, we advance our research to discover therapeutic drugs and to further qualify relevant biomarkers.

Our synthetic lethality research platform integrates a broad set of computational and functional capabilities.  These capabilities collectively reflect the convergence of advancements in biology, molecular biology, chemistry and information technologies.  For example, molecular biology approaches such as gene knockdown using siRNA, gene editing using CRISPR, quantitative DNA/RNA analysis, protein expression profiling and genomic sequencing can be applied across broad cell lines to create substantial data sets.  Data analytics and computational approaches are used to mine such data sets to identify novel targets and biomarker hypotheses.  These hypotheses are experimentally validated by developing and applying relevant biological assays.

We have established a comprehensive platform to computationally and empirically identify high value synthetic lethal pairs in defined patient populations.  This platform integrates synthetic lethality relationship data across parallel data sets, each including orthogonal content based on particular screening efforts.  These screens include evaluation of curated, genetically defined and preselected model cell sets indicative of targeted patient populations.  Our platform includes a proprietary library and data set resulting from our DECIPHER™ Dual CRISPR Synthetic Lethality library constructed in collaboration with University of California, San Diego.  The platform will also include data from our recently announced proprietary PAGEO™, or Paralogous Gene Evaluation in Ovarian cancer, library being developed in collaboration with the Broad Institute utilizing the Sellers laboratory CRISPR paralog screening platform to evaluate functionally redundant paralogous genes across ovarian cancer subtypes.  Additionally, we are members of the DepMap (Cancer Dependency Map) consortium led by the Broad Institute, through which we have access to a comprehensive data set of genome-wide cell-based screens, including isogenic screens, conducted by the Broad Institute and other contributing institutes, including pre-publication access to new data releases. As a further component of our synthetic lethality platform, we are conducting computational data mining and analysis of relevant public databases, such as The Cancer Genome Atlas, or TCGA, cBioPortal, and Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia, or CCLE, among others.  Such computational approaches include our proprietary algorithms which enable us to determine synthetic lethality targets and biomarkers enabling patient stratification.  

We have established internal bioinformatics capabilities, which are supplemented by external resources.  We are applying these capabilities and resources to integrate using proprietary algorithms and unsupervised machine learning across each of the orthogonal data sets in our platform.  These integrated, comprehensive analysis efforts allow us to determine synthetic lethality target / biomarker pairs with the strongest signals across the data sets.  Potential therapeutic targets are ranked based

9

on several factors, including the strength of the synthetic lethal interaction, potential drugability, potential clinical development path, and potential market opportunity.   The most promising therapeutic targets are validated empirically.

DECIPHER™ Dual CRISPER Synthetic Lethality Library – UCSD

We have constructed our DECIPHER Dual CRISPR library for synthetic lethality target and biomarker discovery in collaboration with the University of California, San Diego, and bioinformatics analysis and validation are ongoing.  The DECIPHER 1.0 library is focused on DNA Damage Repair targets across various tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes of interest that were selected based on their known prevalence and role in solid tumors, enabling evaluation of approximately 50,000 independent gene knockout combinations of DDR pathway related drug targets across known tumor suppressor genes.  

PAGEO™ Paralogous Gene Evaluation in Ovarian Cancer and Dep Map Consortium – Broad Institute

We have an ongoing strategic collaboration with the Broad Institute focused on synthetic lethality target and biomarker discovery.   This collaboration will use the large-scale CRISPR paralog screening platform developed at the laboratory of William R. Sellers, M.D., Core Institute Member, Broad Institute, to evaluate functionally redundant paralogous genes across ovarian cancer subtypes and to generate novel target and biomarker hypotheses.  Dr. Sellers, who also serves on our Scientific Advisory Board, is the principal investigator for the strategic collaboration.  We have also become a member of the Broad DepMap (Cancer Dependency Map) consortium led by the Broad Institute to further enhance our efforts in bioinformatics and cell-based screening for synthetic lethality target and biomarker discovery and validation.

We are also continuing to invest in our capabilities to advance our research on newly identified synthetic lethality targets of interest, including to enable discovery of therapeutic drugs and relevant biomarkers.  These investments include both additional research personnel and capital investments, which will enhance our capabilities broadly, including in target validation, biological assay development, protein synthesis, structural biology, computational chemistry, and analytical chemistry, among other core functional areas.

In December 2021, we acquired our INQUIRE™ Chemical Library to enhance our synthetic lethality drug discovery platform INQUIRE is a proprietary, expert-curated small-molecule library of over 200,000 chemical compounds, which we believe will enhance our hit discovery capabilities across a broad range of novel synthetic lethality targets and historically difficult-to-drug target classes, such as helicases and endonucleases.

Synthetic Lethality Combination Therapies Targeting Oncogenic Pathways

Darovasertib Overview – PKC Inhibitor for Patients having Tumors with GNAQ or GNA11 Mutations

Darovasertib is a potent and selective small molecule inhibitor of PKC for genetically-defined cancers having GNAQ or GNA11 gene mutations. PKC is a protein kinase that functions downstream of the GTPases GNAQ and GNA11.  

We initiated a Phase 1/2 clinical trial IDE196-001 in June 2019 to evaluate darovasertib in solid tumors harboring GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations in a basket trial design, including in MUM and other solid tumor indications such as skin (cutaneous) melanoma.

Our clinical trial strategy in MUM is to pursue darovasertib as a combination therapy with crizotinib, a cMET inhibitor, pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement.  We have formed a joint development committee with Pfizer responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the Pfizer Agreement. If the clinical data from the combination study is positive, we plan to enter into good faith negotiations with Pfizer to determine a regulatory submission strategy.  We are also evaluating darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in non-MUM cancers having GNAQ/11 mutations, with a current focus in skin melanoma.  We also plan to initiate evaluation of darovasertib in adjuvant primary UM through an IST.

Based on preliminary darovasertib monotherapy clinical data and its mechanism of action, we anticipate darovasertib clinical activity independent of Human Leukocyte Antigen, or HLA, status in GNAQ/11-mutation cancers.

We are preclinically evaluating potential expansion opportunities in oncology for darovasertib – including in cMET-driven solid tumors such as HCC or NSCLC, and KRAS-driven solid tumors.  In addition, we are exploring potential expansion opportunities in GNAQ/11 rare diseases, such as Sturge Weber Syndrome, or SWS, and Port Wine Stain, or PWS.

10

Scientific Rationale and Opportunity

PKC belongs to a family of closely related protein kinases that are involved in various aspects of signal transduction, such as transmitting extracellular growth factor or cytokine signals to other protein kinases involved in cellular proliferation or transcription regulation. PKC is important for signal transduction and survival of cells with constitutively active mutations in GNAQ or GNA11. Inactivation of PKC by specific inhibitors or reduction in protein expression using RNA all highlight the essential role of PKC in cells with GNAQ or GNA11 mutations.

Activating mutations in GNAQ or GNA11 are found in approximately 90% of uveal melanoma patients, resulting in a dependency on PKC activity which we believe may sensitize these tumors to the effects of darovasertib. Uveal melanoma is a cancer of the eye and the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults.  Treatment of the primary lesion involves radiation therapy, laser therapy and/or removal of the affected eye, and is effective in preventing local recurrence in over 80% of cases. However, approximately 50% of uveal melanoma patients treated in this manner will eventually develop metastatic disease, most commonly in the liver. We have estimated the addressable population in major market countries, consisting of the US, the twenty-eight countries in Europe, or EU28, and Japan, for patients having solid tumors with GNAQ or GNA11 mutations to include an annual incidence of about 4,200 in metastatic uveal melanoma.  For skin melanoma in the US, EU28 and Japan, we believe about 1,300 patients annually have tumors with GNAQ or GNA11 “hotspot” mutations that are potentially pathogenic, based on the loci of such mutations relative to the loci of mutations in uveal melanoma. We believe the opportunity for treatment of adjuvant primary UM in the US, EU28 and Japan will add an additional 1,600 annual addressable patients. Thus, the total addressable population for MUM, skin melanoma and adjuvant UM in such major market countries is estimated to be about 7,100 patients.

Patients with metastatic uveal melanoma have a very poor prognosis, and there are no FDA-approved therapies for this disease. Metastases are most frequently localized to the liver where curative surgical approaches are rare, and chemotherapy or immunotherapy has limited efficacy. Without treatment, median overall survival of patients with metastatic uveal melanoma is approximately two to eight months. Historical response rates for uveal melanoma generally range from 0% to 10% across treatment types. A meta-analysis of 29 Phase 2 clinical trials of various therapies in metastatic uveal melanoma from 1988 to 2015 demonstrated no improvement in clinical response, with a medium progression free survival of 3.29 months, median overall survival of 10.2 months, and a 1-year overall survival rate of only 43%. The poor prognosis associated with metastatic disease and the lack of effective therapies highlight the need for novel therapeutic approaches that specifically target metastatic uveal melanoma.

Darovasertib / Crizotinib Synthetic Lethality Combination Therapy  

In December 2020, we initiated a combination arm of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial under the Pfizer Agreement to evaluate darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in patients having tumors harboring activating GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations.  An initial dose escalation portion of this arm of the clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of darovasertib in combination with crizotinib at various dose combinations.  We initiated a Phase 2 expansion cohort in June 2021 to evaluate darovasertib / crizotinib combination therapy in MUM.

We are continuing patient enrollment into the Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the darovasertib / crizotinib combination in MUM and in patients having other solid tumors with activating GNAQ/11 mutations, with a focus on GNAQ/11 skin melanoma. As of March 1, 2022, we have enrolled an aggregate total of 53 MUM patients in the darovasertib / crizotinib combination arm of the Phase 1/2  clinical trial.

In MUM, we reported preliminary clinical data from the Phase 2 expansion cohort evaluating darovasertib and crizotinib synthetic lethal combination in December 2021, based on a data and analyses cutoff on November 25, 2021. The preliminary interim data included: (i) 100% Disease Control Rate, or DCR: 16 of 16 evaluable patients with at least one post-baseline scan showed tumor shrinkage as determined by target lesion size reduction; (ii) 31% Overall Response Rate, or ORR: 4 of 13 patients with at least two post-baseline scans had a confirmed partial response, or PR as determined by RECIST 1.1 based on investigator or central review; and no patients have come off-treatment prior to the second scan; and (iii) 46% of patients (6 of 13) with at least two post-baseline scans observed greater than 30% tumor reduction, including one patient with an unconfirmed PR as determined by RECIST 1.1.

The darovasertib and crizotinib combination therapy demonstrated a manageable side effect profile in MUM patients (n=22) as of the November 25, 2021 data cutoff, with predominantly Grade 1/2 drug-related adverse events. As of November 25, 2021, one patient experienced a drug-related serious adverse event of diarrhea. Eighteen patients experienced a drug-related adverse events, of which six patients experienced Grade 3 drug-related adverse events, and no patients observed Grade 4 or Grade 5 drug-related adverse events.

These preliminary clinical data provide clinical proof-of-concept for the darovasertib and crizotinib synthetic lethal combination treatment in MUM.  These data also inform potential expansion opportunities in other cMET-driven tumors.

11

These data are also consistent with the company’s translational research discovery that Phase 1 clinical response to darovasertib monotherapy associated with low cMET activity, as measured by gene signature score or cMET expression.  We identified cMET as a potential biomarker and a cMET inhibitor as potential combination agent though our translational research studies, or darovasertib cMET Translational Studies.  In these studies, we observed preclinical synergies between darovasertib and crizotinib in relevant cellular models under conditions simulating a tumor microenvironment in the liver, the site of approximately 90% of uveal melanoma metastases.  Additionally, we conducted a retrospective analysis of human clinical samples from the Novartis IDE196 Phase 1 clinical trial, which also independently supported cMET expression / activation as potential biomarker / combination agent.  

We presented data summarizing the results of certain darovasertib cMET translational studies at AACR in April 2021.

Darovasertib Monotherapy

The monotherapy arm of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial was initiated in June 2019 to evaluate IDE196 in solid tumors harboring GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations in a basket trial design.  We have completed enrollment in the monotherapy arm of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial in MUM.    

We reported clinical data in April 2021 for darovasertib monotherapy in MUM patients enrolled across the IDEAYA and Novartis Phase 1/2 clinical trials.  At the time of data and analyses cutoff on April 13, 2021, an aggregate of 88 patients were evaluable for safety and an aggregate of 81 patients were evaluable for efficacy pursuant to RECIST 1.1.

In the MUM cohort of the monotherapy arm, as of April 13, 2021 data and analyses cutoff based on preliminary data from an unlocked database, we observed (i) a fifty-seven percent (57%) 1-Year overall survival (OS) in predominantly second line, third line and heavily pre-treated (out to 7 and 8 lines of prior treatment) MUM patients with ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval (44%, 69%), (ii) a median OS of 13.2 months in predominantly second line, third line and heavily pre-treated (out to 7 and 8 lines of prior treatment) MUM patients with ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval (10.7 months, not reached), and (iii) sixty-one percent (61%) (n=46) of MUM patients out of 75 evaluable had tumor reduction pursuant toRECIST 1.1guidelines, including 15 patients (20%) with greater than thirty percent (30%) target lesion reduction, including one confirmed complete response.  

Preliminary clinical data from darovasertib monotherapy arm indicates that darovasertib activity is independent of HLA status.  

In the skin melanoma monotherapy cohort, 80% (n=4) of evaluable patients (n=5) had tumor reduction per RECIST 1.1. evaluation, including one confirmed PR.

The overall safety profile of darovasertib monotherapy, as of the April 13, 2021 data and analyses cutoff, was consistent with prior experience and included primarily common low grade but manageable gastrointestinal and skin toxicities. Drug-related adverse events observed with darovasertib as monotherapy include: serious adverse events of hypotension, nausea, vomiting, rash and liver toxicity; and adverse events that occurred in greater than 10% of patients of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, rash, edema, and abdominal distention.

Darovasertib was initially developed as a monotherapy by Novartis, and we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to darovasertib from Novartis in September 2018.  Pursuant to our license agreement with Novartis, except for Novartis’ ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial, we control all future clinical development, and all commercial rights to darovasetib, and may rely on and incorporate data previously submitted to the FDA by Novartis into our own regulatory submissions.  Novartis has completed enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical trial it is conducting to evaluate darovasertib in metastatic uveal melanoma.  Phase 1 monotherapy data from Novartis was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research, or AACR, in April 2019.

Regulatory / Potentially Registration-Enabling Clinical Trial

We plan to evaluate additional clinical tolerability and efficacy data from the ongoing darovasertib and crizotinib combination therapy Phase 2 portion of the clinical trial in MUM patients, as well as potential strategic partnering of the darovasertib program, prior to initiation of a potentially registrational clinical trial in MUM.  We are planning to obtain guidance from the FDA on a clinical trial design for enabling a potential registrational trial.

Subject to feedback and guidance from the FDA, we are considering scenarios for potential registrational clinical studies.  In one scenario, a single-arm Phase 2 clinical trial could comprise further enrollment of patients into the current single-arm Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating darovasertib and crizotinib as combination therapy in MUM.  In an alternative scenario, a randomized Phase 2 clinical trial could comprise a darovasertib and crizotinib combination arm as well as comparative arm in MUM.  The comparative agent could be, for example, darovasertib monotherapy.  In either approach, we believe there may

12

be an opportunity to seek accelerated approval based on the Phase 2 ORR as a primary endpoint, with a post-approval randomized Phase 3 as a confirmatory study based on a progression free survival, or PFS, and/or overall survival, or OS, as endpoints.  

Other Potential Indications

We are preclinically evaluating potential expansion opportunities in oncology for darovasertib – including in cMET-driven solid tumors such as HCC and NSCLC and KRAS-driven solid tumors.  In addition, we are exploring potential expansion opportunities in GNAQ/11 rare diseases, such as Sturge Weber Syndrome, or SWS, and Port Wine Stain, or PWS.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on IDE397-001 Phase 1 Clinical Trial and IDE196-001 Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial

We continue to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impact on the ongoing IDE397 and darovasertib, clinical programs and timing of clinical data results. Generally, initiation of clinical trial sites, patient enrollment and ongoing monitoring of enrolled patients, including obtaining patient computed tomography, or CT, scans, may be impacted for our clinical trials evaluating IDE397 and darovasertib; the specific impacts are currently uncertain.

For these clinical programs, patients enrolled in the ongoing clinical trials and sites affected by COVID-19 restrictions are adapting to logistical constraints on activities, such as travel and site visits. For example, patients are continuing on therapy, which are oral drugs and are being shipped to and self-administered by patients at home. Patients are being monitored through a combination of telemedicine visits and local visits. COVID‐19 infection rates have fluctuated over the course of the pandemic in the countries and states in which our clinical trial sites are located.

Additionally, enrollment into these clinical trials, including the Phase 1 dose escalation arm for IDE397 as monotherapy or the Phase 2 expansion arm for darovasertib and crizotinib combination therapy in MUM and other solid tumors having GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations, may be delayed by circumstances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, including for example, as a result of increases in COVID-19 infection rates in the states in which our clinical trial sites are located, and by clinical site-specific policies and practices related to COVID-19. The specific impact on enrollment into these clinical trials is currently uncertain.

We plan to continue to use third-party service providers, including clinical research organizations, or CROs, and clinical manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to carry out our preclinical and clinical development and manufacture and supply of our preclinical and clinical materials to be used during the development of our product candidates. To date, the COVID-19 pandemic has not materially affected our supply chain or development schedule, but further escalation of the health crisis has the potential to cause delays in our supply chain and manufacturing operations, which could materially adversely impact our business.

Competition

Our industry is very competitive and subject to change based on ongoing advances in technology. Although we believe that our approach, strategy, scientific capabilities, knowledge and experience provide us with competitive advantages, we expect to have substantial competition from major pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology companies worldwide. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical and human resources. Smaller and early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies.

As a result, our competitors may discover, develop, license or commercialize products before or more successfully than we do. We face competition with respect to product candidates in our pipeline, and will face competition with respect to future product candidates, from segments of the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other related markets that pursue targeted approaches to addressing activating genetic and other molecular alterations in cancer.

For IDE397, Servier Pharmaceuticals, LLC, or Servier, is clinically evaluating a small molecule MAT2A inhibitor designated as AG270 in patients having tumors with MTAP deletion. AG270 was originally developed by Agios Pharmaceuticals, or Agios, which sold its commercial, clinical and research-stage oncology portfolio, including AG270, to Servier in April 2021. Agios presented initial data from its Phase 1 clinical trial evaluating AG270 in patients having tumors with MTAP deletion at the AACR/NCI/EORTC conference in October 2019.  We believe that Servier has no current ongoing clinical trials to evaluate AG270 as monotherapy; their current clinical development efforts include evaluation of AG270 in combination with taxanes in selected tumor indications.    

13

For our preclinical pipeline of synthetic lethality therapeutics, potential competition includes established companies as well as earlier-stage emerging biotechnology companies. Multiple established companies have been involved with research and development in synthetic lethality, such as AstraZeneca (Lynparza), Pfizer (Talzenna), GSK (Zejula) and Roche. Additionally, several other early-stage companies, including Mirati Therapeutics, Zai Labs, Breakpoint Therapeutics, Ryvu Therapeutics, Foghorn Therapeutics, Silicon Therapeutics (acquired by Roivant Sciences), Anticancer Bioscience, Artios, Cyteir, FoRx Therapeutics, KSQ, MetaboMed, NeoMed, Vividion Repare, Ribon, and Tango are performing research in synthetic lethality.

For darovasertib, we are not aware of other companies actively developing clinical-stage therapeutics directed to PKC as a target for solid tumors. MingSight is developing a PKC beta inhibitor in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and diabetic macular edema, both in Phase 1 studies. Varian Biopharmaceuticals is advancing a preclinical-stage atypical PCK iota inhibitor, including as a dermatologic gel formulation for potential topical treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma, or BCC.  We are aware of other companies that are conducting research and development of potential therapies for metastatic uveal melanoma based on other targets and approaches. For example, Immunocore is developing Tebentafusp, also known under its branded name as Kimmtrak. Kimmtrak was approved by the FDA in January 2022 for the treatment of HLA-A*02:01-positive unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma patients.       

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property, including patents, trade secrets, trademarks and copyrights, is important to our business. We endeavor to establish, maintain and enforce intellectual property rights that protect our business interests.

Our patent portfolio, including patents owned by or exclusively licensed to us, is built on a program-by-program basis with a goal of establishing broad protection that generally includes, for each product candidate compound and for selected alternative back-up compounds, claims directed to composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions, and methods of treatment using such pharmaceutical compositions. For some programs, our portfolio may also include claims directed to methods of treatment involving biomarker-enabled patient identification or selection, methods of treatment involving particular dosing approaches, polymorphs, formulations and/or methods of synthesis. We are seeking and maintaining patent protection in the United States and key foreign jurisdictions.

As of February 1, 2022, we own or exclusively in-license patents and patent applications, comprising approximately 45 distinct patent families, protecting our technology across our pipeline. Excluding applications that we are not currently prosecuting, our portfolio consists of 10 issued U.S. patents, approximately 33 pending U.S. applications, 12 pending applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, 32 issued foreign patents and approximately 88 pending foreign applications in approximately 43 foreign jurisdictions, including without limitation countries included in major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia, each having expiration dates ranging from 2035 to 2042. Of these, we own approximately 42 distinct patent families, including approximately 30 pending U.S. patent applications and 12 PCT applications, nominally expiring between 2038 and 2042. The nominal expiration of our patents and patent applications does not account for any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions.

As of February 1, 2022, the portion of our portfolio for IDE196, which we have in-licensed from Novartis, consists of four issued U.S. patents, approximately 23 issued foreign patents, approximately two pending U.S. applications and approximately 24 pending applications in approximately 20 foreign jurisdictions which we are currently prosecuting, including without limitation countries included in major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia. These in-licensed patents and applications are directed to composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions and methods of treatment, including treatment of uveal melanoma. These in-licensed patents expire between 2035 and 2038, without taking into account any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions. In addition, the IDE196 portfolio also includes one pending U.S. patent application and two PCT applications solely owned by IDEAYA directed to methods of treatment, including dosing regimens, for patients having solid tumors, including tumors having mutations in GNAQ or GNA11. These solely owned patents expire between 2040 and 2041, without taking into account any applicable patent term adjustments or extensions. In addition, the IDE196 portfolio includes two U.S. provisional patent applications which are jointly owned with Pfizer directed to methods of treatment for certain combination treatments.

As of February 1, 2022, the portion of our portfolio for programs in our synthetic lethality pipeline consists of U.S. patent applications directed to composition of matter, pharmaceutical compositions and/or methods of treatment of cancer for each of our MAT2A (MTAP), PARG (HRD), POLQ (HR), WRN (high MSI), and DDR1 programs, which we own. This portion of our portfolio also includes pending U.S. and foreign applications directed to composition of matter, pharmaceutical

14

compositions and methods of treatment of cancer for our PARG (HRD)program, which we have exclusively in-licensed from Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester.

Strategic Relationships

We have established a strategic partnership and collaboration with GSK for IDE397, our clinical stage synthetic lethality program targeting MAT2A, as well as for our preclinical synthetic lethality programs targeting Pol Theta and Werner Helicase. We have an in-license agreement for our PARG program with Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester. For darovasertib, our clinical stage PKC program, we have an in-license agreement with Novartis, and have established a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreements in support of our clinical evaluation of darovasertib in combination with binimetinib, and independently, in combination with crizotinib.  For our PARG, DDT1 and DDT2 programs, our small molecule compounds are being discovered and/or developed internally with our own resources, as supplemented by certain service providers such as CROs.

We have established collaborative relationships with other companies for access to their proprietary database of patient samples, and/or for their genetic screening services on their proprietary platform. We have also established a collaborative relationship with Ventana (Roche Diagnostics) for development of molecular diagnostics for various research programs.

We have established certain development manufacturing and service relationships with CMOs for IDE397 and darovasertib. We have an agreement with STA Pharmaceutical Hong Kong Limited for the synthesis of the API and formulation for IDE397, and with Bioduro for the manufacturing of IDE397 drug product. We have an agreement with STA Pharmaceutical Hong Kong Limited for the synthesis of the API and formulation for darovasertib, and for the manufacturing of IDE196 drug product. We have established arrangements with CMOs as well for packaging, labeling and distribution of IDE397 anddarovasertib. We also have established clinical services relationship with CROs to support our conduct of clinical trials for our IDE397 program and our darovasertib program.

In addition to these existing strategic license relationships, existing and planned development manufacturing and service arrangements, and existing and planned clinical services arrangements, we have various existing agreements and relationships with service providers, such as CROs, which are enabling execution of various research and development activities for each of our pipeline programs. In particular, such agreements are directed to chemistry and compound synthesis, compound analysis and characterization, structural biology, computational biology, biological assay and model development, in vitro screening, in vivo screening, translational biomarker diagnostic development, bioinformatics, toxicology and formulation, among other activities.

We may also evaluate future strategic opportunities to accelerate development timelines and maximize the commercial potential of our product candidates. We plan to selectively evaluate strategic collaborations with biopharmaceutical partners whose research, development, commercial, marketing, and geographic capabilities complement our own.

Agreements

Collaboration, Option and License Agreement with GSK for Synthetic Lethality Programs IDE397(MAT2A), Pol Theta and Werner Helicase

On June 15, 2020, we entered into the GSK Collaboration Agreement with GSK, pursuant to which we and GSK have entered into a strategic partnership and collaboration for our synthetic lethality programs targeting MAT2A, Pol Theta and Werner Helicase. On July 27, 2020, or the Effective Date, the GSK Collaboration Agreement became effective upon the parties’ receipt of Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act clearance, or HSR Clearance.  We received from GSK an up-front payment of $100.0 million in cash following the Effective Date.

GSK Collaboration – MAT2A Program

For the MAT2A program, we will continue to lead research and development through early clinical development. GSK has an exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license to continue development of and commercialize MAT2A products arising out of the MAT2A program, or the Option, exercisable within a specified time period after we deliver to GSK a data package resulting from our conduct of a MAT2A Phase 1 monotherapy clinical trial. GSK’s exercise of the Option may be subject to HSR Clearance therefor at such time of exercise, and following exercise and HSR Clearance, GSK has agreed to pay us an option exercise payment of $50.0 million.

15

In January 2022, we and GSK entered into an Amendment No. 2 to the GSK Collaboration Agreement which amended certain elements of the Option Data Package, including conforming to GSK’s waiver of rights relating to the MAT2A Combination Trial.  

In January 2022, GSK waived its rights under the GSK Collaboration Agreement to initiate, or request that we initiate, prior to GSK’s exercise of the Option, a Phase 1 combination clinical trial for a MAT2A product and GSK’s Type I PRMT inhibitor (GSK3368715) product, or the MAT2A Combination Trial. Accordingly, we have no further obligation under the GSK Collaboration Agreement to supply MAT2A product for the MAT2A Combination Trial at our own cost.

We will be responsible for the costs of research and early clinical development activities that we conduct for the MAT2A program prior to GSK’s exercise of the Option (including during any interim waiting period for HSR Clearance for such Option exercise, if applicable).

Subject to GSK’s exercise of the Option (and HSR Clearance thereof, if applicable), GSK will lead later stage global clinical development for the MAT2A program, with IDEAYA responsible for 20% and GSK responsible for 80% of further development costs. The cost-sharing percentages will be adjusted based on the actual ratio of U.S. to global profits for MAT2A products, as measured three and six years after global commercial launch thereof.

Subject to GSK’s exercise of the Option (and HSR Clearance thereof, if applicable), we will be eligible to receive future development and regulatory milestones of up to $465.0 million. If GSK decides to exercise its option and upon commercialization, we will also be entitled to receive commercial milestones of up to $475.0 million, with respect to each MAT2A product. Additionally, we are entitled to receive 50% of U.S. net profits and tiered royalties on global non-U.S. net sales of MAT2A products by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees ranging from high single digit to sub-teen double digit percentages, subject to certain customary reductions. We have a right to opt-out of the 50% U.S. net profit share and corresponding development cost share for the MAT2A program, in which case we would be eligible to receive tiered royalties on U.S. net sales of MAT2A products by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees at the same royalty rates as for global non-U.S. net sales thereafter, with economic adjustments based on the stage of the MAT2A program at the time of opt-out.

GSK Collaboration - Pol Theta Program

Pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement, GSK holds a global, exclusive license to develop and commercialize POLQ products arising out of the POLQ program. GSK and we will collaborate on ongoing preclinical research for the POLQ program, and GSK will lead clinical development for the POLQ program. GSK will be responsible for all research and development costs for the POLQ program, including those incurred by us.

We will be eligible to receive future development and regulatory milestones of up to $485.0 million, with respect to each POLQ product, including as applicable, for multiple POLQ products that target certain alternative protein domains or are based on alternative modalities. Included within such development and regulatory milestones, we have the potential to receive up to $20 million in aggregate milestone payments from GSK for certain milestones, which may occur as we, in collaboration with GSK, advance a Pol Theta helicase inhibitor from preclinical development into early Phase 1 clinical trials.  

Additionally, we are eligible to receive up to $475.0 million of commercial milestones with respect to each POLQ product. We are also entitled to receive tiered royalties on global net sales of POLQ products by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees ranging from high single digit to sub-teen double digit percentages, subject to certain customary reductions.

We believe there are potential synergies to evaluate a combination between our Pol Theta program and GSK’s approved PARP inhibitor, Zejula™, targeting the BRCA and HRD patient population.  

GSK Collaboration - Werner Helicase Program

Pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement, GSK holds a global, exclusive license to develop and commercialize WRN products arising out of the WRN program. We and GSK will collaborate on ongoing preclinical research for the WRN program, and GSK will lead clinical development for the WRN program, with IDEAYA responsible for 20% and GSK responsible for 80% of such global research and development costs. The cost-sharing percentages will be adjusted based on the actual ratio of U.S. to global profits for WRN products, as measured three and six years after global commercial launch thereof.  

16

We will be eligible to receive future development milestones of up to $485.0 million, with respect to each WRN product, including as applicable, for multiple WRN products that are based on alternative modalities.  Included within such development and regulatory milestones, we have the potential to receive up to $20 million in aggregate milestone payments from GSK for certain milestones, which may occur as we, in collaboration with GSK, advance a WRN product from preclinical development into early Phase 1 clinical trials.  

Additionally, we will be eligible to receive up to $475.0 million of commercial milestones with respect to each WRN product. We will be entitled to receive 50% of U.S. net profits and tiered royalties on global non-U.S. net sales of WRN products by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees ranging from high single digit to sub-teen double digit percentages, subject to certain customary reductions. We will have a right to opt-out of the 50% U.S. net profit share and corresponding research and development cost share for the WRN program, and would be eligible to receive tiered royalties on U.S. net sales of WRN products by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees at the same royalty rates as for global non-U.S. net sales thereafter, with economic adjustments based on the stage of the WRN program at the time of opt-out.

GSK Collaboration - General

Under the terms of the GSK Collaboration Agreement, subject to certain exceptions, we and GSK will not, directly or through third parties, develop or commercialize other products whose primary and intended mechanism of action is the modulation of WRN, POLQ, or MAT2A (unless GSK does not exercise the Option or HSR Clearance does not occur with respect thereto, in which case such restriction shall cease to apply with respect to MAT2A) for an agreed upon period of time. We and GSK will form a joint steering committee, joint development committees, and joint commercialization committees responsible for coordinating all activities under the GSK Collaboration Agreement.    

GSK’s royalty obligations continue with respect to each country and each product until the later of (i) the date on which such product is no longer covered by certain intellectual property rights in such country and (ii) the 10th anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product in such country.

Each party has the right to sublicense its rights under the GSK Collaboration Agreement subject to certain conditions.

The GSK Collaboration Agreement will continue in effect on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the expiration of the obligation to make payments under the GSK Collaboration Agreement with respect to such product in each country, unless earlier terminated by either party pursuant to its terms. Either we or GSK may terminate the GSK Collaboration Agreement for the other party’s insolvency or certain uncured breaches. We may terminate the GSK Collaboration Agreement if GSK or any of its sublicensees or affiliates challenge certain patents of the Company. GSK may terminate the GSK Collaboration Agreement in its entirety or on a target-by-target basis upon 90-day notice to us.

The GSK Collaboration Agreement contains various representations, warranties, covenants, dispute resolution mechanisms, indemnities and other provisions generally customary for transactions of this nature.  

Exclusive License Agreement with Novartis for Darovasertib (PKC)

On September 19, 2018, we entered into a license agreement with Novartis to develop products based on Novartis’ small molecule PKC inhibitors, including Novartis’ LXS196 oncology product candidate, which we have renamed as IDE196, and which has a non-proprietary name of darovasertib.

Under the license agreement, Novartis granted to us a worldwide, exclusive, sublicensable license to research, develop, manufacture, and commercialize certain defined compounds and products, including IDE196 and certain other PKC inhibitors as well as companion diagnostic products, collectively referred to as the licensed products, for any purpose. The license grant is subject to Novartis’ retained rights to complete its ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of IDE196. Novartis also agreed to transfer to us certain materials and know-how relating to the licensed products or arising from the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of darovasertib.

We are solely responsible for the manufacturing and commercialization of the licensed products, subject to Novartis’ rights under the ongoing clinical trial of darovasertib. We have certain obligations to supply darovasertib and licensed products for compassionate use, named patient and similar programs in connection with the ongoing clinical trial. We are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop one licensed product and to commercialize and obtain regulatory approval for at least one licensed product in the United States and in specified European countries.

All inventions, know-how, data and results resulting from our activities under the license agreement, including activities relating to our own clinical trials, will be exclusively owned by us. All inventions, know-how, data and results resulting from

17

Novartis’ activities connected with Novartis’ ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for IDE196 will be exclusively owned by Novartis, and subject to the license to us. Ownership of all other inventions and know-how will be determined according to U.S. patent law, with Novartis’ interest subject to the license to us.

We control the prosecution and maintenance of the patents exclusively licensed to us, with Novartis retaining step-in rights if we do not continue such prosecution and maintenance. If we fail to maintain or prosecute any exclusively licensed patent and Novartis exercises this step-in right, our license to the relevant patents will terminate in the relevant country. We have the first right to enforce any exclusively licensed patents, while Novartis retains the right to representation. If we do not bring an action to enforce any exclusively licensed patent, Novartis has the right to bring such action, and we will have the right to representation.

We paid Novartis an upfront payment of $2.5 million and issued 263,615 shares of our Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock concurrently with the execution of the license agreement. Subject to completion of certain clinical and regulatory development milestones, we agreed to make milestone payments in the aggregate of up to $9.0 million, and subject to achievement of certain commercial sales milestones, we agreed to make milestone payments in the aggregate of up to $20.0 million. We also agreed to pay mid to high single-digit tiered royalty payments based on annual worldwide net sales of licensed products, payable on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country by country basis until the latest of the expiration of the last to expire exclusively licensed patent, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity, and the ten year anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product in such country. The royalty payments are subject to reductions for lack of patent coverage, loss of market exclusivity, and payment obligations for third-party licenses.

The license agreement continues in force on a licensed product-by-licensed product and country by country basis until the latest of the expiration of the last to expire exclusively licensed patent, the expiration of regulatory exclusivity, and the ten year anniversary of the first commercial sale of such product in such country.

We may terminate the license agreement in its entirety or on a licensed product-by-licensed product basis without cause on 60 days’ prior written notice. Either party may terminate the license agreement for the other party’s material breach that remains uncured for 90 days. In addition, Novartis has the right to terminate the license agreement immediately upon our insolvency.

Upon termination by Novartis for material breach or for our insolvency, or upon termination by us without cause, at Novartis’ written request and in return for consideration that will be negotiated at such time, we will grant to Novartis a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable, nonexclusive or exclusive license, under all patent rights and know-how controlled by us that are related to and actually used as of the date of termination in the development, manufacture, and commercialization of licensed products, for Novartis to develop, manufacture, and commercialize the licensed products.

Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreements with Pfizer for Darovasertib (PKC)

In March 2020, we entered into the Pfizer Agreement, pursuant to which the parties will work on combination studies, as portions of the Company’s Phase 1/2 clinical trial in MUM and other solid tumors harboring activating GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations.  The combination study specifically pertains to the clinical evaluation of our darovasertib clinical candidate in combination with Pfizer’s MEK inhibitor, binimetinib.  In September 2020, we expanded the scope of our Pfizer Agreement to also evaluate darovasertib and Pfizer’s cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, as an additional, independent combination therapy.  Under the agreement, we are sponsor of the combination studies, and will provide darovasertib and pay for the costs of the combination studies.  Pfizer will provide binimetinib and crizotinib for the combination studies at no cost to us.  We and Pfizer will jointly own clinical data from the combination studies and will also jointly own inventions, if any, relating to the combined use of darovasertib and binimetinib, or independently, to the combined use of darovasertib and crizotinib.  We and Pfizer have formed a joint development committee responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the agreement.  

Pfizer may terminate the agreement if Pfizer believes binimetinib or crizotinib is being used in an unsafe manner.  Either party may terminate the agreement for patient safety reasons, if any regulatory action prevents the supply of its drug or if a party ceases development of its drug.  Either party may terminate the agreement for the other party’s material breach that remains uncured for thirty days. If the agreement is terminated, we must return any unused binimetinib or unused crizotinib, as applicable, to Pfizer. If Pfizer terminates the agreement because of our material breach, we will be required to reimburse Pfizer certain manufacturing costs for the binimetinib or crizotinib supplied under the agreement.  

We have further expanded the scope of our relationship with Pfizer, entering into additional agreements to facilitate evaluation of darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in MUM and in other cMET-driven tumor indications.  

18

On March 11, 2022 and effective March 9, 2022, we and Pfizer entered into a second Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement, or the Second Pfizer Agreement, pursuant to which we may, subject to FDA feedback and guidance, evaluate darovasertib and Pfizer’s cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, as a combination therapy in MUM in a planned Phase 2 potential registration-enabling clinical trial. Pursuant to the Second Pfizer Agreement, we are the sponsor of the planned combination trial and we will provide darovasertib and pay for the costs of the combination trial; Pfizer will provide crizotinib for the planned combination trial at no cost to us.  We and Pfizer will jointly own clinical data from the planned combination trial and all inventions relating to the combined use of IDE196 and crizotnib.  We and Pfizer will form a joint development committee responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the Second Pfizer Agreement.

Separately, on March 11, 2022 and effective March 9, 2022, we and Pfizer also entered into a third Clinical Trial Collaboration and Supply Agreement, or the Third Pfizer Agreement, pursuant to which we may, subject to preclinical validation and FDA feedback and guidance, evaluate darovasertib and Pfizer’s cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, as a combination therapy in cMET-driven tumors such as NSCLC and/or HCC in a Phase 1 clinical trial. Pursuant to the Third Pfizer Agreement, we are the sponsor of the planned combination trial and we will provide darovasertib and pay for the costs of the combination trial; Pfizer will provide crizotinib for the planned combination trial at no cost to us. We and Pfizer will jointly own clinical data from the planned combination trial and all inventions relating to the combined use of darovasertib and crizotnib.  We and Pfizer will form a joint development committee responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the Third Pfizer Agreement.

Exclusive Option and License Agreement with Cancer Research UK

On April 28, 2017, we entered into an Evaluation, Option and License agreement, or CRUK/Manchester Agreement, with Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester, which was amended on April 24, 2019 and on March 3, 2020, for the development and commercialization of licensed products comprising pharmaceutical preparations of PARG inhibitors for all therapeutic uses

Under this agreement, Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester have granted to us, and we have in turn granted to Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester, non-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-free licenses to carry out non-clinical research during the research term, currently ending in March 2021.  The non-clinical research is to be governed by a joint research committee comprised of representatives from each party. During the research term, no party is to undertake a drug discovery program in PARG inhibitors other than under this agreement.

Cancer Research UK also granted us the exclusive option to obtain an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide, royalty-bearing license, under certain Cancer Research UK background intellectual property and Cancer Research UK’s interest in any intellectual property jointly developed under the agreement, to research, develop, manufacture, and commercialize licensed products, as well as a non-exclusive, sublicensable, royalty-free, freedom-to-operate license under related intellectual property. Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester retain certain rights under the licensed intellectual property for academic, non-commercial research and teaching.

In the March 2020 second amendment to the CRUK/Manchester Agreement, the parties reduced the license fee due at exercise of our option, extended the research period to March 2021, and also extended the option period, during which IDEAYA has rights to exercise an option to certain license rights.  The expanded collaborative research included evaluation of an IDEAYA proprietary small molecule PARG inhibitor in multiple in vitro and in vivo ovarian cancer xenograft models. This research is also evaluating replication stress signature as a potential patient selection biomarker.  The extended option period was for up to four additional years from March 2020, including an initial one year period to March 2021 and an additional eighteen month extension to September 2022, which has now been elected pursuant to our certification of ongoing program research activities.    

In January 2022, we exercised our option under the CRUK/Manchester Agreement, pursuant to which we hold exclusive worldwide license rights covering a broad class of PARG inhibitors.

Following our option exercise, we gained sole control and responsibility for the research, development, manufacture, and commercialization of the licensed PARG inhibitors. Cancer Research UK has also agreed to transfer its know how relating to the research, development or manufacturing of the licensed PARG inhibitors to us.

We are obligated to use reasonable efforts to research a PARG inhibitor during the research term, and to develop a PARG inhibitor for the treatment of a cancer indication if we exercise the option.

Each party is the sole owner of any intellectual property it develops solely under the agreement, and the parties will be joint owners of any jointly developed intellectual property. Each party grants the other a non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty free, irrevocable, sublicensable, perpetual license to its rights in such jointly created intellectual property to make, use and sell

19

inventions claimed in the joint patents, except for those joint patents exclusively licensed to us under the agreement following our exercise of the option.

We are obligated to use reasonable efforts to research a PARG inhibitor during the research term, and to develop a PARG inhibitor for the treatment of a cancer indication if we exercise the option.

Each party is the sole owner of any intellectual property it develops solely under the agreement, and the parties will be joint owners of any jointly developed intellectual property. Each party grants the other a non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty free, irrevocable, sublicensable, perpetual license to its rights in such jointly created intellectual property to make, use and sell inventions claimed in the joint patents, except for those joint patents exclusively licensed to us under the agreement following the exercise our option.

Before our exercise of the option, Cancer Research UK was responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of Cancer Research UK background patents specifically relating to PARG, while we were responsible for the prosecution and maintenance of patents covering inventions developed under the agreement as project intellectual property. Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester had the first right to enforce the patents covering inventions developed under the agreement as project intellectual property and we had the right to participate in such actions.

Following our exercise of the option, we have assumed Cancer Research UK’s prosecution and maintenance responsibilities for the Cancer Research UK background patents specifically relating to PARG and we obtained the first right to enforce such patents as well as the patents covering inventions developed under the agreement as project intellectual property, and Cancer Research UK will have the right to participate.

We pay all expenses associated with prosecution and maintenance and each party bears its own costs for enforcement. If we abandon the patents covering inventions developed under the agreement as project intellectual property, Cancer Research UK will thereafter be responsible for prosecuting and maintaining such patents. If we abandon such patents, Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester will be responsible for paying the expenses associated with the prosecution and maintenance of such patents.

In addition to an upfront fee of £100,000 and a one-time option exercise fee of £250,000, each of which have been paid, we have certain potential milestone-dependent financial obligations, including: (a) subject to completion of certain clinical and regulatory milestones, payments of up to £19.5 million per broad disease classification block – for example, in oncologic diseases, up to £13.0 million aggregate for a first achievement of such clinical and regulatory milestones and up to £6.5 million aggregate for a second achievement of such clinical and regulatory milestones; (b) subject to certain sales milestones, payments of up to £9 million per broad disease classification block – for example, in oncologic diseases, up to

£6.0 million aggregate for a first achievement of such sales milestones and up to £3.0 million aggregate for a second achievement of such sales milestones; and (c) low single-digit tiered royalty payments based on aggregate worldwide net sales of all products, payable on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis until the later of the last-to-expire patent covering such product in such country and the ten year anniversary of the first commercial sale of such licensed product in such country. The royalty payments are subject to reductions for payment obligations in the event third-party licenses are required to develop or commercialize the product or if the product is not covered by certain patents.

Following our exercise of the option, if we sublicense certain intellectual property developed under the agreement or Cancer Research UK background patents specifically relating to PARG, we will also have an obligation to pay to Cancer Research UK low double digit percentage of sublicense revenue we receive, if any. If the agreement is terminated due to our material breach, then we are eligible to receive a percentage of sublicensing revenue that Cancer Research UK receives for licensing intellectual property.

If the agreement is terminated by Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester pursuant to any of their termination rights, then Cancer Research UK and University of Manchester will have exclusive, worldwide rights to project intellectual property. If we terminate the agreement for material breach, then the licenses we receive upon exercise of the option survive, and our payment obligations will be reduced. Following our exercise of the option, the licenses we receive upon exercise of the option survive expiration of the agreement.

Sales and Marketing

We intend to become a fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company. This will enable us to realize our goal of delivering transformative drugs to patients. We currently hold worldwide commercialization rights to each of our product candidates, and intend to retain significant rights in key markets. In light of our stage of development, we have not yet established sales and marketing capabilities.

20

We plan to build our own sales force to commercialize approved products, if any, in the United States and potentially in Europe and other selected foreign countries, and we expect to initiate commercial readiness activities in anticipation of receiving marketing approvals. We believe a moderately sized specialty sales force would enable us to reach oncologists who specialize in treating the patient populations for our product candidates. We may enter into distribution and other marketing arrangements with third parties for any of our product candidates that obtain marketing approval.

We also plan to build a marketing and sales management organization to create and implement marketing strategies for any products that we market through our own sales organization and to oversee and support our sales force.

Manufacturing

We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and our biomarker diagnostics for preclinical and clinical testing, as well as for future commercial manufacture of any drugs and diagnostics that we may commercialize. We do not own or operate, and currently have no plans to establish, any manufacturing facilities.

In general, we plan to establish agreements with contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, for synthesis of the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or API, manufacturing of drug product comprising such API, as well as packaging, labeling and distribution.

We have also established supply arrangements with one or more CMOs for IDE397 in support of our current clinical development needs.

We have also established our own supply arrangements with one or more CMOs for IDE196 in support of our current clinical development needs.

Our lead product candidates IDE397 and IDE196 are each small molecules that can be manufactured in reliable and reproducible synthetic processes from readily available starting materials. We believe the synthetic chemistry is amenable to scale-up using standard manufacturing equipment and processes. We expect that the compounds being discovered and developed for our other pipeline programs, including PARG, Pol Theta, and WRN, and other future programs, will also be small molecule product candidates that can be produced at contract manufacturing facilities.

In many cases, we anticipate that the biomarker diagnostic may be commercially available on an existing third-party diagnostic panel or assay. In cases where such biomarker diagnostic is not already commercially available, we generally expect to establish agreements with strategic partners for clinical supply of companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with the targeted therapeutics we are developing.

Government Regulation

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing and export and import of products such as those we are developing. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the new drug application, or NDA, process before it may be legally marketed in the United States.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, and its implementing regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. These sanctions could include the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

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

21

Once a pharmaceutical product candidate is identified for development, it enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies. An IND sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, to the FDA as part of the IND. The sponsor will also include a protocol detailing, among other things, the objectives of the first phase of the clinical trial, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety, and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated, if the first phase lends itself to an efficacy evaluation. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA, within the 30-day time period, places the clinical trial on a clinical hold. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. Clinical holds also may be imposed by the FDA at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns about on-going or proposed clinical trials or non-compliance with specific FDA requirements, and the clinical trials may not begin or continue until the FDA notifies the sponsor that the hold has been lifted.

All clinical trials must be conducted under the supervision of one or more qualified investigators in accordance with GCP regulations, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent in writing for their participation in any clinical trial. They must be conducted under protocols detailing the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria and the safety and effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND, and timely safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events. An IRB at each institution participating in the clinical trial must review and approve each protocol before a clinical trial commences at that institution and must also approve the information regarding the clinical trial and the consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative, monitor the clinical trial until completed and otherwise comply with IRB regulations.

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

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

22

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

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

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies may conduct additional in vivo studies and also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with cGMP requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug. In addition, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested, and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

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

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries. Sponsors of certain clinical trials of FDA-regulated products are required to register and disclose specified clinical trial information, which is publicly available at www.clinicaltrials.gov. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, clinical trial sites and investigators and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to discuss the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these clinical trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved.

U.S. Review and Approval Process

The results of product development, preclinical and other non-clinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. The FDA reviews an NDA to determine, among other things, whether a product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether its manufacturing is cGMP-compliant to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA conducts a preliminary review of all NDAs within the first 60 days after submission, before accepting them for filing, to determine whether they are sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA may request additional information rather than accept an NDA for filing. In this event, the NDA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has agreed to certain performance goals in the review of NDAs through a two-tiered classification system, standard review and priority review. According to the current PDUFA performance goals for new molecular entity NDAs, the FDA endeavors to review and act on applications within ten months of the 60-day filing date under standard review, and within six months of the 60-day filing date under priority review.

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

23

NDA, the FDA will inspect the facility or facilities where the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve an application unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical trial sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements.

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

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. In addition, the FDA may require a sponsor to conduct Phase 4 testing, which involves clinical trials designed to further assess a drug’s safety and effectiveness after NDA approval, and may require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products which have been commercialized. The FDA may also place other conditions on approval including the requirement for a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS. The FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. Any of these limitations on approval or marketing could restrict the commercial promotion, distribution, prescription or dispensing of products. Marketing approval may be withdrawn for non-compliance with regulatory requirements or if problems occur following initial marketing.

Pediatric Use

Even when not pursuing a pediatric indication, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, an NDA or supplement thereto must contain data that is adequate to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. With the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act in 2012, sponsors must also submit pediatric trial plans prior to the assessment data. Those plans must contain an outline of the proposed pediatric trials the sponsor plans to conduct, including trial objectives and design, any deferral or waiver requests, and other information required by regulation. The FDA must then review the information submitted, consult with the sponsor, and agree upon a final plan. The FDA or the sponsor may request an amendment to the plan at any time. The FDA may, on its own initiative or at the request of the applicant, grant deferrals for submission of some or all pediatric data until after approval of the product for use in adults, or full or partial waivers from the pediatric data requirements.

Separately, in the event the FDA issues a Written Request for pediatric data relating to a drug product, an NDA sponsor who submits such data may be entitled to pediatric exclusivity. Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity which, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing exclusivity.

U.S. Orphan Drug Designation

Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may grant orphan designation to a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is a disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or, if it affects more than 200,000 individuals in the United States, there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making the drug product available in the United States for the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product in the United States. Orphan designation must be requested before submitting an NDA. After the FDA grants orphan designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by the FDA. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in or shorten the duration of the regulatory review and approval process.

If a product that has orphan designation subsequently receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, which means that the FDA may not approve any other

24

applications to market the same drug for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a subsequent product showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity. The designation of such drug also entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding, tax credits for certain clinical trial costs and user-fee waivers. However, competitors, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our product candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same drug for the same rare disease or condition before we do. In addition, if an orphan designated product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan exclusivity. Exclusive marketing rights in the United States may also be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

U.S. Expedited Development and Review Programs

New drug products are eligible for fast track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the disease or condition. Fast track designation applies to the combination of the product and the specific indication for which it is being studied. The sponsor of a fast track product has opportunities for frequent interactions with the review team during product development and, once an NDA is submitted, the product may be eligible for priority review. A fast track product may also be eligible for rolling review, where the FDA may consider for review sections of the NDA on a rolling basis before the complete application is submitted, if the sponsor provides a schedule for the submission of the sections of the NDA, the FDA agrees to accept sections of the NDA and determines that the schedule is acceptable, and the sponsor pays any required user fees upon submission of the first section of the NDA.

A product intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition may also be eligible for breakthrough therapy designation to expedite its development and review. A product can receive breakthrough therapy designation if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the product may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. The designation includes all of the fast track program features, as well as more intensive FDA interaction and guidance beginning as early as Phase 1 and an organizational commitment to expedite the development and review of the product, including involvement of senior managers.

After an NDA is submitted for a product, including a product with a fast track designation and/or breakthrough therapy designation, the NDA may be eligible for priority review. A product is eligible for priority review if it has the potential to provide a significant improvement in the treatment or prevention of a serious disease or condition compared to marketed products. If the drug contains a new molecular entity, priority review designation means the FDA’s goal is to take an action on the marketing application within six months of the 60-day filing date, compared with ten months under standard review.

Additionally, products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions may receive accelerated approval upon a determination that the product has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit, or on a clinical endpoint that can be measured earlier than irreversible morbidity or mortality, that is reasonably likely to predict an effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of accelerated approval, the FDA will generally require the sponsor to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical studies to verify and describe the anticipated effect on irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of the product.

Even if a product qualifies for one or more of these programs, the FDA may later decide that the product no longer meets the conditions for qualification or decide that the time period for FDA review or approval will not be shortened. We expect to pursue breakthrough therapy designation for darovasertib and may explore some of these opportunities for our other product candidates as appropriate.

U.S. Post-approval Requirements

Once an approval is granted, the FDA may withdraw the approval if compliance with regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur after the product reaches the market. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, certain manufacturing changes and additional

25

labeling claims, are subject to further FDA review and approval. Drug manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved drugs are required to register their establishments with the FDA and certain state agencies, and are subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA and certain state agencies for compliance with cGMP regulations and other laws and regulations. In addition, the FDA may impose a number of post-approval requirements as a condition of approval of an NDA. For example, the FDA may require post-marketing testing, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to further assess and monitor the product’s safety and effectiveness after commercialization.

Any drug products manufactured or distributed by us or our partners pursuant to FDA approvals will be subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the drug, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, drug sampling and distribution requirements, complying with certain electronic records and signature requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. The FDA strictly regulates labeling, advertising, promotion and other types of information on products that are placed on the market and imposes requirements and restrictions on drug manufacturers, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labeling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical holds on post-approval clinical trials, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties.

U.S. Marketing Exclusivity

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

The FDCA alternatively provides three years of marketing exclusivity for a change to a previously approved drug, such as a new indication or condition of use, submitted in an NDA, or supplement to an existing NDA if one or more new clinical investigations, other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies, that were conducted or sponsored by the applicant are deemed by the FDA to be essential to the approval of the application. This three-year exclusivity covers only the modification for which the drug received approval on the basis of the new clinical investigations and does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for drugs containing the active agent for the original indication or condition of use.

Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA. However, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Other types of non-patent exclusivity include seven-year orphan drug exclusivity and six-month pediatric exclusivity (each discussed above).

FDA Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

We are collaborating or expect to collaborate with strategic partners or CROs to manufacture and supply in vitro diagnostics to identify patients with biomarkers associated with the targeted therapeutics we are developing. These diagnostics, often referred to as companion diagnostics, are regulated as medical devices. In the United States, the FDCA and its implementing

26

regulations, and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern, among other things, medical device design and development, preclinical and clinical testing, premarket clearance or approval, registration and listing, manufacturing, labeling, storage, advertising and promotion, sales and distribution, export and import, and post-market surveillance.

Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes – Class I, Class II or Class III – depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of control needed to provide reasonable assurances with respect to safety and effectiveness. Class I devices are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to a set of regulations, referred to as General Controls, which require compliance with the applicable portions of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation, or QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse events and malfunctions, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling and promotional materials. Class II devices are those that are subject to the General Controls, as well as Special Controls, which can include performance standards, guidelines and postmarket surveillance. Most Class II devices are subject to premarket review and clearance by the FDA. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA is accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification process. Under the 510(k) process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device. To be “substantially equivalent,” the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or have different technological characteristics and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk such as life-supporting or life-sustaining devices, or implantable devices, in addition to new devices deemed not substantially equivalent following the 510(k) process. The safety and effectiveness of Class III devices cannot be reasonably assured solely by the General Controls and Special Controls. Therefore, these devices are generally subject to the premarket approval, or PMA, application process, which is generally more costly and time-consuming than the 510(k) process.

Alternatively, a device might be the subject of a de novo classification request, which seeks marketing authorization and reclassification as a lower-risk Class I or Class II device for a new device that otherwise would automatically be regulated as a Class III device requiring a PMA approval. Specifically, medical device types that the FDA has not previously classified as Class I, II or III are automatically classified into Class III regardless of the level of risk they pose. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established a new route to market for low to moderate risk medical devices that are automatically placed into Class III due to the absence of a predicate device, called the “Request for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation,” or the de novo classification procedure. This procedure allows a manufacturer whose novel device is automatically classified into Class III to request down-classification of its medical device into Class I or Class II on the basis that the device presents low or moderate risk, rather than requiring the submission and approval of a PMA application.

If the use of a companion diagnostic is essential to the safe and effective use of a drug or biologic product, then the FDA generally will require approval or clearance of the diagnostic contemporaneously with the approval of the therapeutic product. On August 6, 2014, the FDA issued a final guidance document addressing the development and approval process for in vitro companion diagnostic devices. According to the guidance, for novel product candidates such as ours, a companion diagnostic device and its corresponding drug or biologic candidate should be approved or cleared contemporaneously by the FDA for the use indicated in the therapeutic product labeling. The guidance also explains that a companion diagnostic device used to make treatment decisions in clinical trials of a drug generally will be considered an investigational device, unless it is employed for an intended use for which the device is already approved or cleared. If used to make critical treatment decisions, such as patient selection, the diagnostic device generally will be considered a significant risk device under the FDA’s Investigational Device Exemption, or IDE, regulations. Thus, the sponsor of the diagnostic device will be required to comply with the IDE regulations. According to the guidance, if a diagnostic device and a drug are to be studied together to support their respective approvals, both products can be studied in the same investigational study, if the study meets both the requirements of the IDE regulations and the IND regulations. The guidance provides that depending on the details of the study plan and subjects, a sponsor may seek to submit an IND alone, or both an IND and an IDE. In July 2016, the FDA issued a draft guidance document intended to further assist sponsors of therapeutic products and sponsors of in vitro companion diagnostic devices on issues related to co-development of these products.

The FDA generally requires companion diagnostics intended to select the patients who will respond to cancer treatment to obtain approval of a PMA for that diagnostic contemporaneously with approval of the therapeutic, though 510(k) clearance or grant of a de novo classification request are also possible. The review of these in vitro companion diagnostics in conjunction with the review of a cancer therapeutic involves coordination of review by the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research or Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. The PMA process, including the gathering of clinical and preclinical data and the submission to and review by the FDA, can take several years or longer. It involves a rigorous premarket review during which the applicant must prepare and provide the FDA with reasonable assurance of the device’s safety and effectiveness and information about the device and its components regarding, among other things, device design, manufacturing and labeling. PMA applications are subject to an application fee. In addition, PMAs for certain devices must generally include the results from extensive preclinical and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of the device for each indication for which FDA approval is sought. In particular, for a diagnostic, the applicant must demonstrate that the diagnostic produces reproducible

27

results when the same sample is tested multiple times by multiple users at multiple laboratories. As part of the PMA review, the FDA will typically inspect the manufacturer’s facilities for compliance with the QSR, which imposes elaborate testing, control, documentation and other quality assurance requirements.

If the FDA evaluations of both the PMA application and the manufacturing facilities are favorable, the FDA will either issue an approval letter or an approvable letter, which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure the final approval of the PMA, such as changes in labeling, or specific additional information, such as submission of final labeling, in order to secure final approval of the PMA. If the FDA concludes that the applicable criteria have been met, the FDA will issue a PMA for the approved indications, which can be more limited than those originally sought by the applicant. The PMA can include post-approval conditions that the FDA believes necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, including, among other things, restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale and distribution.

If the FDA’s evaluation of the PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. A not approvable letter will outline the deficiencies in the application and, where practical, will identify what is necessary to make the PMA approvable. The FDA may also determine that additional clinical trials are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the clinical trials are conducted and then the data submitted in an amendment to the PMA. Once granted, PMA approval may be withdrawn by the FDA if compliance with post approval requirements, conditions of approval or other regulatory standards is not maintained or problems are identified following initial marketing. PMA approval is not guaranteed, and the FDA may ultimately respond to a PMA submission with a not approvable determination based on deficiencies in the application and require additional clinical trials or other data that may be expensive and time-consuming to generate and that can substantially delay approval.

If a companion diagnostic is the subject of a de novo classification request in lieu of a PMA, the FDA is required to classify the device within 120 days following receipt of the de novo submission. If the manufacturer seeks reclassification into Class II, the manufacturer must include a draft proposal for special controls that are necessary to provide a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the medical device. The FDA may reject the reclassification petition if it identifies a legally marketed predicate device that would be appropriate for a 510(k) or determines that the device is not low to moderate risk or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls cannot be developed. If the de novo request is granted, the new device may be legally marketed (in compliance with applicable regulatory controls), a new classification regulation for the device type will be established, and the device may serve as a predicate device for 510(k) submissions for future devices of the same type.

After a device is placed on the market, it remains subject to significant regulatory requirements. Medical devices may be marketed only for the uses and indications for which they are cleared or approved. Device manufacturers must also establish registration and device listings with the FDA. A medical device manufacturer’s manufacturing processes and those of its suppliers are required to comply with the applicable portions of the QSR, which cover the methods and documentation of the design, testing, production, processes, controls, quality assurance, labeling, packaging and shipping of medical devices. Domestic facility records and manufacturing processes are subject to periodic unscheduled inspections by the FDA. The FDA also may inspect foreign facilities that export products to the United States.

Regulation Outside the United States

To the extent that any of our product candidates, once approved, are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or other transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

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

28

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

Data and Marketing Exclusivity

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

Pediatric Investigation Plan

In the EEA, marketing authorization applications for new medicinal products not authorized have to include the results of studies conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan, or PIP, agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee, or PDCO. The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the drug for which marketing authorization is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures of the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the marketing authorization is obtained in all Member States of the EU and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for six months’ supplementary protection certificate extension.

Orphan Drug Designation

In the EEA, a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan drug if its sponsor can establish that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in ten thousand persons in the EU when the application is made, or that the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition in the European Community and that without incentives it is unlikely that the marketing of the drug in the EU would generate sufficient return to justify the necessary investment. For either of these conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EU or, if such method exists, the drug will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

In the EEA, an application for designation as an orphan product can be made any time prior to the filing of an application for approval to market the product. Marketing authorization for an orphan drug leads to a ten-year period of market exclusivity. During this market exclusivity period, the EMA or the member state competent authorities, cannot accept another application for a marketing authorization, or grant a marketing authorization, for a similar medicinal product for the same indication. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for medicines that have also complied with an agreed PIP.

This period may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation, for example because the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify market exclusivity. Market exclusivity can be revoked only in very selected cases, such as consent from the marketing authorization holder, inability to supply sufficient quantities of the product, demonstration of “clinical superiority” by a similar medicinal product, or, after a review by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products, requested by a member state in the fifth year of the marketing exclusivity period (if the designation criteria are believed to no longer apply). Medicinal products designated as orphan drugs pursuant are eligible for incentives made available by the EU and its Member States to support research into, and the development and availability of, orphan drugs.

29

Companion Diagnostics

In the EEA, in vitro medical devices are required to conform with the essential requirements of the EU Directive on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (Directive No. 98/79/EC, as amended). To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements, the manufacturer must undergo a conformity assessment procedure. The conformity assessment varies according to the type of in vitro diagnostic medical device and its classification. The conformity assessment of in vitro diagnostic medical devices can require the intervention of an accredited EEA Notified Body. If successful, the conformity assessment concludes with the drawing up by the manufacturer of an EC Declaration of Conformity entitling the manufacturer to affix the CE mark to its products and to sell them throughout the EEA. On April 5, 2017, the European Parliament passed the In Vitro Device Regulation, or IVDR, which repeals and replaces Directive No 98/79/EC. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the EU member states, a regulation is directly applicable, i.e., without the need for adoption of EU member state laws implementing them, in all EEA member states. The IVDR, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable and sustainable regulatory framework across the EU for in vitro diagnostic medical devices and ensure a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation. The IVDR will not become fully applicable until five years following its entry into force. Once applicable, the IVDR will among other things:

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system that could affect our future results of operations as we begin to directly commercialize our products. In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ACA, was signed into law which substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions, including those governing enrollment in federal healthcare programs, reimbursement adjustments and fraud and abuse changes. Additionally, the ACA increases the minimum level of Medicaid rebates payable by manufacturers of brand name drugs from 15.1% to 23.1%; requires collection of rebates for drugs paid by Medicaid managed care organizations; requires manufacturers to participate in a coverage gap discount program, under which they must agree to offer 70 percent point-of-sale discounts off negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period, as a condition for the manufacturer’s outpatient drugs to be covered under Medicare Part D; imposes a non-deductible annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers or importers who sell “branded prescription drugs” to specified federal government programs, implemented a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted, or injected, expands of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs, creates a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research and establishes of a Center for Medicare Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order initiating a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures enacted by Congress or implemented by the Biden administration, if any, will impact our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year, which was temporarily suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 and a 1% reduction from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, and reduced payments to several types of Medicare providers. Moreover, there has recently been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted legislation

30

designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products. Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

Other Healthcare Laws

Pharmaceutical companies are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which they conduct their business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, and transparency laws and regulations with respect to drug pricing and payments and other transfers of value to physicians and other healthcare providers, as well as similar foreign laws in the jurisdictions outside the United States. If their operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that apply, they may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, the curtailment or restructuring of operations, exclusion from participation in governmental healthcare programs and imprisonment.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Pharmaceutical companies may be subject to U.S. federal and state health information privacy, security and data breach notification laws, which may govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. Entities that are found to be in violation of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as the result of a breach of unsecured protected health information, or PHI, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance.

State laws may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to protected health information, or PHI, than HIPAA, and state laws may differ from each other, which may complicate compliance efforts.  For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, effective January 1, 2020, gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. Further, the California Privacy Rights Act, or CPRA, recently passed in California. The CPRA will impose additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The majority of the provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2023, and additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required.

In Europe, EU and European Economic Area, or EEA, member states, Switzerland and other countries have also adopted data protection laws and regulations, which impose significant compliance obligations. In the EEA, the collection and use of personal health data is governed by the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The GDPR became effective on May 25, 2018, and, together with the national legislation of EU or EEA member states governing the processing of personal data, imposes strict obligations and restrictions on the ability to collect, analyze and transfer personal data, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. In particular, these obligations and restrictions impose stringent requirements relating to individual consent, the information that must be provided to the individuals, the transfer of personal data out of the EU and EEA, security and data breach notifications, as well as security and confidentiality of the personal data.  The GDPR allows for the imposition of substantial fines of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater, as well as other corrective measures for breaches of the data protection obligations. Data protection authorities from the different EU member states may interpret the GDPR and national laws differently and impose additional requirements, which add to the complexity of processing personal data in the EU. Guidance on implementation and compliance practices are often updated or otherwise revised, and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EU and the United States remains uncertain. For example, in 2016, the EU and United States agreed to a transfer framework for data transferred from the EU to the United States, called the Privacy Shield, but the Privacy Shield was invalidated in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have to comply with the GDPR and also the United Kingdom GDPR, or UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, e.g. fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. The relationship between the

31

United Kingdom and the EU in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, and it is unclear how United Kingdom data protection laws and regulations will develop in the medium to longer term, and how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated in the long term. Currently there is a four to six-month grace period agreed in the EU and United Kingdom Trade and Cooperation Agreement, ending June 30, 2021 at the latest, while the parties discuss an adequacy decision. However, it is not clear whether (and when) an adequacy decision may be granted by the European Commission enabling data transfers from EU member states to the United Kingdom long term without additional measures. These changes may lead to additional costs and increase our overall risk exposure.

Coverage and Reimbursement

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

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. For example, the EU provides options for its member states to restrict the range of medicinal products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. A member state may approve a specific price for the medicinal product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the medicinal product on the market. We may face competition for our product candidates from lower-priced products in foreign countries that have placed price controls on pharmaceutical products. In addition, there may be importation of foreign products that compete with our own products, which could negatively impact our profitability. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that our products will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, that our products will be considered cost-effective by third-party payors, that an adequate level of reimbursement will be established even if coverage is available or that the third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our products profitably.

Human Capital

At IDEAYA, we view our employees as among our most valuable assets.  Our ability to hire and retain highly skilled professionals remains an important element to our success in discovering and developing targeted therapeutics.  Our employees are at the heart of our values of passionate commitment, fearless innovation, courageous integrity, respectful teamwork, objective decision-making and empowered accountability. We offer our employees a challenging work environment, ongoing skills development, attractive career advancement, and a culture that rewards entrepreneurial initiative and exceptional execution.

In 2020, we established an internal human resources department, including hiring a Vice President, Human Resources, as part of our commitment to our human resources programs and our employee work experience.

We believe our employees and our company benefit from and excel in a diverse, inclusive and safe work environment. Our employees come from numerous countries and bring diversity to our workplace across many critical categories. We believe the variety of experiences, backgrounds and perspectives of our employees bring to their work every day makes IDEAYA stronger and more successful. As of December 31, 2021, females make up 43% of our workforce, 17% of our executive team, and 25% of our board of directors.

As of December 31, 2021, we had a total of 81 employees. Of these employees, 64 were primarily engaged in research and development activities and 17 were primarily engaged in general and administrative activities. Of our total employees, 67 hold biology, chemistry or other relevant scientific degrees, including 41 Ph.D.’s. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

32

Corporate Information

We were founded in June 2015 as a Delaware corporation. Our principal executive offices are located at 7000 Shoreline Court, Suite 350, South San Francisco, California 94080, and our telephone number is (650) 443-6209. Our website address is www.ideayabio.com.

We file electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Our SEC filings are available to the public on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. At our corporate website, www.ideayabio.com, we make available free of charge a variety of information for investors, including copies of these reports, and any amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The information on, or that can be accessed through, our website is not part of this report and is not incorporated by reference herein. We have included our website address as an inactive textual reference only. We also use our website as a means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD.

We use IDEAYA Biosicences, Inc.®, the IDEAYA logo, and other marks as trademarks in the United States and other countries. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains references to our trademarks and service marks and to those belonging to other entities. Solely for convenience, trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including logos, artwork and other visual displays, may appear without the ® or ™ symbols, but such references are not intended to indicate in any way that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensor to these trademarks and trade names. We do not intend our use or display of other entities’ trade names, trademarks or service marks to imply a relationship with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by any other entity.

33

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

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

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

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

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. We are an early-stage biopharmaceutical company, and we have only a limited operating history upon which you can evaluate our business and prospects. We currently have no products approved for commercial sale, have not generated any revenue from sales of products and have incurred losses in each year since our inception in June 2015. In addition, we have limited experience as a company and have not yet demonstrated an ability to successfully overcome many of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by companies in new and rapidly evolving fields, particularly in the biopharmaceutical industry. Only two of our product candidates, IDE397 and darovasertib (IDE196), are currently in ongoing clinical trials – one Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate IDE397 for the treatment of patients having solid tumors with MTAP deletion that we initiated in April 2021, one ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial for darovasertib conducted and controlled by Novartis and one ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial that we initiated in June 2019 to evaluate darovasertib in solid tumors harboring GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations.

We have had significant operating losses since our inception. Our net losses for the twelve months ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 were $49.8 million and $34.5 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $176.7 million. Substantially all of our losses have resulted from expenses incurred in connection with our research and development programs and from general and administrative costs associated with our operations. Our product candidate IDE397 is currently in a Phase 1 clinical trial that we are conducting. Our product candidate darovasertib is currently in a Phase 1 clinical trial being conducted by Novartis and in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial we are conducting. We have multiple other product candidates in preclinical development, as well as early-stage research programs. Our product candidates will require substantial additional development time and resources before we will be able to apply for or receive regulatory approvals and, if approved, begin generating revenue from product sales. Furthermore, we expect to continue to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company. We also do not yet have a sales organization or commercial infrastructure and, accordingly, we will incur significant expenses to develop a sales organization or commercial infrastructure in advance of regulatory approval and generating any commercial product sales. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we anticipate these losses will increase as we continue to develop IDE397, darovasertib, our other product candidates and any future product candidates, conduct clinical trials and pursue research and development activities. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our prior losses, combined with expected future losses, have had and will continue to have an adverse effect on our stockholders’ deficit and working capital.

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

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

34

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

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

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

Since our inception, we have invested a significant portion of our efforts and financial resources in research and development activities for our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform and our initial preclinical and clinical product candidates. Preclinical studies and clinical trials and additional research and development activities will require substantial funds to complete. As of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $368.1 million. We believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future in connection with the research and development of our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform, clinical and preclinical product candidates, and any other future product candidates we may choose to pursue, as well as other corporate uses. Specifically, in the near term, we expect to incur substantial expenses as we advance our synthetic lethality product candidates through preclinical studies, advance darovasertib and IDE397 through clinical development, seek regulatory approval, prepare for and, if approved, proceed to commercialization, and continue our research and development efforts. These expenses will include our cost sharing obligations with GSK for research and development for our WRN program and MAT2A program (if GSK exercises its exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license to continue development of and commercialize MAT2A products). These expenditures will include costs associated with conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals, and manufacturing and supply, as well as marketing and selling any products approved for sale. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the outcome of any preclinical study or clinical trial is highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the actual amounts necessary to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates.

We believe that our existing cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will allow us to fund our planned operations for at least 12 months from the date of the issuance of the financial statements included in this Form 10-K. However, our operating plans and other demands on our capital resources may change as a result of many factors currently unknown to us, and we may need to seek additional funds sooner than planned, through public or private equity or debt financings or other sources, such as strategic collaborations. In addition, we may seek additional capital due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations even if we believe we have sufficient funds for our current or future operating plans. Such financing may result in dilution to stockholders, imposition of burdensome debt covenants and repayment obligations, or other restrictions that may adversely affect our business. If we raise additional funds through licensing or collaboration arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our product candidates, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. Attempting to secure additional financing may also divert our management from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our ability to develop 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.

35

Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Our ability to raise additional funds will depend on financial, economic and other factors, including the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which are beyond our control. Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If adequate funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to:

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

To date, we have primarily financed our operations through the sale of equity securities and payments received under our collaboration agreements. We will be required to seek additional funding in the future and currently intend to do so through collaborations, public or private equity offerings or debt financings, credit or loan facilities or a combination of one or more of these funding sources. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders may suffer dilution and the terms of any financing may adversely affect the rights of our stockholders. In addition, as a condition to providing additional funds to us, future investors may demand, and may be granted, rights superior to those of existing stockholders.

36

Debt financing, if available, is likely to involve restrictive covenants limiting our flexibility in conducting future business activities, and, in the event of insolvency, debt holders would be repaid before holders of our equity securities received any distribution of our corporate assets. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with collaborators or others that may require us to relinquish rights or jointly own some aspects of our technologies or product candidates that we would otherwise pursue on our own.

Risks Related to Our Business

We are early in our development efforts. Our business is dependent on the successful development of our product candidates, future product candidates, and companion diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates and future product candidates.

Our current product candidates are in early stages of development and we are further developing our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform. We have no products approved for sale and our two most advanced product candidates, IDE397 and darovasertib, are in the early stages of clinical development and will require additional clinical development, regulatory review and approval in each jurisdiction in which we intend to market them, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity, and significant sales and marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from product sales. IDE397 is currently being evaluated in an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate IDE397 for the treatment of patients with MTAP deletion. Darovasertib is currently being evaluated in an ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients having tumors with GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations, that we initiated in June 2019, including the combination arm with binimetinib that we initiated in June 2020 and the combination arm with crizotinib that we initiated in December 2020. Darovasertib is also being tested in an earlier-initiated, ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial conducted by Novartis in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma.  Our other product candidates have not been tested in clinical trials. The success of our business, including our ability to finance our company and generate revenue in the future, will primarily depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of our product candidates, which may never occur. In the future, we may also become dependent on other product candidates that we may develop or acquire; however, given our early stage of development, it may be many years, if at all, before we have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of a product candidate sufficient to support approval for commercialization.

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

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

The clinical and commercial success of our current and any future product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including the following:

37

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

38

In connection with the Collaboration, Option and License Agreement with GSK, if GSK does not exercise its option or if it terminates any development program under its collaborations with us, whether as a result of our inability to meet milestones or otherwise, any potential revenue from those collaborations will be significantly reduced or non-existent, and our results of operations and financial condition will be materially and adversely affected.

We have invested a significant portion of our time and financial resources in the development of multiple product candidates that are included in our strategic partnership and collaboration with GSK, under the Collaboration, Option and License Agreement entered into on June 15, 2020, or the GSK Collaboration Agreement. The programs included in the GSK Collaboration Agreement are the MAT2A, Pol Theta (POLQ) and Werner Helicase (WRN) programs. Our ability to continue to advance these synthetic lethality programs in development, in particular prior to the exercise by GSK of its exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license to continue development of and commercialize MAT2A products, is highly dependent on achieving certain development milestones in these programs and triggering related milestone fee payments to us.

Under the GSK Collaboration Agreement, within a specified time period after we deliver to GSK a data package from our MAT2A Phase 1 monotherapy clinical trial, GSK is entitled to exercise an option to obtain an exclusive license for continued development and commercialization of MAT2A products arising out of the MAT2A program on a worldwide basis, which we refer to as the Option. GSK’s exercise of the Option may be subject to Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance, or HSR Clearance, therefor at such time of exercise. After GSK exercises the Option and, if required, HSR Clearance is obtained, GSK must pay us an option exercise payment of $50.0 million.

Under the GSK Collaboration Agreement, we are eligible to receive from GSK future development and regulatory milestones of up to $465.0 million for each MAT2A product, and up to $485.0 million for each POLQ and WRN product, and commercial milestones of up to $475.0 million, with respect to each MAT2A (if GSK exercises the Option and receives HSR Clearance with respect thereto), POLQ and WRN product. Additionally, we are entitled to receive 50% of U.S. net profits and tiered royalties on global non-U.S. net sales of MAT2A (if GSK exercises the Option and receives HSR Clearance with respect thereto) and WRN products by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees ranging from high single digit to sub-teen double digit percentages, subject to certain customary reductions. We are entitled to receive tiered royalties on global net sales of POLQ products by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees ranging from high single digit to sub-teen double digit percentages, subject to certain customary reductions. We have a right to opt-out of the 50% U.S. net profit share and corresponding development cost share for either or both the MAT2A and WRN programs, and would be eligible to receive tiered royalties on U.S. net sales of MAT2A or WRN products, as applicable, by GSK, its affiliates and their sublicensees at the same royalty rates as for global non-U.S. net sales thereafter, with potential positive economic adjustments based on the stage of the MAT2A or WRN program, as applicable, at the time of opt-out. There is no guarantee that we will be able to successfully continue to advance the POLQ and WRN programs and receive regulatory filing milestone payments related to any POLQ or WRN product. There is no guarantee that we will be able to successfully conduct the MAT2A Phase 1 monotherapy clinical trial. Even if we successfully conduct the MAT2A Phase 1 monotherapy clinical trial, GSK is under no obligation to exercise the Option. Further, in the event that GSK is required to obtain HSR Clearance after exercising the Option, and such HSR Clearance is not obtained, GSK will not participate in further development of any MAT2A products and the product rights would revert to us. We would then have worldwide rights to those assets and be responsible for funding the development of the assets. GSK may terminate the entire GSK Collaboration Agreement or any collaboration program on a target-by-target basis for any or no reason upon written notice to us after expiration of a defined notice period. The GSK Collaboration Agreement or any program under the GSK Collaboration Agreement may also be terminated by either party for the other party’s insolvency or certain uncured breaches. We may terminate the GSK Collaboration Agreement if GSK or any of its sublicensees or affiliates challenge certain of our patents. Depending on the timing of any such termination we may not be entitled to receive the option exercise fees, or potential milestone payments, as these payments terminate with termination of the GSK Collaboration Agreement.

If GSK does not exercise the Option with respect to any MAT2A product (or HSR Clearance thereof is not obtained), or terminates its rights and obligations with respect to a program or the entire GSK Collaboration Agreement, then depending on the timing of such event:

39

Any of these events would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Clinical development of one of our product candidates, darovasertib, depends, in part, on data from Novartis’ ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of darovasertib in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. We have no control over the execution of Novartis’ trial.

Our most advanced product candidate, darovasertib, is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial conducted by Novartis. Novartis’ ongoing clinical trial has two arms – a monotherapy arm, and a combination arm evaluating darovasertib in combination with Novartis’ p53-MDM2 inhibitor, HDM201. Our license agreement with Novartis provides that we may reference clinical data from the monotherapy arm and safety data from both arms of Novartis’ ongoing clinical trial in our regulatory filings. Updated monotherapy data from Novartis was presented at AACR in April 2019.

We have no control or oversight over the design or implementation of Novartis’ clinical trial. The license agreement does not impose obligations on Novartis with respect to the conduct of the ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial, its timing, or whether Novartis must complete it. Novartis may delay or discontinue the monotherapy arm and/or the combination arm of their ongoing clinical trial at their own discretion as the trial progresses. Failure on behalf of Novartis, or any third parties with which Novartis has separately contracted with respect to the trial, to adhere to the trial protocols, GCP, or applicable regulations may delay Novartis’ clinical trial, lead to Novartis’ discontinuation of the trial, or cause the results of the trial to be unacceptable for use in a submission by us to the FDA or a comparable regulatory authority. Furthermore, HDM201 is still in clinical development and has not been approved. If Novartis encounters any clinical or regulatory difficulty with regard to HDM201, it may result in the delay or the complete discontinuation of the combination arm of the trial. If Novartis’ clinical trial is delayed or discontinued for any reason, or if we identify another issue with Novartis’ data, it may delay our development of darovasertib, or make it difficult or impossible for us to rely on Novartis’ clinical data in regulatory filings as planned. Furthermore, although the agreement requires Novartis to provide us with certain data at specified intervals, if Novartis does not make data available to us, our darovasertib development program may be significantly delayed and we may need to conduct additional studies or trials independently. As a result, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for darovasertib in a timely fashion, at the expected cost to us, or at all, and our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

As an organization, we have never completed a clinical trial, and may be unable to do so for any of our product candidates.

We will need to successfully initiate and complete our own Phase 1 clinical trials and later-stage and pivotal clinical trials in order to obtain FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory body’s approval to market our product candidates. Carrying out clinical trials and the submission of regulatory filings is a complicated process. As an organization, we have not yet completed any clinical trials for any of our product candidates. One of our product candidates, IDE397, is in a Phase 1 clinical trial that we are conducting. Another of our product candidates, darovasertib, is in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial that we are conducting.  We have limited experience in preparing, submitting and prosecuting regulatory filings, and have not previously submitted any NDA or other comparable foreign regulatory submission for any product candidate. In addition, we have had limited interactions with the FDA and cannot be certain how many additional clinical trials of darovasertib or IDE397 or how many clinical trials of any of our other product candidates will be required or whether the FDA will agree with the design or implementation of our clinical trials. We are required to comply with certain regulatory requirements, and the FDA may identify specific clinical or other development-related requirements that we must satisfy, as a condition to initiating or continuing our clinical trials; if we fail to meet such a requirement, the FDA may issue a clinical hold or designate other conditions on our clinical trials.  Consequently, we may be unable to successfully and efficiently execute and complete necessary clinical trials in a way that leads to regulatory submission of a marketing application for, and approval of, darovasertib, IDE397, or any of our other product candidates. We may require more time and incur greater costs than our competitors and may not succeed in obtaining regulatory approvals of product candidates that we develop. Failure to commence or complete, or delays in, our planned clinical trials, could prevent or delay GSK’s exercise of the Option with respect to any MAT2A product, or prevent us from or delay us in commercializing darovasertib or any other product candidate.

40

The successful development of targeted therapeutics, including therapeutics involving direct targeting of an oncogenic pathway and synthetic lethality therapeutics, including our portfolio of synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitors, as well as any related diagnostics, is highly uncertain.

Successful development of targeted therapeutics, including therapeutics involving direct targeting oncogenic pathways and synthetic lethality therapeutics, such as our portfolio of synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitors, as well as any related diagnostics, is highly uncertain and is dependent on numerous factors, many of which are beyond our control. Our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform is based on new technologies and methods relating to drug target and biomarker identification, screening and validation, including Dual CRISPR genetic screening and bioinformatics and we have not, to date, sought regulatory approval for any therapeutics developed through our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform. As such, it is difficult to accurately predict the developmental challenges we or our collaboration partners, such as GSK, may incur for our current and future product candidates as we proceed through product discovery, identification, preclinical studies and clinical trials.

Our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform is novel and may not be effective at identifying targets and/or biomarkers for product candidates. We therefore cannot provide any assurance that we will be able to successfully identify additional product candidates or biomarkers, advance any of these additional product candidates or diagnostics for their associated biomarkers through the development process.  

Additionally, particular patient genetic alterations, such as mutations, deletions or fusions may not be functionally active genetic drivers of the disease. Further, whether a genetic alteration is functionally active may be difficult to ascertain from preclinical cancer models, may be tissue-type dependent and may vary from patient to patient within a specific indication. If that was the case, we would need to functionally validate such genetic alterations, for example, using in vitro and in vivo models, potentially across more than one tumor-tissue type and across multiple cell lines. If some of the genetic alterations are not functionally validated, this would reduce the size of our addressable patient population. Even if genetic alterations are preclinically validated, the relevance of these alterations may not translate into a human clinical setting, which could adversely impact our clinical trial results and our commercial opportunities.

Targeted therapeutics that appear promising in the early phases of development may fail to reach the market for several reasons, including:

As a result of these factors, it is more difficult for us to predict the time and cost of product candidate development, and we cannot predict whether the application of our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform will result in the identification, development, and regulatory approval of any products. The length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a decision by a regulatory authority may be difficult to predict for targeted therapeutic small molecule inhibitors, in large part because of the limited regulatory history associated with them. The clinical trial requirements of the FDA and other comparable foreign regulatory authorities and the criteria these regulators use to determine the safety and efficacy of a product candidate vary substantially according to the type, complexity, novelty and intended use and market of the product candidate. Except for certain PARP inhibitors, no products based on synthetic lethality have been approved to date by regulators. As a result, the regulatory approval process for product candidates such as ours is uncertain and may be more expensive and take longer than the approval process for product candidates based on other, better known or more extensively studied technologies. It is difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in either the United States or other comparable regions of the world or how long it will take to commercialize our product candidates. Delay or failure to obtain,

41

or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product candidate to market would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we are successful in obtaining regulatory approval, commercial success of any approved products will also depend in large part on the availability of insurance coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors, including government payors, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and managed care organizations, which may be affected by existing and future healthcare reform measures designed to reduce the cost of healthcare. Third-party payors could require us to conduct additional studies, including post-marketing studies related to the cost-effectiveness of a product, to qualify for reimbursement, which could be costly and divert our resources. If government and other healthcare payors were not to provide adequate insurance coverage and reimbursement levels for one any of our products once approved, market acceptance and commercial success would be limited.

In addition, if any of our products is approved for marketing, we will be subject to significant regulatory obligations regarding the submission of safety and other post-marketing information and reports and registration, and will need to continue to comply (or ensure that our third-party providers comply) with cGMPs and GCPs for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. In addition, there is always the risk that we or a regulatory authority might identify previously unknown problems with a product post-approval, such as adverse events, or AEs, of unanticipated severity or frequency. Compliance with these requirements is costly and any failure to comply or other post-approval issues with our product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Preclinical and clinical drug development is a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome. We may incur additional costs or experience delays in completing, or ultimately be unable to complete, the development and commercialization of any product candidates, which could result in increased costs to us, delay or limit our ability to generate revenue and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Furthermore, results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results.

Before we can initiate clinical trials for our product candidates, we must submit the results of preclinical studies to the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority along with other information, including information about product candidate chemistry, manufacturing and controls, diagnostics for biomarkers for our product candidates and our proposed clinical trial protocol, as part of an IND application or similar regulatory filing.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of any products, we, or our collaboration partners, such as GSK, must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product candidates in humans. Clinical trials are expensive and can take many years to complete, and their outcome is inherently uncertain. Failure can occur at any time during the clinical trial process. In addition, we may rely in part on preclinical, clinical and quality data generated by contract research organizations, or CROs, and other third parties for regulatory submissions for our product candidates. While we have or will have agreements governing these third parties’ services, we have limited influence over their actual performance. Further, pursuant to our license agreement with Novartis, we have a right of reference to certain data from Novartis’ ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial data for our regulatory filings for darovasertib.

If these third parties, including Novartis, fail to make data available to us, or, if applicable, make regulatory submissions in a timely manner, in each case pursuant to our agreements with them, our development programs may be significantly delayed and we may need to conduct additional studies or trials or collect additional data independently. In either case, our development costs would increase.

Our clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with Pfizer for the supply of their MEK inhibitor, binimetinib, and their cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, supports our plans to evaluate the safety and efficacy of darovasertib in combination with binimetinib and in combination with crizotinib. If Pfizer delays or fails to supply binimetinib or crizotinib in support of the combination arms of the darovasertib clinical trial, the development program as pertaining to combination of darovasertib with either a MEK inhibitor or a cMET inhibitor may be significantly delayed, and our development costs may increase. Subject to completion of and satisfactory results from preclinical studies, we may evaluate darovasertib in combination with one or more anti-cancer agent(s) in addition to binimetinib and crizotinib, such as a different inhibitor of MEK or cMET or an inhibitor of FAK, mTOR and/or CDK4/6, in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. This may require us to establish additional supply agreements and rely upon third parties for supply of such combination agents, or if such combination agents are commercially available, in the absence of a supply agreement, we may incur the cost of purchasing such combination agents and may be at risk of having insufficient supply. We may initiate clinical trials in which our product candidates, including darovasertib or IDE397, are combined with one or more other pharmaceutical agents that have not yet been approved by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities; in such situations, we may be relying on third parties for obtaining appropriate regulatory approvals and we may have no or limited influence over whether or not such regulatory approvals are achieved for such combination agents.  

42

We and our strategic collaborators, such as GSK, also may experience numerous unforeseen events during, or as a result of, any preclinical studies or clinical trials that could delay or prevent us or our strategic collaborators from successfully developing our product candidates, including:

We and our strategic collaborators, such as GSK, may experience numerous adverse or unforeseen events during, or as a result of, preclinical studies and clinical trials that could delay or prevent our ability to receive marketing approval or commercialize our product candidates, including:

If we or our strategic collaborators, such as GSK, are required to conduct additional clinical trials or other testing of our product candidates beyond those that we currently contemplate, if we are unable to successfully complete clinical trials of our product candidates or other testing, if the results of these trials or tests are not positive or are only moderately positive or if there are safety concerns, we may:

43

We and our strategic collaborators, such as GSK, could also encounter delays if a clinical trial is suspended or terminated by us, by the IRBs of the institutions in which such trials are being conducted, by the Data Safety Monitoring Board, or DSMB, for such trial or by the FDA or another comparable foreign regulatory authority. Such authorities may suspend or terminate a clinical trial due to a number of factors, including failure to conduct the clinical trial in accordance with regulatory requirements or our clinical protocols, inspection of the clinical trial operations or trial site by the FDA or other regulatory authorities resulting in the imposition of a clinical hold, unforeseen safety issues or adverse side effects, failure to demonstrate a benefit from using a product candidate, changes in governmental regulations or administrative actions or lack of adequate funding to continue the clinical trial. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements and policies may occur, and we may need to amend clinical trial protocols to comply with these changes. Amendments may require us to resubmit our clinical trial protocols to IRBs for reexamination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial.

Further, conducting clinical trials in foreign countries, as we may do for certain of our product candidates, presents additional risks that may delay completion of our clinical trials. These risks include the possibility that we could be required to conduct additional preclinical studies before initiating any clinical trials, the failure of enrolled patients in foreign countries to adhere to clinical protocol as a result of differences in healthcare services or cultural customs, managing additional administrative burdens associated with comparable foreign regulatory schemes, as well as political and economic risks relevant to such foreign countries.

Principal investigators for our clinical trials may serve as scientific advisors or consultants to us from time to time and may receive cash or equity compensation in connection with such services. If these relationships and any related compensation result in perceived or actual conflicts of interest, or a regulatory authority concludes that the financial relationship may have affected the interpretation of the clinical trial, the integrity of the data generated at the applicable clinical trial site may be questioned and the utility of the clinical trial itself may be jeopardized, which could result in the delay or rejection of the marketing application we submit. Any such delay or rejection could prevent or delay us from commercializing our current or future product candidates.

If any of our preclinical studies or clinical trials of our product candidates are delayed or terminated, the commercial prospects of our product candidates may be harmed, and our ability to ultimately generate revenues from any of these product candidates will be delayed or not realized at all. In addition, any delays in completing our clinical trials may increase our costs, slow down our product candidate development and regulatory approval process and jeopardize our ability to commence product sales and generate revenues. Any of these occurrences may significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, many of the factors that cause, or lead to, a delay in the commencement or completion of clinical trials may also ultimately lead to the denial of regulatory approval of our product candidates. If our product candidates and any future product candidates prove to be ineffective, unsafe or commercially unviable, our entire platform and approach would have little, if any, value, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Furthermore, the results of preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates may not be predictive of the results of later-stage clinical trials. Product candidates in later stages of clinical trials may fail to show the desired safety and efficacy despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Furthermore, for some of our programs, in the future we intend to conduct basket trials, which will be designed to include multiple clinically defined populations under one investigational protocol, although each population is enrolled and analyzed separately. A basket trial design could potentially decrease the time to study new populations by decreasing administrative burden, however, these trials may not provide opportunities for accelerated regulatory pathways, and do not overcome limitations to extrapolating data from the experience in one disease to other diseases, because safety and efficacy results in each indication are analyzed separately. Accordingly, clinical success in a basket trial, or any trial in one indication, may not predict success in another indication. In contrast, in the event of an adverse safety issue, clinical hold, or other adverse finding in one or more indications being tested, such event could adversely affect our trials in the other indications and may delay or prevent completion of the clinical trials. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials for similar indications that we are pursuing due to lack of efficacy or adverse safety profiles,

44

notwithstanding promising results in earlier studies, and we cannot be certain that we will not face similar setbacks. Even if our clinical trials are completed, the results may not be sufficient to obtain regulatory approval of any products.

Synthetic lethality represents an emerging class of precision medicine targets, and negative perceptions of the efficacy, safety or tolerability of this class of targets, including any that we develop, could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business, advance our product candidates or obtain regulatory approvals.

Aside from PARP inhibitors, such as Lynparza, Rubraca, Zejula and Talzenna, no synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitor therapeutics have been approved to date by the FDA or other comparable regulators. AEs in future clinical trials of our product candidates or in clinical trials of others developing similar products and the resulting publicity, as well as any other AEs in the field of synthetic lethality, or other products that are perceived to be similar to synthetic lethality, such as those related to gene therapy or gene editing, could result in a decrease in the perceived benefit of one or more of our programs, increased regulatory scrutiny, decreased confidence by patients and CROs in our product candidates, and less demand for any product that we may develop. Our substantial pipeline of synthetic lethality small molecule inhibitor product candidates could result in a greater quantity of reportable AEs or other reportable negative clinical outcomes, manufacturing reportable events or material clinical events that could lead to clinical delays or holds by the FDA or applicable regulatory authority or other clinical delays, any of which could negatively impact the perception of one or more of our synthetic lethality programs, as well as our business as a whole. In addition, responses by U.S. federal, state or foreign governments to negative public perception may result in new legislation or regulations that could limit our ability to develop any product candidates or commercialize any approved products, obtain or maintain regulatory approval, or otherwise achieve profitability. More restrictive statutory regimes, government regulations, or negative public opinion would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects, and may delay or impair the development of our product candidates and commercialization of any approved products or demand for any products we may develop.  

Tissue-type agnostic basket trials are an emerging clinical approach, that may result in delays in clinical development, additional regulatory requirements and delays in, or the prevention of, our ability to obtain regulatory approval or commercialize our product candidates.

We initiated a Phase 1/2 tissue-type agnostic basket trial with darovasertib in June 2019, and may also utilize a basket trial approach in clinical trials for other product candidates. Basket trials allow us to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a product candidate in a variety of tumor types with a specific molecular profile. We believe that this clinical approach provides many benefits, however, there are limited precedents, and as a result, there a number of inherent risks.

There is limited precedent for the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities to review and grant tissue-type agnostic approvals. Furthermore, as clinical trials increasingly use classification of tumors by molecular profiling, the FDA or other regulatory authority may change or issue guidance or adopt a policy that adversely affects requirements for basket trials. In the event that such guidance or policy has an effect on any of our protocols or trials, as the case may be, it may result in the delay of clinical development, or require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials.

Even if we obtain a tissue-type agnostic approval for one or more of our product candidates, there is limited precedent for obtaining reimbursement. Third-party payors may reimburse at different levels across tumor tissue types and indicates, or not at all.

We may find it difficult to enroll patients in our clinical trials given the limited number of patients who have the diseases for which our product candidates are being developed. If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials, our clinical development activities could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

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

45

We will be required to identify and enroll a sufficient number of patients for each of our clinical trials. Potential patients for any planned clinical trials may not be adequately diagnosed or identified with the diseases which we are targeting or may not meet the entry criteria for such trials. We also may encounter difficulties in identifying and enrolling patients with a stage of disease appropriate for our planned clinical trials and monitoring such patients adequately during and after treatment. We may not be able to initiate or continue clinical trials if we are unable to locate a sufficient number of eligible patients to participate in the clinical trials required by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority. In addition, the process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly.

In addition, our clinical trials may compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as our product candidates, and this competition will reduce the number and types of patients available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our trials may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, competition for potential patients in our trials is further exacerbated as a result of multiple clinical site closures. Since the number of qualified clinical investigators is already limited, we may conduct some of our clinical trials at the same clinical trial sites that some of our competitors use, which will reduce the number of patients who are available for our clinical trials in such clinical trial site.

Furthermore, certain conditions for which we plan to evaluate our current development candidates are rare diseases, such as metastatic uveal melanoma, with limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical trials. For example, one of our product candidates, darovasertib, is currently being evaluated in a Phase 1/2 basket trial that we initiated in June 2019 to evaluate darovasertib in solid tumors harboring GNAQ/GNA11 hotspot mutations in metastatic uveal melanoma, and potentially in other solid tumors such as cutaneous melanoma and colorectal cancer. The timing of our clinical trials depends, in part, on the speed at which we can recruit patients to participate in our trials, as well as completion of required follow-up periods. The eligibility criteria of our clinical trials, once established, will further limit the pool of available trial participants.

In addition, our clinical trials may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinical site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed. Several of our sites halted new enrollment for several months in 2020 before resuming enrollment. Some patients may not be able or willing to comply with clinical trial protocols, and data collected may be incomplete, if quarantines impede patient movement or interrupt healthcare services. Similarly, the ability to recruit and retain patients, and principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, may be delayed or disrupted, which may adversely impact our clinical trial operations.

If patients are unwilling to participate in our clinical trials for any reason, including the existence of other approved therapies or concurrent clinical trials for similar patient populations, if they are unwilling to enroll in a clinical trial with a placebo-controlled design, or we otherwise have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients, the timeline for recruiting patients, conducting studies and obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates may be delayed. Our inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients for any of our future clinical trials would result in significant delays or may require us to abandon one or more clinical trials altogether. In addition, we expect to rely on CROs and clinical trial sites to ensure proper and timely conduct of our future clinical trials and, while we intend to enter into agreements governing their services, we will have limited influence over their actual performance.

We cannot assure you that we will not experience delays in enrollment, which would result in the delay of completion of such trials beyond our expected timelines.

Our product candidates or any future product candidates may be associated with undesirable side effects or AEs 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 any.

As with most pharmaceutical products, use of our product candidates could be associated with side effects or AEs which can vary in severity from minor reactions to death and in frequency from infrequent to prevalent. Undesirable side effects or unacceptable toxicities caused by our product candidates could cause us or regulatory authorities to interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials and could result in a more restrictive label or the delay or denial of regulatory approval by the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority. Results of our clinical trials could reveal a high and unacceptable severity and prevalence of these or other side effects. Furthermore, certain of our product candidates, such as darovasertib, may be co-administered with third-party approved or experimental therapies, such as binimetinib or crizotinib in the combination arms of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial. These combinations may have additional side effects. The uncertainty resulting from the use of our product candidates in combination with other therapies may make it difficult to accurately predict side effects in future clinical trials.

46

To date, only two of our product candidates, IDE397 and darovasertib, have been tested in clinical trials, including an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial of IDE397 and an ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial and an ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical trial of darovasertib, and they have been observed to be generally well tolerated, with certain drug-related SAEs and AEs being reported for darovasertib, as monotherapy and in combination with binimetinib and in combination with crizotinib.

If unacceptable side effects arise in the further development of darovasertib, including in combination with binimetinib or crizotinib, in the further development of IDE397, or in the development of any of our other product candidates, we, the FDA, or the IRBs at the institutions in which the clinical trials are being conducted could suspend or terminate our clinical trials or the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority could order us to cease clinical trials or deny approval of our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Treatment-related side effects could also affect patient recruitment or the ability of enrolled patients to complete any of our clinical trials or result in potential product liability claims. In addition, these side effects may not be appropriately recognized or managed by the treating medical staff. We expect to have to train medical personnel using our product candidates to understand the side effect profiles for our clinical trials and upon any commercialization of any of our product candidates. Inadequate training in recognizing or managing the potential side effects of our product candidates could result in patient injury or death. Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly.

In addition, even if we successfully advance our product candidates or any future product candidates into and through clinical trials, such trials will likely only include a limited number of patients and limited duration of exposure to our product candidates. As a result, we cannot be assured that adverse effects of our product candidates will not be uncovered when a significantly larger number of patients are exposed to the product candidate. Further, any clinical trials may not be sufficient to determine the effect and safety consequences of taking our product candidates over a multi-year period.

If any 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:

Any of the foregoing events could prevent us from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the particular product candidate, if approved, and result in the loss of significant revenues to us, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. In addition, if one or more of our product candidates prove to be unsafe, our entire technology platform and pipeline could be affected, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are unable to successfully develop molecular diagnostics for biomarkers that enable patient selection and/or that demonstrate drug-target interaction, or experience significant delays in doing so, we may not realize the full commercial potential of our product candidates.

A key component of our strategy includes the use of molecular diagnostics to guide patient selection and/or to confirm target engagement of our product candidates. In some cases, a diagnostic may be commercially available, for example, on a tumor-profiling panel. If not already commercially available, we may collaborate with diagnostic companies for the development of biomarkers associated with our product candidates.  We may have difficulty in establishing or maintaining such development relationships, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations.

There are also several risks associated with biomarker identification and validation. We, in collaboration with any diagnostic partners, may not be able to identify predictive biomarkers or pharmacodynamic biomarkers for one or more of our programs. We may not be able to validate potential biomarkers (e.g., certain genetic mutations) or their functional relevance preclinically in relevant in vitro or in vivo models. Data analytics and information from databases that we rely on for identifying or validating some of our biomarker-target relationships may not accurately reflect potential patient populations. Potential biomarkers, even if validated preclinically, may not be functionally effective or validated in human clinical trials.

47

If we, in collaboration with these parties, are unable to successfully develop companion diagnostics for our product candidates, or experience delays in doing so, the development of our product candidates may be adversely affected. The development of companion diagnostic products requires a significant investment of working capital, and may not result in any future income. This could require us to raise additional funds, which could dilute our current investors or impact our ability to continue our operations in the future.

There are also risks associated with diagnostics that are commercially available, including that we may not have access to reliable supply for such diagnostics.

The failure to obtain required regulatory approvals for any companion diagnostic tests that we may pursue may prevent or delay approval of our product candidates. Moreover, the commercial success of any of our product candidates may be tied to the regulatory approval, market acceptance and continued availability of a companion diagnostic.

The FDA regulates in vitro companion diagnostics as medical devices that will likely be subject to and require prospective validation in clinical trials in conjunction with the clinical trials for our product candidates, and which will require regulatory clearance or approval prior to commercialization. We plan to collaborate with third parties for the development, testing and manufacturing of these companion diagnostics, the application for and receipt of any required regulatory clearances or approvals, and the commercial supply of these companion diagnostics. Our third-party collaborators may fail to obtain the required regulatory clearances or approvals, which could prevent or delay approval of our product candidates. In addition, the commercial success of any of our product candidates may be tied to and dependent upon the receipt of required regulatory clearances or approvals of the companion diagnostic.

Even if a companion diagnostic is approved, we will rely on the continued ability of any third-party collaborator to make the companion diagnostic commercially available to us on reasonable terms in the relevant geographies. Furthermore, if commercial tumor profiling panels are not able to be updated to include additional tumor-associated genes, or if clinical oncologists do not incorporate molecular or genetic sequencing into their clinical practice, we may not be successful in developing or commercializing our existing product candidates or any future product candidates.  

Interim, “topline” and preliminary data from our clinical trials may differ materially from the final data.

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

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

We may be unable to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or any future product candidates. The denial or delay of such approval would prevent or delay commercialization of our product candidates and adversely impact our business, financial condition, operating results and prospects.

The process of obtaining regulatory approval is expensive, often takes many years following the commencement of clinical trials and can vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product candidates involved, as well as the target indications and patient population. Approval policies or regulations may change, and the FDA has substantial discretion in the drug approval process, including the ability to delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons. Despite the time and expense invested in clinical development of product candidates, regulatory approval is never

48

guaranteed. Neither we nor any collaborator, such as GSK or any future collaborator, is permitted to market any of our product candidates in the United States until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA.

Prior to obtaining approval to commercialize a product candidate in the United States, we or our collaborators must demonstrate with substantial evidence from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, and to the satisfaction of the FDA, that such product candidates are safe and effective for their intended uses. Foreign regulatory authorities may require a similar demonstration before we can obtain approval to commercialize a product candidate abroad. Results from preclinical studies and clinical trials can be interpreted in different ways. Even if we believe the preclinical or clinical data for our product candidates are promising, such data may not be sufficient to support approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority, as the case may be, may also require us to conduct additional preclinical studies or clinical trials for our product candidates either prior to or post-approval, or may object to elements of our clinical development program.  

The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority can delay, limit or deny approval of a product candidate for many reasons, including:

With respect to foreign markets, approval procedures vary among countries and, in addition to the foregoing risks, may involve additional product testing, administrative review periods and agreements with pricing authorities. In addition, events raising questions about the safety of certain marketed pharmaceuticals may result in increased cautiousness by the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities in reviewing new drugs based on safety, efficacy or other regulatory considerations and may result in significant delays in obtaining regulatory approvals. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approvals would prevent us or any of our collaborators, such as GSK or any potential future collaborators, from commercializing any products.

Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage successfully complete the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory approval processes and are commercialized. The lengthy approval process as well as the unpredictability of future

49

clinical trial results may result in our failing to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates, which would significantly harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Even if we eventually complete clinical trials and receive approval of an NDA or foreign marketing application for a product, the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly additional clinical trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and/or the implementation of a REMS, which may be required to ensure safe use of the drug after approval. The FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority also may approve a product candidate for a more limited indication or patient population than we originally requested, and the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority may not approve the labeling that we believe is necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of a product candidate. Any delay in obtaining, or inability to obtain, applicable regulatory approval would delay or prevent commercialization of that product candidate and would materially adversely impact our business and prospects.

We may develop our product candidates and future product candidates in combination with other therapies, and safety or supply issues with combination-use products may delay or prevent development and approval of our product candidates.

We may develop our product candidates in combination with one or more cancer therapies, both approved and unapproved. Even if any product candidate we develop were to receive marketing approval or be commercialized for use in combination with other existing therapies, we would continue to be subject to the risks that the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States could revoke approval of the therapy used in combination with our product candidates or that safety, efficacy, manufacturing or supply issues could arise with these existing therapies. Combination therapies are commonly used for the treatment of cancer, and we would be subject to similar risks if we develop any of our product candidates for use in combination with other drugs or for indications other than cancer. Similarly, if the therapies we use in combination with our product candidates are replaced as the standard of care for the indications we choose for any of our product candidates, the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside of the United States may require us to conduct additional clinical trials. The occurrence of any of these risks could result in our own products, if approved, being removed from the market or being less successful commercially.

We may also evaluate our product candidates in combination with one or more cancer therapies that have not yet been approved for marketing by the FDA or a similar regulatory authority outside of the United States. We may be unable to effectively identify and collaborate with third parties for the evaluation of our product candidates in combination with their therapies. We will not be able to market and sell any product candidate we develop in combination with any such unapproved cancer therapies that do not ultimately obtain marketing approval. The regulations prohibiting the promotion of products for unapproved uses are complex and subject to substantial interpretation by the FDA and other government agencies. In addition, there are additional risks similar to the ones described for our products currently in development and clinical trials that result from the fact that such cancer therapies are unapproved, such as the potential for serious adverse effects, delay in their clinical trials and lack of FDA approval.

If the FDA or a similar regulatory authority outside of the United States does not approve these other drugs or revokes approval of, or if safety, efficacy, manufacturing, or supply issues arise with, the drugs we choose to evaluate in combination with any product candidate we develop, we may be unable to obtain approval of or market such product.

Although we may apply for orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may not receive the designation or we may be unable to obtain the benefits associated with such designation, including the potential for marketing exclusivity

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. In the United States, the FDA may designate a drug as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States, or a patient population greater than 200,000 in the United States where there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing the drug will be recovered from sales in the United States. In the United States, orphan drug designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding, tax credits for certain clinical trial costs and user-fee waivers. If a drug with an orphan drug designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the drug is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug and indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances.

Although we may apply for orphan drug designation for our product candidates, we may not receive the designation we apply for.  Even if we received orphan drug designation for one or more of our product candidates, there is no guarantee that we will obtain approval or orphan drug exclusivity for the product. Even if we obtain approval and orphan drug exclusivity for any of our product candidates, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different therapies can be approved for the same condition and the same therapy could be approved for different conditions. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In addition, a designated orphan drug may not receive orphan drug exclusivity if it is approved for a use that

50

is broader than the indication for which it received orphan designation. Moreover, orphan drug exclusive marketing rights in the United States may be lost if the FDA later determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition. Orphan drug designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process. While we may seek additional orphan drug designations for applicable indications for our current and any future product candidates, we may never receive such designations. Even if we do receive such designations, there is no guarantee that we will enjoy the benefits of those designations.

A breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA for our product candidates may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and it does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will obtain marketing approval.

We may seek a breakthrough therapy designation for some of our product candidates. A breakthrough therapy is defined as a drug that is intended, alone or in combination with one or more other drugs, to treat a serious or life-threatening disease or condition, and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints, such as substantial treatment effects observed early in clinical development. For drugs and biologics that have been designated as breakthrough therapies, interaction and communication between the FDA and the sponsor of the clinical trial can help to identify the most efficient path for clinical development while minimizing the number of patients placed in ineffective control regimens. Drugs designated as breakthrough therapies by the FDA are also eligible for accelerated approval. For some of our programs for which we intend to conduct basket trials, which will be designed to include multiple clinically defined populations under one investigational protocol though each population is enrolled and analyzed separately, we may not be eligible for accelerated approval.

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

We face significant competition in an environment of rapid technological and scientific change, and our failure to effectively compete may prevent us from achieving significant market penetration. Most of our competitors have significantly greater resources than we do and we may not be able to successfully compete.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries in particular are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on developing proprietary therapeutics. We compete with a variety of multinational biopharmaceutical companies and specialized biotechnology companies, as well as technology being developed at universities and other research institutions. Our competitors have developed, are developing or will likely develop product candidates and processes competitive with our product candidates. Competitive therapeutic treatments include those that have already been approved and accepted by the medical community and any new treatments that enter the market. We believe that a significant number of product candidates are currently under development, and may become commercially available in the future, for the treatment of diseases and other conditions for which we may try to develop product candidates. Our competitors may obtain regulatory approval of their products more rapidly than we may or may obtain patent protection or other intellectual property rights that limit our ability to develop or commercialize our product candidates. We believe that while our precision medicine target and biomarker discovery platform and our scientific and technical know-how give us a competitive advantage in this space, competition from many sources remains. Our competitors include larger and better funded biopharmaceutical, biotechnological and oncology therapeutics companies, as well as universities and other research institutions.

Our commercial opportunity and success will be reduced or eliminated if competing products emerge that are safer, more effective, or less expensive than the therapeutics we develop. Our competitors may develop drugs that are more effective, more convenient, more widely used and less costly or have a better safety profile than our products and these competitors may also be more successful than us in manufacturing and marketing their products.

Although we believe that darovasertib is currently the most advanced small molecule PKC inhibitor for genetically-defined cancers having GNAQ or GNA11 gene mutations in clinical trials, others may receive approval for competitive products before we do. If any of our product candidates are approved, they will compete with a range of therapeutic treatments that are either in development or currently marketed. For darovasertib, our small molecule inhibitor targeting PKC in genetically-defined solid tumors having GNAQ or GNA11 mutations or other genetic alterations that activate the PKC signaling pathway, other companies are actively developing therapeutics directed to PKC as a target for solid tumors. MingSight is developing a PKC beta inhibitor in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and diabetic macular edema, both in Phase 1 studies. Varian Biopharmaceuticals is advancing a preclinical-stage atypical PKC iota inhibitor, including as a dermatologic gel formulation for potential topical treatment of Basal Cell Carcinoma, or BCC. We are aware of other companies that are

51

conducting research and development of potential therapies for metastatic uveal melanoma based on other targets and approaches. For example, Immunocore is developing IMCgp100 (tebentafusp), also known under its branded name of Kimmtrak, Kimmtrak was approved by the FDA in January 2022 for the treatment of HLA-A*02:01-positive unresectable or metastatic uveal melanoma.  Immunocore has disclosed in regulatory filings that of the approximately 5,000 to 6,000 estimated new cases of primary uveal melanoma per annum, there is an estimated addressable patient population of 1,000 patients per annum which have metastatic uveal melanoma that are HLA-A*02:01-positive and will be eligible for treatment with Kimmtrak. For our pipeline of small molecule therapeutics based on synthetic lethality, potential competition includes established companies as well as earlier-stage emerging biotechnology companies. Multiple companies have been involved with research and development of PARP inhibitors, including AstraZeneca (Lynparza), Clovis (Rubraca), GSK (Zejula), and Pfizer (Talzenna). With respect to our MAT2A inhibitor for solid tumors having MTAP gene deletion, Servier is developing AG-270 in a Phase 1 clinical trial for certain advanced solid tumors or lymphoma. Additionally, several other early-stage companies, including Anticancer Bioscience, Artios, Breakpoint, Cyteir, Foghorn, FoRx, KSQ, MetaboMed, Mirati, NeoMed, Repare, Ribon, Ryvu, Silicon (a part of Roivant), Tango, Vividion and Zai Lab are performing research in synthetic lethality. Development decisions and data from clinical trials of our competitors may adversely impact clinical development of our product candidates, and may additionally or alternatively have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or business prospects.

Furthermore, we also face competition more broadly across the market for cost-effective and reimbursable cancer treatments. The most common methods of treating patients with cancer are surgery, radiation and drug therapy, including chemotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted drug therapy or a combination of such methods. There are a variety of available drug therapies marketed for cancer. In many cases, these drugs are administered in combination to enhance efficacy. Some of these drugs are branded and subject to patent protection, and others are available on a generic basis. Insurers and other third-party payors may also encourage the use of generic products or specific branded products. We expect that if our product candidates are approved, they will be priced at a significant premium over competitive generic, including branded generic, products. As a result, obtaining market acceptance of, and a gaining significant share of the market for, any of our product candidates that we successfully introduce to the market will pose challenges. In addition, many companies are developing new therapeutics, and we cannot predict what the standard of care will be as our product candidates progress through clinical development.

In some cases we may also develop diagnostics to enable relevant biomarker screening for clinical and commercial purposes in connection with our product candidates. If not already commercially available, we anticipate working in collaboration with diagnostic companies for this development, and we will face competition from other companies in establishing these collaborations. Our competitors will also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, management and commercial personnel, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, technical, manufacturing, marketing, sales and supply resources or experience than we do. If we successfully obtain approval for any product candidate, we will face competition based on many different factors, including the safety and effectiveness of our products, the ease with which our products can be administered and the extent to which patients accept relatively new routes of administration, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals for these products, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, coverage, reimbursement and patent position. Competing products could present superior treatment alternatives, including by being more effective, safer, less expensive or marketed and sold more effectively than any products we may develop. Competing products may make any products we develop obsolete or noncompetitive before we recover the expense of developing and commercializing our product candidates. Such competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan.

We expect to expand our development and regulatory capabilities and potentially implement sales and distribution capabilities, and as a result, we will need to increase the size of our organization, and we may experience difficulties in managing growth.

As of December 31, 2021, we had 81 employees. We will need to continue to expand our managerial, operational, finance and other resources in order to manage our operations and clinical trials, continue our development activities, submit for regulatory approval and, if approved, commercialize our product candidates or any future product candidates. Our management and personnel, systems and facilities currently in place may not be adequate to support this future growth. Our need to effectively execute our growth strategy requires that we:

52

There is no assurance that any of these increases in scale, expansion of personnel, equipment, software and computing capacities, or process enhancements will be successfully implemented, or that we will have adequate space in our laboratory facilities to accommodate such required expansion.

We currently have no sales organization. If we are unable to establish sales capabilities on our own or through third parties, we may not be able to market and sell any products effectively, if approved, or generate product revenue.

We currently do not have a marketing or sales organization. In order to commercialize any product, if approved, in the United States and foreign jurisdictions, we must build our marketing, sales, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities or make arrangements with third parties to perform these services, and we may not be successful in doing so. In advance of any of our product candidates receiving regulatory approval, we expect to establish a sales organization with technical expertise and supporting distribution capabilities to commercialize each such product candidate, which will be expensive and time-consuming. We have no prior experience in the marketing, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products, and there are significant risks involved in building and managing a sales organization, including our ability to hire, retain, and incentivize qualified individuals, generate sufficient sales leads, provide adequate training to sales and marketing personnel, and effectively manage a geographically dispersed sales and marketing team. Any failure or delay in the development of our internal sales, marketing and distribution capabilities would adversely impact the commercialization of these products. Under our GSK Collaboration Agreement, GSK will be responsible for commercialization of any MAT2A (if GSK exercises the Option and obtains HSR Clearance thereof), POLQ, or WRN products. We may choose to collaborate with additional third parties that have direct sales forces and established distribution systems, either to augment our own sales force and distribution systems or in lieu of our own sales force and distribution systems. If we are unable to enter into such arrangements on acceptable terms or at all, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates. If we are not successful in commercializing products, either on our own or through arrangements with one or more third parties, we may not be able to generate any future product revenue and we would incur significant additional losses.

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

Our success depends in part on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, clinical and scientific personnel. We are highly dependent upon our senior management, particularly our President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as our senior scientists and other members of our senior management team. The loss of services of any of these individuals could delay or prevent the successful development of any products, initiation or completion of our planned clinical trials or the commercialization of our product candidates or any other product candidates.

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

Our employees and independent contractors, including principal investigators, consultants, collaborators, service providers and other vendors may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

We are exposed to the risk that our employees and independent contractors, including principal investigators, consultants, collaborators, service providers and other vendors may engage in misconduct or other illegal activity. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional, reckless and/or negligent conduct or other unauthorized activities that violate: the laws and regulations of the FDA and other similar regulatory bodies, including those laws that require the reporting of true, complete and accurate information to such regulatory bodies; manufacturing standards; U.S. federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws, data privacy and security laws and other similar non-U.S. laws; or laws that require the true, complete and accurate reporting of financial information or data. Activities subject to these laws also involve the improper use or misrepresentation of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, the creation of fraudulent data in our preclinical studies or clinical trials, or illegal misappropriation of product, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation. It is not always possible to identify and deter misconduct by employees and other third-parties, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to be in compliance with such laws or regulations. In addition, we are subject to the risk that a person or government could allege such fraud or other misconduct, even if none occurred. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business and financial results, including, without limitation, the imposition of significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, monetary fines, disgorgement, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other U.S. federal healthcare programs or healthcare programs in other jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, individual imprisonment, other sanctions, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and

53

future earnings and curtailment of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our business involves the use of hazardous materials and we and our third-party manufacturers and suppliers must comply with environmental laws and regulations, which can be expensive and restrict how we do business.

Our research and development activities and our third-party manufacturers’ and suppliers’ activities involve the controlled storage, use and disposal of hazardous materials owned by us, including the components of our product candidates and other hazardous compounds. We and any third-party manufacturers and suppliers we engage are subject to numerous federal, state and local environmental, health and safety laws, regulations and permitting requirements, including those governing laboratory procedures; the generation, handling, use, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials and wastes; the emission and discharge of hazardous materials into the ground, air and water; and employee health and safety. Our operations involve the use of hazardous and flammable materials, including chemicals and biological and radioactive materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. 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 generally contract with third parties for the disposal of these materials and wastes. We cannot eliminate the risk of contamination, which could cause an interruption of our research and development efforts, commercialization efforts and business operations, environmental damage resulting in costly clean-up 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 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. Under certain environmental laws, we could be held responsible for costs relating to any contamination at our current or past facilities and at third-party facilities. 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.

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

We attempt to distribute our technology, biology, execution and financing risks across a range of therapeutic classes, disease states, programs and technologies. Due to the significant resources required for the development of our broad portfolio of programs, and depending on our ability to access capital, we must make certain risk assessments and prioritize development of certain product candidates. Moreover, we may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Our organization is committed to a broad approach to precision medicine that seeks to maximize our integrated biomarker and small molecule drug discovery capabilities. Our current portfolio consists of multiple programs, extending across multiple classes of precision medicine, including direct targeting of oncogenic pathways and synthetic lethality. Together, these programs require significant capital investment. The directly targeted therapy programs are at various stages of preclinical and early clinical development, and our synthetic lethality programs are in the target identification, validation, lead optimization, and early clinical stages of development. We seek to maintain a process of prioritization and resource allocation to maintain an optimal balance between advancing and expanding our synthetic lethality and direct targeting programs. Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on specific product candidates, indications and discovery programs. As a result, we may forgo or delay pursuit of opportunities with other product candidates that could have had greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaborations, licenses and other similar arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights to such product candidate.

54

Furthermore, as our programs progress, we or others may determine: that certain of our risk allocation decisions were incorrect or insufficient; that we made platform level technology mistakes; that individual programs or our approach to synthetic lethality or precision medicine in general has technology or biology risks that were unknown or underappreciated; that our choices on how to build our organizational infrastructure to drive our expansion will result in an inability to manufacture our products for clinical trials or otherwise impede our manufacturing capabilities; or that we have allocated resources in such a way that large investments are not recovered and capital allocation is not subject to rapid re-direction. All of these risks may relate to our current or future precision medicine programs or companion diagnostics, and in the event material decisions in any of these areas turn out to have been incorrect or under-optimized, we may experience a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.  

The COVID-19 pandemic, or any other pandemic, epidemic or outbreak of an infectious disease may materially and adversely affect our business and operations, including the pace of enrollment in current or future clinical trials.

Outbreaks of epidemic, pandemic, or contagious diseases, such as the current novel coronavirus or, historically, the Ebola virus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or the H1N1 virus, could disrupt our business.  For example, beginning in late 2019, the outbreak of a novel strain of virus named SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), or coronavirus, which causes coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19, has evolved into a global pandemic. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern,” and on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the outbreak as a “pandemic”. The governors of California and over forty other states, as well as mayors of many cities, ordered their residents to cease traveling to non-essential jobs and to curtail all unnecessary travel, and to stay in their homes as much as possible. As of February 2022, the coronavirus has spread to most regions of the world and, although infection rates have recently declined, the United States continues to experience outbreaks of COVID-19 and its variant strains, particularly in certain states. As states and localities increasingly lift COVID-19 protocols, we will continue to monitor the extent and impact of the pandemic and, if the current economic conditions worsen or last for an extended period of time, we could be forced to significantly scale back our business and growth plans, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting the United States and global economies and may affect our operations and those of third parties on which we rely.  Some of these third parties have experienced shut-downs, supply chain and experimental study interruptions or slow-downs, and more third parties could experience such shut-downs, interruptions or slow-downs. Individuals at our company or at such third parties could become ill, quarantined, or otherwise unable to work and/or travel due to health reasons or governmental restrictions. We have requested that many of our personnel, including all of our administrative employees, work remotely, restricting on-site staff to generally only those personnel and contractors who perform research activities. The COVID-19 pandemic could disrupt our ability to secure supplies for our facilities and to provide personal protective equipment for our employees. The safety, health and well-being of our workforce is of primary concern and we may need to enact further precautionary measures to help minimize the risk of our employees being exposed to the novel coronavirus.

Additionally, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the FDA temporarily postponed routine surveillance inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities. Subsequently, on July 10, 2020, the FDA announced its intention to resume certain on-site inspections of domestic manufacturing facilities subject to a risk-based prioritization system. The FDA utilized this risk-based assessment system to assist in determining when and where it was safest to conduct prioritized domestic inspections. Additionally, on April 15, 2021, the FDA issued a guidance document in which the FDA described its plans to conduct voluntary remote interactive evaluations of certain drug manufacturing facilities and clinical research sites, among other facilities. According to the guidance, the FDA may request such remote interactive evaluations where the FDA determines that remote evaluation would be appropriate based on mission needs and travel limitations. In May 2021, the FDA outlined a detailed plan to move toward a more consistent state of inspectional operations, and in July 2021, the FDA resumed standard inspectional operations of domestic facilities and was continuing to maintain this level of operation as of September 2021. More recently, the FDA has continued to monitor and implement changes to its inspectional activities to ensure the safety of its employees and those of the firms it regulates as it adapts to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic. Regulatory authorities outside the United States may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including providing guidance regarding the conduct of clinical trials. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the operations of the FDA and other health authorities, which could result in delays of reviews and approvals, including with respect to our product candidates. If global health concerns continue to prevent the FDA or other regulatory authorities from conducting their regular operations, inspections, reviews or other regulatory activities, it could significantly impact the ability of the FDA or other regulatory authorities to timely review and process our regulatory submissions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The evolving COVID-19 pandemic may also, directly or indirectly, impact the pace of enrollment and impose logistical and trial management constraints in current or future clinical trials. Site initiation and patient enrollment may be delayed due to prioritization of hospital resources toward the COVID-19 pandemic, and potential or enrolled patients may not be able or willing to comply with clinical trial protocols, whether due to quarantines impeding patient movement or interrupting healthcare services, or due to potential or enrolled patient concerns regarding interactions with medical facilities or staff.

55

Similarly, our ability to recruit and retain principal investigators and site staff who, as healthcare providers, may have heightened exposure to COVID-19, may be delayed or disrupted, which may adversely impact our clinical trial operations.

While the COVID-19 pandemic did not materially adversely affect our business operations in the year ended December 31, 2021, economic and health conditions in the United States and across most of the globe continue to change rapidly and may materially affect us economically. While the potential economic impact brought by, and the duration of, COVID-19 may be difficult to assess or predict, a continuing widespread pandemic could result in significant disruption of global financial markets, reducing our ability to access capital, which could in the future negatively affect our liquidity. In addition, a recession or market correction resulting from the spread of COVID-19 could materially affect our business and the value of our common stock. The global pandemic of COVID-19 continues to rapidly evolve. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or a similar health epidemic is highly uncertain and subject to change. We do not yet know the full extent of potential delays or impacts on our business, our clinical trials, healthcare systems or the global economy as a whole. However, these effects could have a material impact on our operations, and we will continue to monitor the COVID-19 situation closely.

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 is located in the San Francisco Bay Area, which in the past has experienced both severe earthquakes and wildfires. We do not carry earthquake insurance. Earthquakes, wildfires or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, 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, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our headquarters or other facilities, that damaged critical infrastructure, such as our enterprise financial systems or manufacturing resource planning and enterprise quality systems, 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.

Furthermore, the third parties on which we depend, including suppliers, contract manufacturers and CROs are similarly vulnerable to natural disasters or other sudden, unforeseen and serious adverse events. If such an event were to affect our supply chain, manufacturing arrangements or interfere with a preclinical study or clinical trial, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are currently operating in a period of economic uncertainty and capital markets disruption, which has been significantly impacted by geopolitical instability due to the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected by any negative impact on the global economy and capital markets resulting from the conflict in Ukraine or any other geopolitical tensions.

U.S. and global markets are experiencing volatility and disruption following the escalation of geopolitical tensions and the start of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, a military invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops was reported. Although the length and impact of the ongoing military conflict is highly unpredictable, the conflict in Ukraine could lead to market disruptions, including significant volatility in commodity prices, credit and capital markets, as well as operational interruptions for our research vendors. Such risks and disruptions may negatively impact our supply chain, manufacturing arrangements, preclinical studies, clinical trials and our access to capital markets and ability to finance operations, which could have a materially adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

The commercial success of our partnered product candidates in our MAT2A (if GSK successfully exercises the Option and obtains HSR Clearance thereof), POLQ and WRN programs, which are part of the GSK Collaboration Agreement, will depend in large part on the development and marketing efforts of GSK. If GSK is unable to perform in accordance with the terms of the GSK Collaboration Agreement, our potential to generate future revenue from these programs would be significantly reduced and our business would be materially and adversely harmed.

We will have limited influence and/or control over GSK’s approaches to development and commercialization of any MAT2A (if GSK exercises the Option and obtains HSR Clearance thereof), POLQ or WRN products. While we will have the right to receive potential milestone, profit share and royalty streams payable as GSK or its sublicensees advance development of such MAT2A, POLQ, or WRN products, we are likely to have limited ability to influence GSK’s development and commercialization efforts. If GSK does not perform in the manner that we expect or fulfill its responsibilities in a timely manner, or at all, the clinical development, regulatory approval and commercialization efforts related to product candidates

56

we have licensed to GSK could be delayed or terminated. Furthermore, GSK or its licensees may elect to devote greater resources to other programs that do not relate to us or our collaboration.

If we terminate the GSK Collaboration Agreement, or any program thereunder due to a material breach by GSK, we have the right to assume the responsibility at our own expense for the development of the applicable product candidates. Assumption of sole responsibility for further development will greatly increase our expenditures, and may mean we need to limit the size and scope of one or more of our programs, seek additional funding and/or choose to stop work altogether on one or more of the affected product candidates. This could result in a limited potential to generate future revenue from such product candidates, and our business could be materially and adversely affected.

We rely on third parties to conduct certain of our preclinical studies and all of our clinical trials and intend to rely on third parties in the conduct of all of our future clinical trials. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements or meet expected deadlines, it may delay or prevent us from seeking or obtaining regulatory approval or commercializing our current or future product candidates.

We currently do not have the ability to independently conduct preclinical studies that comply with the regulatory requirements known as good laboratory practice, or GLP, requirements. We also do not currently have the ability to independently conduct any clinical trials. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions require us to comply with regulations and standards, commonly referred to as GCP, requirements for conducting, monitoring, recording and reporting the results of clinical trials, in order to ensure that the data and results are scientifically credible and accurate and that the clinical trial patients are adequately informed of the potential risks of participating in clinical trials. We rely on medical institutions, clinical investigators, contract laboratories and other third parties, such as CROs, to conduct GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials on our product candidates properly and on time. The third parties with whom we contract for execution of our GLP-compliant preclinical studies and our GCP-compliant clinical trials play a significant role in the conduct of these studies and trials and the subsequent collection and analysis of data. These third parties are not our employees and, except for restrictions imposed by our contracts with such third parties, we have limited ability to control the amount or timing of resources that they devote to our programs. Although we rely on these third parties to conduct our GLP-compliant preclinical studies and GCP-compliant clinical trials, we remain responsible for ensuring that each of our GLP preclinical studies and clinical trials is conducted in accordance with its investigational plan and protocol and applicable laws and regulations, and our reliance on the CROs does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

Many of the third parties with whom we contract may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical trials or other drug development activities that could harm our competitive position. Further, some of these agreements may also be terminated by such third parties on short notice, or under certain circumstances, including our insolvency. If the third parties conducting our preclinical studies or our clinical trials do not adequately perform their contractual duties or obligations, experience significant business challenges, disruptions or failures, do not meet expected deadlines, terminate their agreements with us or need to be replaced, or if the quality or accuracy of the data they obtain is compromised due to their failure to adhere to our protocols or to GCPs, or for any other reason, we may need to enter into new arrangements with alternative third parties. This could be difficult, costly or impossible, and our preclinical studies or clinical trials may need to be extended, delayed, terminated or repeated. As a result, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion, or at all, for the applicable product candidate, and our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be adversely affected.

We rely on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical and clinical development and expect to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This reliance on third parties increases the risk that we will not have sufficient quantities of our product candidates or products or such quantities at an acceptable cost, which could delay, prevent or impair our development or commercialization efforts.

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities and have no plans to build our own clinical or commercial scale manufacturing capabilities. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and related raw materials for preclinical and clinical development, as well as for commercial manufacture of any future approved products. The facilities used by third-party manufacturers to manufacture our product candidates must be approved by the FDA pursuant to inspections that will be conducted after we submit our NDA to the FDA. We do not control the manufacturing process of, and are completely dependent on, third-party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements for manufacture of drug products. If these third-party manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the strict regulatory requirements of the FDA or others, including requirements related to the manufacturing of high potency compounds, they will not be able to secure and/or maintain regulatory approval for their manufacturing facilities. These third-party manufacturers may be delayed in their manufacture or shipment of our product candidates due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Additionally, our ability to audit these third-party manufacturers for compliance with cGMP requirements and our specifications may be hindered or delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  

In addition, we have no control over the ability of third-party manufacturers to maintain adequate quality control, quality assurance and qualified personnel. If the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority does not approve these facilities for the manufacture of our product candidates or if it withdraws any such approval in the future, we may need to find

57

alternative manufacturing facilities, which would significantly impact our ability to develop, obtain regulatory approval for or market our product candidates, if approved. Our failure, or the failure of our third-party manufacturers, to comply with applicable regulations could result in sanctions being imposed on us, including clinical holds, fines, injunctions, civil penalties, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, seizures or recalls of product candidates or products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could significantly and adversely affect supplies of our products.

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

Our product candidates and any products that we may develop may compete with other product candidates and products for access to manufacturing facilities. There are a limited number of manufacturers that operate under cGMP regulations and that might be capable of manufacturing for us, particularly if the COVID-19 pandemic continues or worsens.  

Any performance failure on the part of our existing or future manufacturers could delay clinical development or marketing approval, and any related remedial measures may be costly or time-consuming to implement. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply or a second source for all required raw materials used in the manufacture of our product candidates. If our current third-party manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace such manufacturers and we may be unable to replace them on a timely basis or at all.

We rely on, and in the future may rely on, third-party databases and collaborations with third parties to inform patient selection and drug target identification for our existing product candidates and any future product candidates and for the supply of biomarker companion diagnostics.

We are using bioinformatics, including data analytics, biostatistics, and computational biology, to identify new target and biomarker opportunities. As part of this approach, we interrogate public and proprietary databases comprising human tumor genetic information and specific cancer-target dependency networks. We rely on these databases and data analytics for identifying or validating some of our biomarker-target relationships and access to these databases may not continue to be available publicly or through a proprietary subscription on acceptable terms.

Many of our precision medicine targeted therapeutic product candidates also rely on the availability and use of commercially available tumor diagnostics panels or data on the prevalence of our target patient population to inform the patient selection and drug target identification for our product candidates. In cases where such biomarker diagnostic is not already commercially available, we expect to establish strategic collaborations for the clinical supply and development of companion diagnostics. If these diagnostics are not able to be developed, or if commercial tumor profiling panels are not able to be updated to include additional tumor-associated genes, or if clinical oncologists do not incorporate molecular or genetic sequencing into their clinical practice, we may not be successful in developing our existing product candidates or any future product candidates.

We depend on third-party suppliers for key materials required for the production of our product candidates, and the loss of these third-party suppliers or their inability to supply us with adequate materials could harm our business.

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

58

Additionally, the facilities to manufacture our product candidates must be the subject of a satisfactory inspection before the FDA or other regulatory authorities approve an NDA or grant a marketing authorization for the product candidate manufactured at that facility. We will depend on these third-party manufacturing partners for compliance with the FDA’s requirements for the manufacture of our finished products. If our manufacturers cannot successfully manufacture material that conforms to our specifications and the FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ cGMP requirements, our product candidates will not be approved or, if already approved, may be subject to recalls.

Furthermore, certain of the third-party suppliers on which we rely are based in the PRC. The evolving trade dispute between the PRC and the United States has resulted in the imposition of significant tariffs on certain imports from the PRC. Any deterioration of the relationship between the United States and the PRC, or the imposition of more stringent export controls or tariffs applicable to our suppliers in the PRC, could adversely affect our ability to obtain the raw materials required for the manufacture of our product candidates, and therefore adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured the product candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these factors could cause the delay of approval or commercialization of any products, cause us to incur higher costs or prevent us from commercializing any products successfully. Furthermore, if any of our product candidates are approved and contract manufacturers fail to deliver the required commercial quantities of finished product on a timely basis and at commercially reasonable prices, and we are unable to find one or more replacement manufacturers capable of production at a substantially equivalent cost, in substantially equivalent volumes and quality and on a timely basis, we would likely be unable to meet demand for our products and could lose potential revenue. It may take several years to establish an alternative source of supply for our product candidates and to have any such new source approved by the FDA or any other relevant regulatory authority.

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

Our license agreement with Novartis provides that we must use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain regulatory approval for a product candidate using the licensed compound. The agreement further imposes an obligation to make various milestone payments and royalty payments as well as other obligations on us. If we materially breach the terms of the license agreement and fail to cure such breach within 90 days of being notified of the breach, then Novartis may terminate the license agreement. In addition, Novartis has the right to terminate on our insolvency. If the agreement is terminated, then we will not be able to further develop or commercialize, as the case may be, darovasertib or any future related product candidates.

Furthermore, any dispute with Novartis may result in the delay or termination of the research, development or commercialization of darovasertib or any future related product candidates, and may result in costly litigation or arbitration that diverts management attention and resources away from our day-to-day activities, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.  

Our existing collaboration arrangements and any collaboration arrangements that we may enter into in the future may not be successful, which could adversely affect our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates or diagnostics associated with such product candidates.

In the future, we may seek to enter into additional collaboration arrangements for the development or commercialization of certain of our product candidates or diagnostics for biomarkers associated with our product candidates. To the extent that we decide to enter into additional collaboration agreements in the future, we may face significant competition in seeking appropriate collaborators. Moreover, collaboration arrangements are complex and time-consuming to negotiate, document, implement and maintain and challenging to manage. We may not be successful in our efforts to prudently manage our existing collaborations or to enter new ones should we chose to do so. The terms of new collaborations or other arrangements that we may establish may not be favorable to us.

59

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

Risks Related to Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

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

If one of our product candidates is approved, it 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.

For example, the FDA may impose significant restrictions on a product’s indicated uses or marketing or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly and time-consuming post-approval studies, post-market surveillance or clinical trials to monitor the safety and efficacy of the product candidate. The FDA may also require a REMS as a condition of approval of our product candidates, which could include requirements for a medication guide, physician communication plans or additional elements to ensure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools. In addition, if the FDA or a comparable foreign regulatory authority approves our product candidates, the manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, AE reporting, storage, advertising, promotion, import, export and recordkeeping for our product candidates will be subject to extensive and ongoing regulatory requirements. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-marketing information and reports, registration, as well as continued compliance with cGMPs and GCP requirements for any clinical trials that we conduct post-approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with our product candidates, including AEs of unanticipated severity or

60

frequency, or with our third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize any future approved product and generate revenue and could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity.

In addition, if any of our product candidates is approved, our product labeling, advertising and promotion will be subject to regulatory requirements and continuing regulatory review. The FDA strictly regulates the promotional claims that may be made about drug products. In particular, a product may not be promoted for uses that are not approved by the FDA as reflected in the product’s approved labeling. If we receive marketing approval for a product, physicians may nevertheless prescribe it to their patients in a manner that is inconsistent with the approved label. If we are found to have promoted such off-label uses, we may become subject to significant liability. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off-label uses, and a company that is found to have improperly promoted off-label uses may be subject to significant sanctions. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion and has enjoined several companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA has also requested that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability.

The incidence and prevalence of our target patient populations are estimations. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be harmed.

We rely on various sources, including published literature and public or proprietary databases, to ascertain an estimate of the number of patients having particular genetic alterations, such as mutations, deletions or fusions, across various tissue-type specific indications. The determinable prevalence may vary depending on the source and quality of the underlying data and in some cases, insufficient data or poorly curated data may impact our ability to accurately estimate the prevalence of our target patient populations for each indication and in the aggregate across multiple indications both in the clinical trial setting, as well as in the commercial setting, if our product is approved. If the market opportunities for our product candidates are smaller than we estimate, our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects may be harmed. In addition, upon treatment with our product candidates, patients may have or develop resistance to our product candidates, reducing the addressable patient population and the duration of treatment.

Even if our product candidates or any future product candidate obtains regulatory approval, they may fail to achieve the broad degree of physician and patient adoption and use necessary for commercial success.

Even if our product candidates or any future product candidate receives FDA or other regulatory approvals, the commercial success of any product will depend significantly on the broad adoption and use of the resulting product by physicians and patients for approved indications. For a variety of reasons, including among other things, competitive factors, pricing or physician preference, reimbursement by insurers, the degree and rate of physician and patient adoption of any products, if approved, will depend on a number of factors, including:

61

We cannot assure you that our current or future product candidates, if approved, will achieve broad market acceptance among physicians and patients. Any failure by our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval to achieve market acceptance or commercial success would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

The successful commercialization of any products will depend in part on the extent to which governmental authorities, private health insurers, managed care plans and other third-party payors provide coverage, adequate reimbursement levels and implement pricing policies favorable for any products. Failure to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement for products, if approved, could limit our ability to market those products and decrease our ability to generate revenue.

The availability of coverage and adequacy of reimbursement by governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, private health insurers, managed care plans and other third-party payors are essential for most patients to be able to afford medical services and pharmaceutical products such as our product candidates that receive FDA approval. Our ability to achieve acceptable levels of coverage and reimbursement by third-party payors for our products will have an effect on our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates.

No uniform policy for coverage and reimbursement for products exists among third-party payors in the United States. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication, or place products at certain formulary levels that result in lower reimbursement levels and higher cost-sharing obligation imposed on patients. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service. As a result, the coverage determination process will often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. We cannot be sure that coverage will be available for any product that we may develop. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover any of our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

62

Assuming there is coverage for our products, if any, by a third-party payor, the resulting reimbursement payment rates may not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Furthermore, rules and regulations regarding reimbursement change frequently, in some cases on short notice, and we believe that changes in these rules and regulations are likely.

Third-party payors increasingly are challenging prices charged for pharmaceutical products and services, and many third-party payors may refuse to provide coverage and reimbursement for particular drugs or biologics when an equivalent generic drug, biosimilar or a less expensive therapy is available. It is possible that a third-party payor may consider our product candidates as substitutable and only offer to reimburse patients for the less expensive product. Even if we show improved efficacy or improved convenience of administration with our products, pricing of other third-party therapeutics may limit the amount we will be able to charge for our products. These third-party payors may deny or revoke the reimbursement status of our products, if approved, or establish prices for our products at levels that are too low to enable us to realize an appropriate return on our investment. If reimbursement is not available, is decreased or eliminated in the future, or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory financial return on our products.

Outside the United States, international operations are generally subject to extensive governmental price controls and other market regulations, and we believe the increasing emphasis on cost-containment initiatives in Europe and other countries has and will continue to put pressure on the pricing and usage of our products, if any. 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 products. 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.

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

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

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

Our inability to obtain and maintain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost and scope of coverage to protect against potential product liability claims could prevent or inhibit the commercialization of any products. Although we have obtained and intend to maintain product liability insurance covering our clinical trials, any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our

63

insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions and deductibles, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. We will have to pay any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed our coverage limitations or that are not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to pay such amounts. Moreover, in the future, we may not be able to maintain insurance coverage at a reasonable cost or in sufficient amounts to protect us against losses. If and when we obtain approval for marketing any of our product candidates, we intend to expand our insurance coverage to include the sale of such product candidate; however, we may be unable to obtain this liability insurance on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

Our success depends on our ability to obtain and maintain protection for our intellectual property and our proprietary technologies and to avoid infringing the rights of others.

Our commercial success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent, trade secret and other intellectual property protection for our product candidates and proprietary technologies as well as our ability to operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others.

We and our licensors have applied, and we intend to continue applying, for patents covering important aspects of our product candidates, proprietary technologies and their uses as we deem appropriate. However, the patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to apply for patents on certain aspects of our current or future product candidates and proprietary technologies in a timely fashion, at a reasonable cost, in all jurisdictions, or at all. If we cannot adequately obtain, maintain and enforce our intellectual property rights and proprietary technology, competitors may be able to use our technologies or the goodwill we have acquired in the marketplace and erode or negate any competitive advantage we may have and our ability to compete, which could harm our business and ability to achieve profitability and/or cause us to incur significant expenses. Failure to obtain, maintain and/or enforce intellectual property rights necessary to our business and failure to protect, monitor and control the use of our intellectual property rights could negatively impact our ability to compete and cause us to incur significant expenses. The intellectual property laws and other statutory and contractual arrangements in the United States and other jurisdictions we depend upon may not provide sufficient protection in the future to prevent the infringement, use, violation or misappropriation of our patents, trademarks, data, technology and other intellectual property rights and products by others, and may not provide an adequate remedy if our intellectual property rights are infringed, misappropriated or otherwise violated by others.

Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the inventions claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the invention as claimed. The patent application process is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that we or any of our actual or potential future collaborators or licensors will be successful in protecting our product candidates and proprietary technologies by obtaining and defending patents. These risks and uncertainties include the following:

64

We rely in part on our portfolio of issued and pending patent applications in the United States and other countries to protect our intellectual property and competitive position. The patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions, and has been the subject of much litigation in recent years. It is possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. If we fail to timely file for patent protection in any jurisdiction, we may be precluded from doing so at a later date. And although we enter into non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to patentable aspects of our research and development output, such as our employees, corporate collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, CROs, contract manufacturers, consultants, advisors and other third parties, any of these parties may breach such agreements and disclose such output before a patent application is filed, thereby jeopardizing our ability to seek patent protection. Furthermore, publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in any of our patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions. Moreover, should we become a licensee of a third party’s patents or patent applications, depending on the terms of any future in-licenses to which we may become a party, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain or enforce the patents, covering technology in-licensed from third parties. Therefore, these patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted, maintained and/or enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability and it may not provide us with adequate proprietary protection or competitive advantages against competitors with similar products or services.  Accordingly, we cannot provide any assurances about which of our patent applications will issue, the breadth of any resulting patent, whether any of the issued patents will be found to be infringed, invalid or unenforceable or will be threatened or challenged by third parties, that any of our issued patents have, or that any of our currently pending or future patent applications that mature into issued patents will include, claims with a scope sufficient to protect our products and services. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued, and its scope can be reinterpreted after issuance. We cannot offer any assurances that the breadth of our granted patents will be sufficient to stop a competitor from developing, manufacturing and commercializing a product or technologies in a non-infringing manner that would be competitive with one or more of our products or technologies, or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Further, our patents or the patent rights that we license from others, may be challenged in the courts or patent offices in the United States and abroad. Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification or derivation action or similar proceedings in court or before patent offices in the United States or foreign jurisdictions for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against such patents. Such challenges may result in loss of exclusivity or in patent claims being narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, all of which could limit our ability to stop others from using or commercializing similar or identical product candidates, or limit the duration of the patent protection of our product candidates. In addition, defending such challenges in such proceedings may be costly. Further, there can be no assurance that we will have adequate resources to enforce our patents.  Thus, any patents that we may own may not provide the anticipated level of, or any, protection against competitors. Furthermore, an adverse decision may result in a third party receiving a patent right sought by us, which in turn could affect our ability to develop, manufacture or commercialize our products or technologies.

The degree of future protection for our patent rights is uncertain, and we cannot ensure that:

65

Our ability to enforce patent rights also depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products and services. Such proceedings could also provoke third parties to assert claims against us, including that some or all of the claims in one or more of our patents are invalid or otherwise unenforceable. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product or service. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded if we were to prevail may not be commercially meaningful. If we initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents, or litigate against third-party claims, such proceedings would be expensive and would divert the attention of our management and technical personnel.

Where we obtain licenses from or collaborate with third parties, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties, or such activities, if controlled by us, may require the input of such third parties. We may also require the cooperation of our licensors and collaborators to enforce any licensed patent rights, and such cooperation may not be provided. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Moreover, if we do obtain necessary licenses, we will likely have obligations under those licenses, and any failure to satisfy those obligations could give our licensor the right to terminate the license. Termination of a necessary license, or expiration of licensed patents or patent applications, could have a material adverse impact on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Some of our patents and patent applications may in the future be co-owned with third parties. If we are unable to obtain an exclusive license to any such third-party co-owners’ interest in such patents or patent applications, such co-owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors, and our competitors could market competing products, services and technology. In addition, we may need the cooperation of any such co-owners of our patents in order to enforce such patents against third parties, and such cooperation may not be provided to us.

Furthermore, our owned and in-licensed intellectual property rights may be subject to a reservation of rights by one or more third parties. For example, the research resulting in certain of our owned and in-licensed patent rights and technology was funded in part by the U.S. government. As a result, the government may have certain rights, or march-in rights, to such patent rights and technology. When new technologies are developed with government funding, the government generally obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a non-exclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for non-commercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise march-in rights to use or allow third parties to use our licensed technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to U.S. industry. In addition, our rights in such inventions may be subject to certain requirements to manufacture products embodying such inventions in the United States. Any exercise by the government of such rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Further, we rely on a combination of contractual provisions, confidentiality procedures and patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property laws to protect the proprietary aspects of our products, brands, technologies, trade secrets, know-how and data. These legal measures afford only limited protection, and competitors or others may gain access to or use our intellectual property rights and proprietary information. Our success will depend, in part, on preserving our trade secrets, maintaining the security of our data and know-how and obtaining, maintaining and enforcing other intellectual property rights. We may not be able to obtain, maintain and/or enforce our intellectual property or other proprietary rights necessary to our business or in a form that provides us with a competitive advantage.

If we fail to obtain sufficient patent or other intellectual property protection for our product candidates or proprietary technologies or if we lose any patent or other intellectual property protection for our product candidates or proprietary technologies, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected.

66

If we do not obtain patent term extension in the United States under the Hatch-Waxman Act and in foreign countries under similar legislation for patents covering our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed, and in any case, the terms of our patents may not be sufficient to effectively protect our product candidates and business.

Patents have a limited term. In most countries, including the United States, the expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after its first effective non-provisional filing date. However, depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of FDA marketing approval of darovasertib, IDE397, our other product candidates or any future product candidates, one or more of any U.S. patents we may be issued or have licensed may be eligible for limited patent term restoration under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act allows a maximum of one patent to be extended per FDA-approved product as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. A patent term extension cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only those claims covering such approved drug product, a method for using it or a method for manufacturing it may be extended. Patent term extension may also be available in certain foreign countries upon regulatory approval of our product candidates. However, we may not be granted an extension because of, for example, failing to apply within applicable deadlines, failing to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise failing to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the applicable time period or the scope of patent protection afforded could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or restoration or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we will have the right to exclusively market our product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval of competing products following our patent expiration, and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could be harmed, possibly materially.

If there are delays in obtaining regulatory approvals or other additional delays, the period of time during which we can market our product candidates under patent protection could be further reduced. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such product candidates might expire before or shortly after such product candidates are commercialized. Once the patent term has expired, we may be open to competition from similar or generic products. The launch of a generic version of one of our products in particular would be likely to result in an immediate and substantial reduction in the demand for that product, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

The USPTO and various foreign governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other provisions during the patent application process to maintain patent applications and issued patents. In addition, periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other government fees on issued patents often must be paid to the USPTO and foreign patent agencies over the lifetime of the patent and/or applications and any patent rights we may obtain in the future. While an unintentional lapse of a patent or patent application can in many cases be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with the applicable rules, there are situations in which noncompliance with these requirements 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. Non-compliance events that could result in abandonment or lapse of a patent or patent application include, but are not limited to, failure to respond to official actions within prescribed time limits, non-payment of fees and failure to properly legalize and submit formal documents. If we fail to maintain the patents and patent applications covering our products or services, we may not be able to stop a competitor from marketing products or services that are the same as or similar to our products or services, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In such an event, competitors might be able to enter the market earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

Our rights to develop and commercialize our product candidates are subject in part to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others, and the patent protection, prosecution and enforcement for some of our product candidates may be dependent on our licensors.

We currently are reliant upon licenses of certain intellectual property rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our proprietary technology, including technology related to our product candidates. For example, we rely on our exclusive license agreement with Novartis for the clinical development of darovasertib and our option and license agreement with Cancer Research UK for the clinical development of PARG inhibitors. These licenses, and other licenses we may enter into in the future, may not provide adequate rights to use such intellectual property rights and proprietary technology in all relevant fields of use or in all territories in which we may wish to develop or commercialize technology and product candidates in the future. Licenses to additional third-party proprietary technology or intellectual property rights that may be required for our development programs may not be available in the

67

future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms. In that event, we may be required to expend significant time and resources to redesign our proprietary technology or product candidates or to develop or license replacement technology, which may not be feasible on a technical or commercial basis. If we are unable to do so, we may not be able to develop and commercialize technology and product candidates in fields of use and territories for which we are not granted rights pursuant to such licenses, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects significantly. Third-party patents may exist which might be enforced against our current or future product candidates, resulting in either an injunction prohibiting our sales, or, with respect to our sales, an obligation on our part to pay royalties and/or other forms of compensation to third parties.

In some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing, prosecution and enforcement of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we license from third parties. In addition, some of our agreements with our licensors require us to obtain consent from the licensor before we can enforce patent rights, and our licensor may withhold such consent or may not provide it on a timely basis. Therefore, we cannot be certain that our licensors or collaborators will prosecute, maintain, enforce and defend such intellectual property rights in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business, including by taking reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of know-how and trade secrets, or by paying all applicable prosecution and maintenance fees related to intellectual property registrations for any of our product candidates. We also cannot be certain that our licensors have drafted or prosecuted the patents and patent applications licensed to us in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, which may affect the validity and enforceability of such patents or any patents that may issue from such applications. This could cause us to lose rights in any applicable intellectual property that we in-license, and as a result our ability to develop and commercialize product candidates may be adversely affected and we may be unable to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

Our current licenses impose, and our future licenses likely will impose, various royalty payments, milestones, and other obligations on us. If we fail to comply with any of these obligations, we may be subject to liability, including the payment of damages, and the licensor may have the right to terminate the license. Termination by the licensor would cause us to lose valuable rights, and could prevent us from developing and commercializing our product candidates and proprietary technologies. Furthermore, if any current or future licenses terminate, or if the underlying patents fail to provide the intended exclusivity, competitors or other third parties may gain the freedom to seek regulatory approval of, and to market, products similar or identical to our planned products. Moreover, our licensors may own or control intellectual property that has not been licensed to us and, as a result, we may be subject to claims, regardless of their merit, that we are infringing or otherwise violating the licensor’s rights. In addition, while we cannot currently determine the amount of the royalty obligations we would be required to pay on sales of future products, if any, the amounts may be significant. The amount of our future royalty obligations will depend on the technology and intellectual property we use in product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize, if any. Therefore, even if we successfully develop and commercialize product candidates, we may be unable to achieve or maintain profitability. In addition, we may seek to obtain additional licenses from our licensors and, in connection with obtaining such licenses, we may agree to amend our existing licenses in a manner that may be more favorable to the licensors, including by agreeing to terms that could enable third parties (potentially including our competitors) to receive licenses to a portion of the intellectual property rights that are subject to our existing licenses. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial conditions, results of operations, and prospects.

We may fail to comply with any of our obligations under existing or future agreements pursuant to which we license or have otherwise acquired intellectual property rights or technology, which could result in the loss of rights or technology that are material to our business.

We are party to various agreements that we depend on to operate our business, including intellectual property rights relating to darovasertib, in particular, our agreement with Novartis. Our rights to use currently licensed intellectual property, or intellectual property to be licensed in the future, are or will be subject to the continuation of and our compliance with the terms of these agreements. These agreements are complex, and certain provisions in such agreements may be susceptible to multiple interpretations which could lead to disputes, including but not limited to those regarding:

68

The resolution of any contractual interpretation dispute that may arise, if unfavorable to us, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Such resolution could narrow what we believe to be the scope of our rights to the relevant intellectual property or technology, increase what we believe to be our financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement or decrease the third party’s financial or other obligations under the relevant agreement.

Furthermore, if disputes over intellectual property rights that we have licensed or acquired from third parties prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current license agreements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. If we fail to comply with our obligations under current or future license agreements, these agreements may be terminated or the scope of our rights under them may be reduced and we might be unable to develop, manufacture or market any product that is licensed under these agreements. We are generally also subject to all of the same risks with respect to protection of intellectual property that we may license as we are for intellectual property that we own, which are described herein. If we or any of our current or future licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize product candidates could suffer.

We may become subject to third-party claims alleging infringement, misappropriation or violation of such third party’s patents or other intellectual property rights and/or third party claims seeking to invalidate our patents, which could require us to spend significant time and money and, if successfully asserted against us, could delay or prevent us from developing, manufacturing and selling our products.

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to develop, manufacture or commercialize our products and product candidates without infringing, misappropriating or otherwise violating the intellectual property rights of third parties. However, our research, development and commercialization activities may nonetheless be subject to claims that we infringe or otherwise violate patents or other intellectual property rights owned or controlled by third parties. Claims by third parties that we infringe their intellectual property rights may result in liability for damages or prevent or delay our developmental and commercialization efforts. We cannot assure you that our operations do not, or will not in the future, be found to infringe existing or future patents.

Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our product candidates or impair our competitive position. As the biotechnology 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. Our competitors in both the United States and abroad, many of which have substantially greater resources and have made substantial investments in patent portfolios and competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained or may in the future apply for and obtain, patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our product candidates. There is a substantial amount of litigation, both within and outside the United States, involving patent and other intellectual property rights in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, oppositions, reexaminations, inter partes review proceedings and post-grant review proceedings before the USPTO and/or corresponding foreign patent offices, and companies in the industry have used these proceedings to gain a competitive advantage. Numerous third-party U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications exist in the fields in which we are developing product candidates. There may be third-party patents or patent applications with claims to materials, formulations, methods of manufacture or methods for treatment related to the use or manufacture of our product candidates. For example, we are aware of an international patent application published as PCT WO 2017/096165 A1. If a patent issues from such patent application with claims similar to those published, our ability to commercialize a product candidate for our MAT2A program may be adversely affected if we do not obtain a license under such patent.

Furthermore, 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 and can involve other factors such as expert opinion. Our analysis of these issues, including interpretation the relevance or the scope of claims in a patent or a pending application, determining applicability of such claims to our proprietary technologies or product candidates, predicting whether a third party’s pending patent application will issue with claims of relevant scope, and determining 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 product candidates. We do not always conduct independent reviews of pending patent applications of and patents issued to third parties.

Additionally, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere are typically published approximately 18 months after the earliest filing for which priority is claimed, with such earliest filing date being commonly referred to as the priority date. Certain U.S. applications that will not be filed outside the United States can remain confidential until patents issue. In addition, patent applications in the United States and elsewhere can be pending for many years before issuance, or unintentionally abandoned patents or applications can be revived. Furthermore, pending patent applications that have been published can, subject to certain limitations, be later amended in a manner that could cover our technologies, our product

69

candidates or the use of our product candidates. These applications may later result in issued patents, or the revival of previously abandoned patents, that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use or sell our products. As a result, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by commercialization of darovasertib, IDE397 or our other product candidates, and cannot be certain that we were the first to file a patent application related to a product candidate or proprietary technology. In addition, identification of third-party patent rights that may be relevant to our technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. Moreover, we may face patent infringement claims from non-practicing entities that have no relevant product revenue and against whom our own patent portfolio may thus have no deterrent effect. We may be unaware of one or more issued patents that would be infringed by the manufacture, sale or use of our product candidates.

Further, we may be required to indemnify future collaboration partners against claims of infringement, misappropriation, or other violations of intellectual property rights. We are not aware of any threatened or pending claims related to these matters, but in the future litigation may be necessary to defend against such claims. If a patent infringement suit were brought against us, we could be forced, including by court order to stop or delay development, manufacturing and/or sales of the product or product candidate that is the subject of the suit. As a result of patent infringement claims, or in order to avoid potential claims, we may choose to seek, or be required to seek, a license from the third party and would most likely be required to pay license fees or royalties or both. These licenses may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, in which event our business would be materially and adversely affected. Even if we were able to obtain a license, we may be unable to maintain such licenses and the rights may be nonexclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same intellectual property.

Although no third party has asserted a claim of patent infringement against us as of December 31, 2021, others may hold proprietary rights that could prevent darovasertib, IDE397, our other product candidates or any future product candidates from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to our product candidates or proprietary technologies could subject us to potential liability for damages, including treble damages if we were determined to willfully infringe or attorney’s fees and costs of litigation to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing, and require us to obtain a license to manufacture or market darovasertib, IDE397 (if GSK does not exercise its option to obtain an exclusive license to continue development of and commercialize MAT2A products), our other product candidates or any future product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be time-consuming and a substantial diversion of management and employee resources from our business. Even if we believe such claims are without merit, we cannot predict whether we would prevail in any such actions or that any license required under any of these patents would be made available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all. Even if such licenses are available, we could incur substantial costs related to royalty payments for licenses obtained from third parties, which could negatively affect our gross margins, and the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. In addition, we cannot be certain that we could redesign our product candidates or proprietary technologies to avoid infringement, if necessary, or on a cost-effective basis. If we were to challenge the validity of any such third party U.S. patent in federal court, we would need to overcome a presumption of validity. As this burden is a high one requiring us to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of any such U.S. patent claim, there is no assurance that a court of competent jurisdiction would invalidate the claims of any such U.S. patent. We will have similar burdens to overcome in foreign courts in order to successfully challenge a third party claim of patent infringement. Accordingly, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or the failure to obtain necessary licenses, could prevent us from developing and commercializing darovasertib, our other product candidates or any future product candidates, until the asserted patent expires or is held finally invalid or not infringed in a court of law. In addition, intellectual property litigation, regardless of its outcome, may cause negative publicity or the disclosure of confidential information, and the perceived value of our product candidates or intellectual property could be diminished correspondingly.

Additionally, our collaborators, such as GSK or any third parties with which we collaborate in the future, may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to litigation or potential liability. Further, collaborators may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability. Also, we may be obligated under our agreements with our collaborators, licensors, suppliers and others to indemnify and hold them harmless for damages arising from intellectual property infringement by us. Any of the foregoing could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

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

Third parties, including our competitors may currently, or in the future, infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate our issued patents or other intellectual property rights or those of our licensors. To prevent infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file lawsuits or initiate other proceedings to protect or enforce our patents or other intellectual property rights, which can be expensive, time-consuming and unsuccessful. However, the steps we have taken, and are taking, to protect our proprietary rights may not be adequate to enforce our rights as against such infringement, misappropriation or

70

violation of our intellectual property rights. In certain circumstances it may not be practicable or cost-effective for us to enforce our intellectual property rights fully, particularly in certain developing countries or where the initiation of a claim might harm our business relationships. We may also be hindered or prevented from enforcing our rights with respect to a government entity or instrumentality because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Our ability to enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights depends on our ability to detect infringement. It may be difficult to detect infringers who do not advertise the components or methods that are used in connection with their products or technologies. Moreover, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain evidence of infringement in a competitor’s or potential competitor’s product or technologies. Thus, we may not be able to detect unauthorized use of, or take appropriate steps to enforce, our intellectual property rights. Any inability to meaningfully enforce our intellectual property rights could harm our ability to compete and reduce demand for our products and product candidates.

In addition, in a patent infringement proceeding, a court or administrative tribunal may decide that a patent we own or in-license is not valid, is unenforceable and/or is not infringed. If we or any of our collaborators, such as GSK or potential future collaborators, were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent directed at one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable in whole or in part. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge include an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could include an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO or made a misleading statement during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before the USPTO, even outside the context of litigation. Similar mechanisms for challenging the validity and enforceability of a patent exist in foreign patent agencies. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable, and could result in the revocation, cancellation, or amendment of our patents or those of our licensors. With respect to validity, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. A court may decide that a patent or other intellectual property right of ours is invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, construe the patent’s claims or other intellectual property narrowly or refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents or other intellectual property do not cover the technology in question. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we could lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on an affected product candidate. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Additionally, interference or derivation proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by us or declared by the USPTO, or equivalent actions brought in foreign jurisdictions, may be necessary to determine the priority of invention with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. Our defense of litigation or interference proceedings may fail and, even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. An unfavorable outcome could require us to cease using the covered technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms or at all, or if a non-exclusive license is offered and our competitors gain access to the same technology. These and other uncertainties associated with litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our clinical trials, continue our research programs, license necessary technology from third parties or enter into development or manufacturing partnerships that would help us bring our product candidates to market.

Even if resolved in our favor, litigation or other legal proceedings relating to our intellectual property rights may cause us to incur significant expenses, and could distract our technical and management personnel from their normal responsibilities. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments and if securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Such litigation or proceedings could substantially increase our operating losses and reduce the resources available for development activities or any future sales, marketing or distribution activities. We may not have sufficient financial or other resources to conduct such litigation or proceedings adequately. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of such litigation or proceedings more effectively than we can because of their greater financial resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could compromise our ability to compete in the marketplace.

Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. There could also be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a material adverse effect on the price of our common stock. Any of the foregoing could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Even if our patents or other intellectual property rights are found to be valid and infringed, a court may refuse to grant injunctive relief against the infringer and instead grant us monetary damages and/or ongoing royalties. Such monetary compensation may be insufficient to adequately offset the damage to our business caused by the infringer’s competition in the market. An adverse result in any litigation or administrative proceeding could put one or more of our patents or other intellectual property rights at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, financial condition and results of operations.

71

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

We may be subject to claims that our employees or consultants have wrongfully used for our benefit or disclosed to us confidential information of third parties. As is common in the biotechnology and biopharmaceutical industries, in addition to our employees, we engage the services of consultants, advisors and other third parties to assist us in the development of our product candidates. Many of these individuals, and many of our employees, were previously employed at, or may have previously provided or may be currently providing consulting services to, other biotechnology or biopharmaceutical companies including our competitors or potential competitors. Some of these employees, consultants and contractors, may have executed proprietary rights, non-disclosure and non-competition agreements in connection with such previous employment or engagement. Although we try to ensure that individuals working for or collaborating with us do not use the intellectual property rights, proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, and do not perform work for us that is in conflict with their obligations to another employer or any other entity, we may become subject to claims that we, our employees, consultants, advisors or other third parties have, inadvertently or otherwise, misappropriated the intellectual property, including know-how, trade secrets or other information proprietary to  their former or current employers or clients. We may also be subject to claims that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of our employees, consultants, advisors or other third parties, even those related to one or more of our product candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. There is no guarantee of success in defending these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management team.

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

We may also be subject to claims that our former employees, contractors or collaborators, or other third parties have an ownership interest in our current or future patents, patent applications, or other intellectual property rights, including as an inventor or co-inventor. We may be subject to ownership or inventorship disputes in the future arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of employees, consultants or others who were or are involved in developing our products or product candidates. Although it is our policy to require our employees and our personnel who may be involved in the development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such inventions, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. The assignment of intellectual property may not be self-executing and despite such agreement, such inventions may become assigned to third parties. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. We may be subject to claims that former employees, consultants, advisors or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property rights, and other owners may be able to license their rights to other third parties, including our competitors. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in prosecuting or defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to our management and scientific personnel.

In addition, we may face claims by third parties challenging ownership interest in or inventorship of intellectual property rights we regard as our own, based on claims that our agreements with employees, consultants, advisors or other third parties obligating them to assign intellectual property to us are ineffective or in conflict with prior or competing contractual obligations of assignment, which could result in ownership disputes regarding intellectual property we have developed or will develop and interfere with our ability to capture the commercial value of such intellectual property. We are not aware of any threatened or pending claims related to these matters, but in the future litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership and it may be necessary or we may desire to obtain a license to such third party’s intellectual property rights to settle any such claim; however, there can be no assurance that we would be able to obtain such license on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights. A court could prohibit us from using technologies, features or other intellectual property rights that are essential to our products or technologies, if such technologies or features are found to incorporate or be derived from the trade secrets or other proprietary information of another person or entity, including another or former employers. An inability to incorporate technologies, features or other intellectual property rights that are important or essential to our products or product candidates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and competitive position, and may prevent us from developing, manufacturing and/or commercializing our products or technologies. In addition, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and distraction to management and other employees. Any litigation or the threat thereof may adversely affect our ability to hire employees or contract with independent sales representatives. A loss of key personnel or their work

72

product could hamper or prevent our ability to develop, manufacture and/or commercialize our products or services, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other intellectual property rights, including protection of copyright, trade secrets, know-how, technology and/or other proprietary information that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent. Trade secrets can be difficult to protect, and some courts are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. To maintain the confidentiality of our trade secrets and proprietary information, we rely heavily on confidentiality agreements with third parties, and confidential information and invention assignment agreements with employees, consultants, advisors and appropriate third parties. However, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that may have or have had access to our trade secrets or proprietary technology and processes and we may not enter into such agreements with all employees, consultants and third parties who have been involved in the development of our intellectual property rights. Although we generally require all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information, or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed.

In addition to contractual measures, we try to protect the confidential nature of our proprietary information using commonly accepted physical and technological security measures. Despite these efforts, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed, and any of these parties may breach the agreements and disclose our proprietary information, including our trade secrets, and we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for such breaches. In addition, such security measures may not provide adequate protection for our proprietary information, for example, in the case of misappropriation of a trade secret by an employee, consultant, customer or third party with authorized access. Our security measures may not prevent an employee, consultant, advisor or other third party from misappropriating our trade secrets and providing them to a competitor, and recourse we take against such misconduct may not provide an adequate remedy to protect our interests fully. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our proprietary technologies will be effective.  Therefore, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical knowledge or other trade secrets by such employees, consultants, advisors or third parties, despite the existence generally of these confidentiality restrictions. These agreements may not provide meaningful protection against the unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets, know-how or other proprietary information in the event the unwanted use is outside the scope of the provisions of the contracts or in the event of any unauthorized use, misappropriation, or disclosure of such trade secrets, know-how, or other proprietary information. There can be no assurances that such employees, consultants, advisors or third parties will not breach their agreements with us, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, or that our trade secrets will not otherwise become known or independently developed by third parties, including our competitors.

Unauthorized parties may also attempt to copy or reverse engineer certain aspects of our products that we consider proprietary. We may not be able to obtain adequate remedies in the event of such unauthorized use. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Further, we may not be able to obtain adequate remedies for any breach. Even though we use commonly accepted security measures, trade secret violations are often a matter of state law in the United States, and the criteria for protection of trade secrets can vary among different jurisdictions. If the steps we have taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating the trade secret.

Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. Because from time to time we expect to rely on third parties in the development, manufacture, and distribution of our products and provision of our services, we must, at times, share trade secrets with them. In addition, some courts inside and outside the United States are less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets. Trade secrets will over time be disseminated within the industry through independent development, the publication of journal articles and the movement of personnel skilled in the art from company to company or academic to industry scientific positions. Though our agreements with third parties typically restrict the ability of our advisors, employees, collaborators, licensors, suppliers, third-party contractors and consultants to publish data potentially relating to our trade secrets, our agreements may contain certain limited publication rights. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such competitor from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could harm our competitive position. Despite employing the contractual and other security precautions described above, the need to share trade secrets 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. If any of these events occurs or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects would be harmed. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, our competitive position would be harmed. The exposure of our trade secrets and other proprietary information would impair our competitive advantages and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In particular, a failure to protect our proprietary rights may allow competitors to copy our technology, which could adversely affect our pricing and market share. If we do not apply for patent protection prior to such publication or if we cannot

73

otherwise maintain the confidentiality of our proprietary technology and other confidential information, then our ability to obtain patent protection or to protect our trade secret information may be jeopardized.

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

The degree of future protection afforded by our intellectual property rights is uncertain because intellectual property rights have limitations, and may not adequately protect our business or permit us to maintain our competitive advantage. For example:

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

Risks Related to Government Regulation

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

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

74

Since its enactment, there have been judicial, executive and congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, President Biden issued an executive order initiating a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare. It is unclear how other healthcare reform measures enacted by Congress or implemented by the Biden administration, if any, will impact our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted in the United States since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011, among other things, led to aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year. These reductions went into effect in April 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2022 and a 1% reduction from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, unless additional action is taken by Congress. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was signed into law, which, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several types of providers, including hospitals, imaging centers and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. More recently, on March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 into law, which eliminates the statutory Medicaid drug rebate cap, currently set at 100% of a drug’s average manufacturer price, beginning January 1, 2024.  These new laws or any other similar laws introduced in the future may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other health care funding, which could negatively affect our customers and accordingly, our financial operations.

Moreover, payment methodologies may be subject to changes in healthcare legislation and regulatory initiatives. For example, CMS may develop new payment and delivery models, such as bundled payment models. In addition, recently there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. congressional inquiries and proposed and enacted federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under government payor programs, and review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs. While further proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress and the Biden Administration have each indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs. For example, the Build Back Better Act, if enacted, would introduce substantial drug pricing reforms, including the establishment of a drug price negotiation program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would require manufacturers to charge a negotiated “maximum fair price” for certain selected drugs or pay an excise tax for noncompliance, and the establishment of rebate payment requirements on manufacturers of certain drugs payable under Medicare Parts B and D. If the Build Back Better Act is not enacted, similar or other drug pricing proposals could appear in future legislation.

We expect that additional U.S. federal healthcare reform measures will be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that the U.S. federal government will pay for healthcare products and services, which could result in reduced demand for our product candidates or additional pricing pressures.

Individual states in the United States have also increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Legally-mandated price controls on payment amounts by third-party payors or other restrictions could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine what pharmaceutical products and which suppliers will be included in their prescription drug and other healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices. These reforms could reduce the ultimate demand for our product candidates or put pressure on our product pricing.

In the EU, similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative

75

developments at the EU or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. The delivery of healthcare in the EU, including the establishment and operation of health services and the pricing and reimbursement of medicines, is almost exclusively a matter for national, rather than European Union, law and policy. National governments and health service providers have different priorities and approaches to the delivery of health care and the pricing and reimbursement of products in that context. In general, however, the healthcare budgetary constraints in most European Union member states have resulted in restrictions on the pricing and reimbursement of medicines by relevant health service providers. Coupled with ever-increasing European Union and national regulatory burdens on those wishing to develop and market products, this could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to commercialize our product candidates, if approved. In markets outside of the United States and European Union, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies.

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

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

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

76

Ensuring that our internal operations and future business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices do not comply with current or future statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the laws described above or any other governmental laws and regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant penalties, including civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid or similar programs in other countries or jurisdictions, integrity oversight and reporting obligations to resolve allegations of non-compliance, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to not be in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs and imprisonment, which could affect our ability to operate our business. Further, defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant personnel resources. Therefore, even if we are successful in defending against any such actions that may be brought against us, our business may be impaired.

Actual or perceived failures to comply with applicable data protection, privacy and security laws, regulations, standards and other requirements could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

The regulatory environment surrounding information security, data collection and privacy is increasingly demanding. We are subject to numerous U.S. federal and state laws and non-U.S. regulations governing the protection of personal and confidential information of our clinical patients, clinical investigators, employees and vendors/business contacts, including in relation to medical records, credit card data and financial information. For example, on May 25, 2018, the GDPR became effective, implementing more stringent requirements in relation to our use of personal data. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA as well as to those outside the EEA if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EEA or the monitoring of their behavior. We will be subject to the GDPR where we have an EEA presence or “establishment”, when conducting clinical trials with EEA based data subjects (whether the trials are conducted directly by us or through a clinical vendor or collaborator) or when offering approved products or services in the future to EEA based data subjects. Companies that must comply with the GDPR face increased compliance obligations and risk, including more robust regulatory enforcement of data protection requirements and potential fines for noncompliance of up to €20 million or 4% of the annual global revenues of the noncompliant company, whichever is greater. Among other requirements, the GDPR regulates transfers of personal data subject to the GDPR to third countries that have not been found to provide adequate protection to such personal data, including the U.S., and the efficacy and longevity of current transfer mechanisms between the EU and the U.S. remains uncertain. For example, in 2016, the EU and U.S. agreed to a transfer framework for data transferred from the EU to the U.S., called the Privacy Shield, but the Privacy Shield was invalidated in July 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Further, from January 1, 2021, companies have to comply with the GDPR and also the UK GDPR, which, together with the amended UK Data Protection Act 2018, retains the GDPR in UK national law. The UK GDPR mirrors the fines under the GDPR, e.g. fines up to the greater of €20 million (£17.5 million) or 4% of global turnover. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU in relation to certain aspects of data protection law remains unclear, and it is unclear how United Kingdom data protection laws and regulations will develop in the medium to longer term, and how data transfers to and from the United Kingdom will be regulated in the long term. Currently there is a four to six-month grace period agreed in the EU and United Kingdom Trade and Cooperation Agreement, ending June 30, 2021 at the latest, while the parties discuss an adequacy decision. However, it is not clear whether (and when) an adequacy decision may be granted by the European Commission enabling data transfers

77

from EU member states to the United Kingdom long term without additional measures. These changes may lead to additional costs and increase our overall risk exposure.

The GDPR sets out a number of requirements that must be complied with when handling the personal data of individuals within the EEA, including: disclosures about how personal information is to be used, limitations on retention of information, mandatory data breach notification requirements and onerous obligations on services providers. In addition, to the extent a company processes, controls or otherwise uses “special category” personal data (including patients’ health or medical information, genetic information and biometric information), more stringent rules apply, further limiting the circumstances and the manner in which a company is legally permitted to process that data.

In the United States, HIPAA imposes privacy, security and breach reporting obligations with respect to individually identifiable health information upon “covered entities” (health plans, health care clearinghouses and certain health care providers), and their respective business associates, individuals or entities that create, receive, maintain or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HIPAA mandates the reporting of certain breaches of health information to HHS, affected individuals and if the breach is large enough, the media. Entities that are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured protected health information, a complaint about privacy practices or an audit by HHS, may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance. Even when HIPAA does not apply, according to the Federal Trade Commission or the FTC, failing to take appropriate steps to keep consumers’ personal information secure constitutes unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC expects a company’s data security measures to be reasonable and appropriate in light of the sensitivity and volume of consumer information it holds, the size and complexity of its business, and the cost of available tools to improve security and reduce vulnerabilities. Individually identifiable health information is considered sensitive data that merits stronger safeguards.

In addition, certain states govern the privacy and security of health-related and other personal information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.  By way of example, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, on June 28, 2018, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA places increased privacy and security obligations on entities handling certain personal data of consumers or households, and gives California residents expanded rights to access and delete their personal information, opt out of certain personal information sharing, and receive detailed information about how their personal information is used. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for data breaches that is expected to increase data breach litigation. The CCPA may increase our compliance costs and potential liability. Some observers have noted that the CCPA could mark the beginning of a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States, which could increase our potential liability and adversely affect our business. Further, the CPRA was recently voted into law by California residents. The CPRA significantly amends the CCPA, and imposes additional data protection obligations on covered companies doing business in California, including additional consumer rights processes and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It also creates a new California data protection agency specifically tasked to enforce the law, which would likely result in increased regulatory scrutiny of California businesses in the areas of data protection and security. The substantive requirements for businesses subject to the CPRA will go into effect on January 1, 2023, and become enforceable on July 1, 2023.

If any person, including any of our employees, clinical trial collaborators or those with whom we share such information, negligently disregards or intentionally breaches our established controls with respect to clinical subject, clinical investigator or employee data, or otherwise mismanages or misappropriates that data, we could be subject to significant monetary damages, regulatory enforcement actions, fines and/or criminal prosecution in one or more jurisdictions. In addition, a data breach could result in negative publicity which could damage our reputation and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Our stock price may be volatile and you may not be able to resell shares of our common stock at or above the price you paid.

The trading price of our common stock could be highly volatile 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 this “Risk Factors” section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and others such as:

78

In addition, the stock markets in general, and the markets for biopharmaceutical and biotechnology stocks in particular, have experienced extreme volatility, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the market prices of securities of smaller biotechnology have experienced dramatic fluctuations that often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating results of these companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price or liquidity of our common stock. In the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have sometimes instituted securities class action litigation against the issuer. If any of our stockholders were to bring such a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit and the attention of our management would be diverted from the operation of our business.

An active, liquid and orderly market for our common stock may not be maintained, and you may not be able to resell your common stock.

Prior to our initial public offering, or IPO, in May 2019, there was no public market for shares of our common stock. Our stock recently began trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, but we can provide no assurance that we will be able to maintain an active trading market on the Nasdaq Global Select Market or any other exchange in the future. The lack of an active market may impair your ability to sell your shares at the time you wish to sell them or at a price that you consider reasonable. An inactive market may also impair our ability to raise capital by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other businesses, applications, or technologies using our shares as consideration.

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, the trading price of our common stock could decline. As of December 31, 2021, we have outstanding a total of 38.5 million shares of common stock, of which the holders of approximately 2.3 million shares of our common stock are entitled to rights with respect to the registration of their shares under the Securities Act. Registration of these shares under the Securities Act would result in the shares becoming freely tradable without restriction under the Securities Act, except for shares purchased by affiliates. Any sales of securities by these stockholders could have a material adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock. In addition, as of December 31, 2021, approximately 5.1 million shares of common stock that are either subject to outstanding options or reserved for future issuance under our existing equity incentive plan will become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by the provisions of various vesting schedules, Rule 144

79

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 trading price of our common stock could decline.

General Risks

Our information technology systems, or those of our collaborators, CROs or other contractors or consultants, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could adversely affect our business. Security breaches, loss of data or financial assets, and other disruptions could compromise sensitive information related to our business or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability.

We collect and maintain information in digital form that is necessary to conduct our business, and we are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure to operate our business. In the ordinary course of our business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information, including intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information. It is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information, including both our own and that of third parties. We have established physical, electronic and organizational measures to safeguard and secure our systems to prevent a data compromise, and rely on commercially available systems, software, tools, and monitoring to provide security for our information technology systems and the processing, transmission and storage of digital information. We have also outsourced elements of our information technology infrastructure, and as a result a number of third-party vendors may or could have access to our confidential information. Our internal information technology systems and infrastructure, and those of our current and any future collaborators, contractors and consultants and other third parties on which we rely, are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, malware, natural disasters, terrorism, war, telecommunication and electrical failures, cyber-attacks or intrusions over the Internet, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization, or persons with access to systems inside our organization.

The risk of a security breach or disruption or data loss, particularly through cyber-attacks or cyber-intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber-terrorists, has generally increased as the number, level of persistence, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Emerging and evolving cybersecurity threats such as the attack on SolarWinds and the Log4j vulnerability reported in December 2021 pose unique challenges and involve sophisticated threat actors. In addition, the pervasive use of mobile devices that access confidential information increases the risk of data security breaches, which could lead to the loss of confidential information or other intellectual property, including both our own and that of third parties. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we may also face increased cybersecurity risks due to our reliance on internet technology and the number of our employees who are working remotely, which may create additional opportunities for cybercriminals to exploit vulnerabilities. As a result of the ongoing conflict between Russia and the Ukraine, in February 2022 the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency issued a "Shields Up" alert for American organizations noting the potential for Russia’s cyber-attacks on Ukrainian government and critical infrastructure organizations to impact organizations both within and beyond the United States, particularly in the wake of sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies.

We rely on industry-accepted security measures and technology to securely maintain all confidential and proprietary information on our information systems. We have devoted and will continue to devote significant resources to the security of our computer systems, but they may still be vulnerable to these threats. Furthermore, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access to, or to sabotage, systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or implement adequate preventative measures. We may also experience security breaches that may remain undetected for an extended period. The costs to us to mitigate network security problems, bugs, viruses, worms, malicious software programs and security vulnerabilities could be significant, and while we have implemented security measures to protect our data security and information technology systems, our efforts to address these problems may not be successful, and these problems could result in unexpected interruptions, delays, cessation of service and other harm to our business and our competitive position. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our product development programs. For example, the loss of clinical trial data could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Moreover, if a computer security breach affects our systems or results in the unauthorized release of personally identifiable information, our reputation could be materially damaged. In addition, such a breach may require notification to governmental agencies, the media or individuals pursuant to various federal and state privacy and security laws, if applicable, HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and its implementing rules and regulations, as well as regulations promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission and state breach notification laws. We would also be exposed to a risk of loss, including financial assets or litigation and potential liability, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

We may evaluate various acquisitions and strategic collaborations, including licensing or acquiring complementary products, intellectual property rights, technologies, or businesses. Any potential acquisition or strategic partnership may entail numerous risks, including:

80

In addition, if we undertake acquisitions, we may incur large one-time expenses and acquire intangible assets that could result in significant future amortization expense. Moreover, we may not be able to locate suitable acquisition opportunities and this inability could impair our ability to grow or obtain access to technology or products that may be important to the development of our business.

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

Our programs may require the use of intellectual property rights held by third parties to which we do not have rights. In such a case, the growth of our business will depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these rights. However, we may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify as necessary for our product candidates on reasonable terms and conditions or at all.

The acquisition or licensing of intellectual property rights for pharmaceutical products is very competitive. If we seek to acquire or license additional intellectual property rights, we may face substantial competition from a number of more established companies, some of which have acknowledged strategies to license or acquire products, and many of which have more institutional experience and greater financial and other resources than we have. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities, as may other emerging companies taking similar or different approaches to product licenses and/or acquisitions. In addition, a number of established research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may acquire products in late stages of development to augment their internal product lines, which may provide those companies with an even greater competitive advantage. Furthermore, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us or may interfere with our acquisition or licensing of rights from others. 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.

We have collaborated with U.S. academic institutions and may in the future collaborate with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. These institutions may provide us with an option to negotiate a license to any of the institution’s rights in technology resulting from the collaboration. Regardless of such option, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified timeframe or under terms that are acceptable to us.

If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights or maintain the existing intellectual property rights we have on reasonable terms, we may have to abandon development of that program and our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects could suffer.

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

Our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to these trademarks and trade names, which we need to build name recognition among potential collaborators or customers in our markets of interest. At times, competitors may adopt trade names or trademarks similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to market confusion. In addition, there could be potential trade name or trademark infringement claims brought by owners of other trademarks or trademarks that incorporate variations of our registered or unregistered trademarks or trade names. Over the long term, if we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademarks and trade names, then we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected. We may license our trademarks and trade names to third parties, such as distributors. Though these license agreements may provide guidelines for how our

81

trademarks and trade names may be used, a breach of these agreements or misuse of our trademarks and tradenames by our licensees may jeopardize our rights in or diminish the goodwill associated with our trademarks and trade names. Our efforts to enforce or protect our proprietary rights related to trademarks, trade names, trade secrets, domain names, copyrights or other intellectual property may be ineffective and could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Changes in patent law in the United States or in other countries could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our product candidates.

Our patent rights may be affected by developments or uncertainty in the United States’ or other jurisdictions’ patent statutes, patent case law, USPTO rules and regulations or the rules and regulations of other jurisdictions’ patent offices.

There are a number of recent changes to U.S. patent laws that may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For example, on September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or Leahy-Smith Act, was signed into law. The Leahy-Smith Act includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law. These include provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation. In particular, under the Leahy-Smith Act, the United States transitioned in March 2013 to a “first to file” system in which the first inventor to file a patent application is typically entitled to the patent. Third parties are allowed to submit prior art before the issuance of a patent by the USPTO, and may become involved in post-grant proceedings including opposition, derivation, reexamination, inter partes review or interference proceedings challenging our patent rights or the patent rights of others. An adverse determination in any such submission, proceeding or litigation could reduce the scope or enforceability of, or invalidate, our patent rights, which could adversely affect our competitive position. In addition, the U.S. congress may pass additional patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.  

The Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, either narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the value of patents once obtained. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the federal courts and the USPTO, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents we might obtain in the future. Similarly, statutory or judicial changes to the patent laws of other countries may increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of patent applications and the enforcement or defense of issued patents.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending all current and future patents in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and, further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our product candidates, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing.

The legal systems of many foreign countries do not favor the enforcement of patents 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. For example, some foreign countries have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner must grant licenses to third parties. In addition, some countries limit the enforceability of patents against third parties, including government agencies or government contractors. In these countries, patents may provide limited or no benefit. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate, and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license. If we or any of our licensors is forced to grant a license to third parties with respect to any patents relevant to our business, our competitive position may be impaired, and our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects may be adversely affected.

82

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

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

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or if they issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding our stock, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that industry or securities analysts publish about us or our business. We currently have research coverage by securities and industry analysts. If no further or fewer securities or industry analysts commence coverage of us, the trading price for our stock could be negatively impacted. If any of the analysts who cover us issue an adverse or misleading opinion regarding us, our business model, our intellectual property or our stock performance, or if our clinical trials and operating results fail to meet the expectations of analysts, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of us or fail to publish reports on us regularly, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which in turn could cause our stock price or trading volume to decline.

We incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management devotes substantial time to new 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 Exchange Act and regulations regarding corporate governance practices. The listing requirements of the Nasdaq Global Market and the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, require that we satisfy certain corporate governance requirements relating to director independence, filing annual and interim reports, stockholder meetings, approvals and voting, soliciting proxies, conflicts of interest and a code of conduct. Our management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to ensure that we comply 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, could 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 D&O insurance, on acceptable terms.

As a public company, we are subject to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Section 404, and the related rules of the SEC, which generally require our management and independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Beginning with the second annual report that we will be required to file with the SEC, Section 404 requires an annual management assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. However, for so long as we remain an emerging growth company as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012, or JOBS Act, we intend to take 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. Once we are no longer an emerging growth company or, if prior to such date, we opt to no longer take advantage of the applicable exemption, we will be required to include an opinion from our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our IPO, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700.0 million as of the prior June 30th, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period.

In order to provide the reports required by these rules, we must conduct reviews and testing of our internal controls. During the course of our review and testing, we may identify deficiencies and be unable to remediate them before we must provide the required reports. Furthermore, if we have a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting, we may not

83

detect errors on a timely basis and our audited financial statements may be materially misstated. We or our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal control over financial reporting, which could harm our operating results, cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information and cause the trading price of our stock to fall. In addition, as a public company we are required to file accurate and timely quarterly and annual reports with the SEC under the Exchange Act. In order to report our results of operations and financial statements on an accurate and timely basis, we will depend on CROs and contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, to provide timely and accurate notice of their costs to us and on GSK to provide timely and accurate reports of cost sharing under the GSK Collaboration Agreement. Any failure to report our financial results on an accurate and timely basis could result in sanctions, lawsuits, delisting of our shares from the Nasdaq Global Market or other adverse consequences that would materially harm to our business.

If we are unable to maintain effective internal controls, our business, financial position, results of operations and prospects could be adversely affected.

As a public company, we are subject to reporting and other obligations under the Exchange Act, including Section 404, which require annual management assessments of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. However, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to formally attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 until we are no longer an emerging growth company if we continue to take advantage of the exemptions available to us through the JOBS Act.

The rules governing the standards that must be met for management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation to meet the detailed standards under the rules. During the course of its testing, our management may identify material weaknesses or deficiencies which may not be remedied in time to meet the deadline imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These reporting and other obligations place significant demands on our management and administrative and operational resources, including accounting resources.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Any failure to maintain effective internal controls could have an adverse effect on our business, financial position, and results of operations.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For so long as we remain an emerging growth company, we are permitted and plan to rely on exemptions from certain disclosure requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies. These exemptions include not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404, not being required to comply with any requirement that may be adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding mandatory audit firm rotation or a supplement to the auditor’s report providing additional information about the audit and the financial statements, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. As a result, the information we provide stockholders will be different than the information that is available with respect to other public companies. We cannot predict whether investors will find our common stock less attractive because we rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock, and our stock price may be more volatile.

In addition, the JOBS Act provides that an emerging growth company can take advantage of an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards. This allows an emerging growth company to delay the adoption of certain accounting standards until those standards would otherwise apply to private companies. We have irrevocably elected not to avail ourselves of this exemption from new or revised accounting standards, and, therefore, we are subject to the same new or revised accounting standards as other public companies that are not emerging growth companies.

If we sell shares of our common stock in future financings, stockholders may experience immediate dilution and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

We may from time to time issue additional shares of common stock at a discount from the current trading price of our common stock. As a result, our stockholders would experience immediate dilution upon the purchase of any shares of our common stock sold at such discount. In addition, as opportunities present themselves, we may enter into financing or similar arrangements in the future, including the issuance of debt securities, preferred stock or common stock. If we issue common stock or securities convertible into common stock, our common stockholders would experience additional dilution and, as a result, our stock price may decline.

84

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 losses for U.S. federal income tax purposes in the foreseeable future, unused losses will carry forward to offset a portion of future taxable income, if any, until such unused losses expire, if ever. 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 and development tax credits) to offset its post-change taxable income or tax liability may be limited. We have experienced ownership changes in the past. As a result of such ownership changes, our ability to utilize certain NOLs and other tax attributes may be permanently limited as such attributes will expire unused. We are continuing to analyze the impact of such limitation on our financial statements.  If finalized, Treasury Regulations currently proposed under Section 382 of the Code may further limit our ability to utilize our pre-change NOLs or credits if we undergo a future ownership change. We have experienced ownership changes in the past and in the current year, and we may experience ownership changes in the future and/or subsequent shifts in our stock ownership (some of which may be outside our control). 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 potentially result in increased future tax liability to us.

Enacted on June 29, 2020, California’s Assembly Bill No. 85 generally prohibits the total amount of refunds or credit offsets that would otherwise be allowed for a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2023, from exceeding $5,000,000. This bill would, subject to certain exceptions related to a taxpayer’s income, disallow a net operating loss deduction for any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2020, and before January 1, 2023, and would extend the carryover period for a net operating loss deduction disallowed by that provision, as specified. It is possible that these provisions could adversely affect our ability to utilize our net operating losses and business credits. California Senate Bill 113 (SB113) was signed into law by Governor Newsom on February 9, 2022, which lifts the suspension of net operating loss deductions and limitations on research and development credits for tax years beginning after December 31, 2021.

Provisions in our charter documents and under Delaware law could discourage a takeover that stockholders may consider favorable and may lead to entrenchment of management.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent changes in control or changes in our management without the consent of our board of directors. These provisions include the following:

85

We are also subject to the anti-takeover provisions contained in Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Under Section 203, a corporation may not, in general, engage in a business combination with any holder of 15% or more of its capital stock unless the holder has held the stock for three years or, among other exceptions, the board of directors has approved the transaction.

Claims for indemnification by our directors and officers may reduce our available funds to satisfy successful third-party claims against us and may reduce the amount of money available to us.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provide that we will indemnify our directors and officers, in each case to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law.

In addition, as permitted by Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated bylaws and our indemnification agreements that we have entered into with our directors and officers provide that:

The cost of D&O insurance policy premiums is expected to continue to increase. If the costs of maintaining adequate D&O insurance coverage increase significantly in the future, our operating results could be materially adversely affected. Likewise, if any of our current D&O insurance coverage should become unavailable to us or become economically impractical, we may need to decrease our coverage limits or increase our self-insured retention or we may be unable to renew such insurance at all.  If we incur liabilities that exceed our coverage or incur liabilities not covered by our insurance, we would have to self-fund any indemnification amounts owed to our directors and officers and employees in which case our results of operations and financial condition could be materially adversely affected. Additionally, a lack of D&O insurance may make it difficult for us to retain and attract talented and skilled directors and officers to serve our company, which could adversely affect our business.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides for an exclusive forum in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and in the U.S. federal district courts for certain disputes between us and our stockholders, which could limit our stockholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or employees.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware is the exclusive forum for any state law derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, any action asserting a breach of fiduciary duty, any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to the Delaware General Corporation Law, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or our amended and restated bylaws, any action to interpret, apply, enforce, or determine the validity of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws, or any action asserting a claim against us that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. The choice of forum provision may limit a stockholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees and result in increased costs for investors to bring a claim.

86

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common stock, and, consequently, your ability to achieve a return on your investment will depend on appreciation in the price of our common stock.

We do not intend to pay any cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future. We currently intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth. Therefore, you are not likely to receive any dividends on your common stock for the foreseeable future. Since we do not intend to pay dividends, your ability to receive a return on your investment will depend on any future appreciation in the market value of our common stock. There is no guarantee that our common stock will appreciate or even maintain the price at which our holders have purchased it.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties

Our corporate headquarters is located in South San Francisco, California, where we lease and occupy approximately 29,600 square feet of office and laboratory space. The current term of our South San Francisco lease expires in July 2024, with an option to extend the term through July 2026.

We believe our existing facilities are sufficient for our needs for the foreseeable future. To meet the future needs of our business, we may lease additional or alternate space, and we believe suitable additional or alternative space will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in litigation or other legal proceedings. We are not currently a party to any litigation or legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, are likely to have a material adverse effect on our business. Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

87

PART II

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

Market Information

Our common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “IDYA.”

Stockholders

As of March 14, 2022, we had 12 record holders of our common stock. Since many of our shares of common stock are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we are unable to estimate the total number of stockholders represented by these record holders.

Dividend Policy

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

Securities Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans

Information about our equity compensation plans is incorporated by reference to Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Sale of Unregistered Securities

None.

Use of Proceeds from the Sale of Registered Securities

Not applicable.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table summarizes repurchases of our common stock during fiscal year 2021:

All of the shares repurchased, as reflected in the table above, were repurchases of unvested shares of our common stock.  Upon termination of employment of a person holding unvested shares, we are entitled to repurchase the unvested shares.

Item 6. Reserved

We have omitted this information in accordance with the elimination of Item 301 of Regulation S-K (Release No. 33-10890).

88

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

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

Overview

We are a synthetic lethality focused precision medicine oncology company committed to the discovery and development of targeted therapeutics for patient populations selected using molecular diagnostics. Our approach integrates small molecule drug discovery with extensive capabilities in identifying and validating translational biomarkers to develop targeted therapies for select patient populations most likely to benefit.  Our small molecule drug discovery expertise includes discovery and development of small molecule inhibitors and protein degrader modalities. We are applying these capabilities to develop a robust pipeline in precision medicine oncology, with a research focus in synthetic lethality – which represents an emerging class of precision medicine targets.

IDE397 – MAT2A Inhibitor Clinical Candidate

Our most advanced synthetic lethality product candidate is IDE397, a clinical-stage methionine adenosyltransferase 2a, or MAT2A, inhibitor being developed for solid tumors with S-methyl-5'-thioadenosine phosphorylase, or MTAP, deletions.

We are leading research and development of IDE397 through early clinical development, in collaboration with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.  Our initial clinical development plans to evaluate IDE397 include a dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial.  We are enrolling patients having solid tumors with MTAP deletion identified by commercial or institutional next generation sequencing, or NGS, panels or by MTAP immunohistochemistry, or IHC, assay with confirmation by NGS.  

We are currently enrolling patients into Cohort 6 of the dose escalation cohort of the Phase 1 clinical trial.  As of March 1, 2022, we have enrolled an aggregate total of 16 patients in the Phase 1 IDE397 clinical.  These patients collectively have various solid tumor types with MTAP-deletion, including NSCLC, pancreatic cancer, thymic cancer, adenoid cystic carcinoma, gastroesophageal cancer, and bladder cancer. As of March 1, 2022, IDE397 has been generally well tolerated with mainly Grade 1/2 drug-related adverse events, and one patient who experienced drug-related Grade 3 asthenia that resolved after reducing the dose of IDE397. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events, no observed dose limiting toxicities, or DLTs, and IDE397 had not yet reached its maximum tolerated dose, or MTD.

Following and subject to satisfactory completion of the dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial, we plan to enroll patients having solid tumors with MTAP deletion into one or more monotherapy expansion arms focused on one or more selected solid tumor indications. We also plan to evaluate IDE397 in combination with one or more combination agents in patients having tumors with MTAP-deletion.  Potential solid tumors we are considering for future evaluation in one or more expansion arm(s) and/or combination arm(s) of the clinical trial evaluating IDE397 include NSCLC, head and neck cancer, bladder cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic cancer and esophagogastric cancer, among others.

We have submitted a protocol amendment to the FDA to support cohort expansion as monotherapy in NSCLC, esophagogastric cancer and other indications, including potentially in one or more basket cohorts.  This amendment will also support evaluation of IDE397 combination therapies with taxanes and other potential combination agents, for example, in NSCLC, esophagogastric and/or pancreatic cancer.  Subject to satisfactory progression of the dose escalation portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial, we are targeting cohort expansion mid-year 2022.  The timing of the expansion and/or combination cohorts may be influenced by when we define the MTD.  The clinical trial design for the expansion portion of the Phase 1 clinical trial includes an aggregate of 150 or more patients across expansion cohorts.

We are obtaining patient biopsies for translational research from dose escalation cohorts and tumor biopsy backfill cohorts in the IDE397 Phase 1 clinical trial and we also plan to obtain patient biopsies from expansion cohorts in the clinical trial. We are evaluating pharmacodynamic, or PD, biomarkers, such as peripheral or plasma SAM and tumor SAM, as well as SDMA.

89

We observed dose-proportional pharmacokinetic exposures across dose ranges of Cohort 1 through Cohort 5 of the Phase 1 dose escalation.  The observed exposures at doses of Cohort 4 and Cohort 5 exceeded active exposure targets established from preclinical models.

We observed preliminary clinical activity with monotherapy in early dose escalation cohorts, including pharmacodynamic response in plasma SAM and tumor reductions in multiple patients with MTAP deleted advanced or metastatic solid tumors.

We observed a dose- and/or exposure-dependent pharmacodynamic modulation, reflected as a reduction in plasma SAM, a proximal pharmacodynamic marker, in evaluable plasma samples across dose ranges of Cohort 1 through Cohort 5 of the IDE397 Phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial, satisfying the clinical protocol threshold of approximately 60% or greater.  We have initiated tumor biopsy cohorts in the IDE397 Phase 1 clinical trial to evaluate tumor pharmacodynamic, or PD, biomarkers. The clinical protocol threshold was established based on IDE397 preclinical in vivo efficacy data in MTAP-deletion xenograft models.  We observed robust, dose- and/or exposure-dependent pharmacodynamic modulation of symmetric dimethyl arginine, or SDMA, in evaluable tumor biopsies from Cohort 4 and Cohort 5.

We also observed tumor shrinkage in multiple patients in early dose escalation Cohorts 2 and 3 (n=3, n=2, respectively), including in a Cohort 2 NSCLC patient (approximately 15% reduction in target lesions) and in a Cohort 3 adenoid cystic carcinoma patient with a lung metastasis (approximately 11% reduction in target lesions), pursuant to RECIST v1.1 criteria.

Subject to initiation of an expansion cohort or establishing a MTD, we are targeting delivery of an IDE397 option data package to GSK mid-year 2022.  Delivery of the option data package would trigger an evaluation period for GSK to make a decision on whether to exercise its option to develop IDE397. We have a program objective to obtain additional clinical PD data during dose escalation.

The GSK option data package comprises preclinical data and clinical data from the IDE397 monotherapy dose escalation study of the Phase 1 clinical trial, including safety and tolerability data, pharmacokinetic data and pharmacodynamic modulation of SAM and tumor SDMA.  The GSK option is exercisable within a certain period after we deliver the option data package.  Subject to GSK’s election to opt‐in and, if required, HSR clearance, we are entitled to receive a $50 million opt‐in payment from GSK.

If GSK exercises its option and makes the related $50 million payment to us, GSK would lead later-stage global clinical development. We will be responsible for 20% of future development costs and GSK will be responsible for 80%. Assuming GSK decides to exercise the option, we will be eligible to receive future development and regulatory milestones of up to $465 million. If GSK decides to exercise the option and upon commercialization, we will also receive 50% of U.S. net profits and tiered royalties on global non-U.S. net sales ranging from high single digit to sub-teen double digit percentages, as well as certain commercial milestones of up to $475 million.

Our evaluation of IDE397 as a clinical candidate is supported by preclinical data.  We have evaluated the efficacy of IDE397 as monotherapy in over forty solid tumor patient derived xenograft, or PDX, models with homozygous MTAP deletions. Results of this IDE397 MTAP-deletion PDX panel study were reported at AACR 2021 and showed in vivo efficacy in multiple MTAP-null xenograft models demonstrating tumor growth inhibition, or TGI, when MAT2A was pharmacologically inhibited with IDE397 as monotherapy. In this study, we observed greater than 60% TGI, in approximately 75% of the models and greater than 75% TGI in approximately 50% of models, in each case across major solid tumor types.  We also observed tumor regressions, with greater than 100% TGI, in multiple PDX models and across multiple solid tumor types, including in NSCLC as well as in bladder and gastric cancer PDX models.

In NSCLC, data from the preclinical PDX Panel Study has shown greater than 60% TGI in 12 independent NSCLC PDX models out of 14 models evaluated, including in seven NSCLC adenocarcinoma PDX models out of nine evaluated and in five NSCLC squamous carcinoma PDX models out of five evaluated. Tumor regressions were observed in three of five NSCLC squamous PDX models, including a complete response in one model.

Additionally, we have observed preclinical dose- and/or exposure-dependent modulation of selected PD biomarkers, including SDMA, ADMA and SAM, in these in vivo models, including in NSCLC and HCT-116 MTAP deletion cell derived xenograft, or CDX, models.  We also observed a correlation of in vivo efficacy with dose-dependent PD modulation in MTAP-deletion CDX model in NSCLC.  We have ongoing mechanistic studies, including evaluating various pathway constituents such as SAM, MTA, SDMA, ADMA and other downstream metabolic and gene expression changes in in vitro and in vivo models.  

90

Through our participation in the DepMap (Cancer Dependency Map) consortium led by the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, or Broad Institute, and in collaboration with GSK, we have conducted a PRISM screen of a panel of over 800 cell lines for pharmacological sensitivity to IDE397.  This PRISM screen has identified differential selectivity across tumor lineages, potentially enabling additional biomarker discovery and clinical opportunity expansion for IDE397.

Preclinical tolerability and efficacy studies are ongoing with IDE397 and various potential combination agents. Based on preliminary results, we have observed in vivo efficacy with enhanced TGI for IDE397 in combination with a taxane in a pancreatic cancer PDX model. We have also demonstrated preclinical in vivo efficacy of IDE397 plus standard-of-care combination agents, including with paclitaxel in head and neck cancer PDX model. We have also observed in vivo efficacy with enhanced TGI in CDX / PDX models for IDE397 in combination with other DNA Damage Response, or DDR, target inhibitors, and for IDE397 in combination with certain precision medicine target inhibitors in tumors having certain identified genetic alterations as co-alterations with MTAP.  

PARG

We are advancing our preclinical research for an inhibitor of poly (ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase, or PARG, for patients having tumors with homologous recombination deficiencies, or HRD, and potentially other genetic and/or molecular signatures.  

We are targeting to submit an IND for our development candidate, IDE161, in the fourth quarter of 2022, subject to satisfactory completion of ongoing preclinical and IND-enabling studies.  We are also continuing preclinical evaluation of additional compounds in the lead series as an additional potential development candidate or back-up compound.

We are evaluating the efficacy of our PARG inhibitors as monotherapy across a number of solid tumor CDX and PDX models with specific genetic alterations.  One of our PARG inhibitor compounds, designated as IDB-PARG, has demonstrated dose-dependent in vivo efficacy as monotherapy with tumor regression or stasis in multiple CDX models and PDX models, including in ovarian cancer, gastric cancer and breast cancer models.  In vivo studies in CDX and PDX models have shown evidence of differentiation from a PARP inhibitor, niraparib, including enhanced TGI relative to such PARP inhibitor and, in certain models, tumor regressions in models which are refractory to such PARP inhibitor.  We have also observed dose-dependent modulation of a PD biomarker, PAR, polymer chains across multiple in vivo CDX models, including in ovarian cancer, gastric cancer and breast cancer models.

We are preclinically evaluating and conducting IND-enabling studies for IDE161, our PARG inhibitor development candidate.  Such studies include evaluation of IDE161 as monotherapy in in vivo efficacy studies ongoing in multiple genetic settings, as well as in cell panel studies to validate and potentially identify new biomarker hypotheses.  We are supplementing our data set for indications and patient settings which are sensitive to pharmacological inhibition of our PARG inhibitors.    

In January 2022, we exercised our option under the Evaluation, Option and License Agreement between IDEAYA and Cancer Research Technologies, also known as Cancer Research United Kingdom, or Cancer Research UK, and the University of Manchester, pursuant to which we hold exclusive worldwide license rights covering a broad class of PARG inhibitors.

We have an ongoing strategic collaboration with the Broad Institute focused on synthetic lethality target and biomarker discovery. Through this collaboration with the Broad Institute, we are evaluating paralog CRISPR knockdown in selected cell lines in conjunction with pharmacological inhibition of PARG to inform patient selection and combination strategies in ovarian and breast cancer.

We own or control all commercial rights in our PARG program, subject to certain economic obligations pursuant to our exclusive, worldwide license with Cancer Research UK / University of Manchester.

Pol Theta

We are progressing our program targeting DNA Polymerase Theta, or Pol Theta or POLQ, in collaboration with GSK, for patients having solid tumors with BRCA or other homologous recombination deficiency, or HRD, mutations.  

Subject to further preclinical studies, we are, in collaboration with GSK, targeting to initiate IND-enabling studies for our Pol Theta small molecule Pol Theta ATPase domain inhibitor in the first half of 2022.

91

We have shown combination activity of our Pol Theta ATPase inhibitor with multiple PARP inhibitors, including niraparib. We have demonstrated synergistic in vivo efficacy of a Pol Theta ATPase inhibitor with niraparib: the combination of our Pol Theta ATPase inhibitor with niraparib enhanced the activity of niraparib in the DLD1 BRCA2-/- xenograft model.  Tumor regressions were observed for all animals in the study which were administered the combination.    

We plan to continue further development of our POLQ program, including both protein degraders and small molecule inhibitors, in collaboration with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration.   We have the potential to receive up to $20 million in aggregate milestone payments from GSK for certain milestones, which may occur as we, in collaboration with GSK, advance a Pol Theta helicase inhibitor from preclinical development into early Phase 1 clinical trials.

Werner Helicase

We are also continuing to advance our preclinical research in collaboration with GSK for an inhibitor targeting Werner Helicase, or WRN, for patients having tumors with high microsatellite instability, or MSI.  

We have observed dose-dependent cellular viability effect and a dose-dependent cellular PD, response in multiple endogenous MSI high cell lines.  We have also demonstrated in vivo efficacy and PD response in a relevant MSI high model.

We observed Werner Helicase inhibitor in vivo efficacy in a CDX model with approximately 100% tumor growth inhibition.  We are, in collaboration with GSK, targeting nomination of a Werner Helicase inhibitor development candidate in 2023.

For this program, we plan to continue further development in collaboration with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.  We have the potential to receive up to $20 million in aggregate milestone payments from GlaxoSmithKline for certain milestones which may occur as we, in collaboration with GSK, advance a Werner Helicase inhibitor from preclinical into early Phase 1 clinical trials.

Other Synthetic Lethality Pipeline Programs

We have initiated early preclinical research programs to identify small molecule inhibitors for a target in the MTAP-synthetic lethality pathway, or MTAP-SL.  We believe an MTAP-SL inhibitor may be complementary to our IDE397 clinical candidate targeting MAT2A as a combination of two synthetic lethality therapeutics for patients selected based on tumors harboring MTAP deletion.

We have also initiated early preclinical research programs targeting multiple distinct DNA Damage Targets, or DDTs, for patients with solid tumors characterized by proprietary biomarkers or gene signatures.

We own or control all commercial rights in our MTAP-SL and DDT programs.  

Synthetic Lethality Target and Biomarker Discovery Platform

Synthetic lethality continues to be our core research focus.  We have invested significantly and continue to invest in capabilities for identification and validation of new synthetic lethality targets and biomarkers for patient selection.  For targets of interest, we advance our research to discover therapeutic drug candidates and to further qualify relevant biomarkers.

We are also continuing to invest in our capabilities to advance our research on newly identified synthetic lethality targets of interest, including to enable discovery of therapeutic drugs and relevant biomarkers.  These investments include both additional research personnel and capital investments, which will enhance our capabilities broadly, including in target validation, biological assay development, protein synthesis, structural biology, computational chemistry, and analytical chemistry, among other core functional areas.    

In December 2021, we acquired our INQUIRE™ Chemical Library to enhance our synthetic lethality drug discovery platform INQUIRE is a proprietary, expert-curated small-molecule library of over 200,000 chemical compounds, which we believe will enhance our hit discovery capabilities across a broad range of novel synthetic lethality targets and historically difficult-to-drug target classes, such as helicases and endonucleases.

92

Darovasertib – PKC Inhibitor Clinical Candidate

Synthetic Lethality Combination Therapies Targeting Oncogenic Pathways

Darovasertib (IDE196) is a clinical-stage, potent and selective small molecule inhibitor of protein kinase C, or PKC, for genetically-defined cancers having GNAQ or GNA11 gene mutations. PKC is a protein kinase that functions downstream of the GTPases GNAQ and GNA11.  

We are clinically evaluating darovasertib in a Phase 1/2 clinical trial, designated as IDE196-001, in solid tumors harboring GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations in a basket trial design, including in metastatic uveal melanoma, or MUM, and other solid tumor indications such as skin (cutaneous) melanoma.

Our clinical trial strategy in MUM is to pursue darovasertib as a combination therapy with crizotinib, an investigational   cMET inhibitor, pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement.  We have formed a joint development committee with Pfizer responsible for coordinating all regulatory and other activities under the Pfizer Agreement. If the clinical data from the combination study is positive, we plan to enter into good faith negotiations with Pfizer to determine a regulatory submission strategy.  

We are targeting to obtain guidance from the FDA in mid-year 2022 on a clinical trial design for enabling a potential registrational trial in MUM. We are planning to present additional interim clinical data in from the MUM Phase 2 darovasertib/crizotinib arm of the clinical trial in mid-year 2022. The timing of the clinical data and FDA guidance may be influenced by data maturity, including for example, appropriate interim assessments of median duration of response, or DOR, and/or median progression free survival, or mPFS. Subject to FDA guidance, we will evaluate darovasertib and Pfizer’s cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, as a combination therapy in MUM in a Phase 2 potential registration-enabling clinical trial pursuant to the Second Pfizer Agreement.

Based on preliminary darovasertib monotherapy clinical data and its mechanism of action, we anticipate darovasertib clinical activity independent of Human Leukocyte Antigen, or HLA, status in GNAQ/11-mutation cancers.

In coordination with St. Vincent’s Hospital Sydney Limited, we plan to initiate an Investigator Sponsored Trial, or IST, to evaluate darovasertib in a neo-adjuvant and adjuvant setting in primary, non-metastatic uveal melanoma, or UM, patients. Data from this potential clinical trial may offer proof of concept on our hypothesis that earlier treatment of UM patients with darovasertib, prior to tumor metastasis, may lead to improved patient outcomes.    

We are also clinically evaluating darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in non-MUM cancers having GNAQ/11 mutations, with a current focus in skin melanoma, pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement.

We are also evaluating other potential expansion opportunities in oncology for darovasertib.  We are planning to evaluate, subject to preclinical validation, darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in cMET-driven solid tumors such as hepatocellular carcinoma, or HCC, or NSCLC in a Phase 1 clinical trial pursuant to the Third Pfizer Agreement.  We are preclinically studying darovasertib in combination with a KRAS inhibitor in certain solid tumors.

Darovasertib / Crizotinib Synthetic Lethality Combination Therapy  

In December 2020, we initiated a combination arm of our Phase 1/2 clinical trial under the Pfizer Agreement to evaluate darovasertib in combination with crizotinib in patients having tumors harboring activating GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations.  An initial dose escalation portion of this arm of the clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of darovasertib in combination with crizotinib at various dose combinations.  We initiated a Phase 2 expansion cohort in June 2021 to evaluate darovasertib / crizotinib combination therapy in MUM.

We are continuing patient enrollment into the Phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the darovasertib / crizotinib combination in MUM and in patients having other solid tumors with activating GNAQ/11 mutations, with a focus on GNAQ/11 skin melanoma. As of March 1, 2022, we have enrolled an aggregate total of 53 MUM patients in the darovasertib / crizotinib arm of Phase 1/2  clinical trial.

In MUM, we reported preliminary clinical data from the Phase 2 expansion cohort evaluating darovasertib and crizotinib synthetic lethal combination in December 2021, based on a data and analyses cutoff on November 25, 2021. The preliminary interim data included: (i) 100% Disease Control Rate, or DCR: 16 of 16 evaluable patients with at least one post-baseline scan showed tumor shrinkage as determined by target lesion size reduction; (ii) 31% Overall Response Rate, or ORR: 4 of 13 patients with at least two post-baseline scans had a confirmed partial response, or PR, as determined by RECIST 1.1 based on investigator or central review; and no patients have come off-treatment prior to the second scan; and (iii) 46% of patients (6

93

of 13) with at least two post-baseline scans observed greater than 30% tumor reduction, including one patient with an unconfirmed PR as determined by RECIST 1.1.

The darovasertib and crizotinib combination therapy demonstrated a manageable side effect profile in MUM patients (n=22) as of the November 25, 2021 data cutoff, with predominantly Grade 1/2 drug-related adverse events. As of November 25, 2021, one patient experienced a drug-related serious adverse event of diarrhea. Eighteen patients experienced a drug-related adverse events, of which six patients experienced Grade 3 drug-related adverse events, and no patients observed Grade 4 or Grade 5 drug-related adverse events.

These preliminary clinical data provide clinical proof-of-concept for the darovasertib and crizotinib synthetic lethal combination treatment in MUM.  These data also inform potential expansion opportunities in other cMET-driven tumors.

These data are also consistent with the company’s translational research discovery that Phase 1 clinical response to darovasertib monotherapy associated with low cMET activity, as measured by gene signature score or cMET expression.  We identified cMET as a potential biomarker and a cMET inhibitor as potential combination agent though our darovasertib translational research studies, or darovasertib cMET Translational Studies.  In these studies, we observed preclinical synergies between darovasertib and crizotinib in relevant cellular models under conditions simulating a tumor microenvironment in the liver, the site of approximately 90% of uveal melanoma metastases.  Additionally, we conducted a retrospective analysis of human clinical samples from the Novartis darovasertib Phase 1 clinical trial, which also independently supported cMET expression / activation as potential biomarker / combination agent.  

We presented data summarizing the results of certain darovasertib cMET translational studies at AACR in April 2021.

Darovasertib Monotherapy

The monotherapy arm of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial was initiated in June 2019 to evaluate darovasertib in solid tumors harboring GNAQ or GNA11 hotspot mutations in a basket trial design.  We have completed enrollment in the monotherapy arm of the Phase 1/2 clinical trial in MUM.    

We reported clinical data in April 2021 for darovasertib monotherapy in MUM patients enrolled across the IDEAYA and Novartis Phase 1/2 clinical trials.  At the time of data and analyses cutoff on April 13, 2021, an aggregate of 88 patients were evaluable for safety and an aggregate of 81 patients were evaluable for efficacy pursuant to RECIST 1.1.

In the MUM cohort of the monotherapy arm, as of April 13, 2021 data and analyses cutoff based on preliminary data from an unlocked database, we observed (i) a fifty-seven percent (57%) 1-Year overall survival (OS) in predominantly second line, third line and heavily pre-treated (out to 7 and 8 lines of prior treatment) MUM patients with ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval (44%, 69%), (ii) a median OS of 13.2 months in predominantly second line, third line and heavily pre-treated (out to 7 and 8 lines of prior treatment) MUM patients with ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval (10.7 months, not reached), and (iii) sixty-one percent (61%) (n=46) of MUM patients out of 75 evaluable had tumor reduction pursuant to RECIST 1.1guidelines, including 15 patients (20%) with greater than thirty percent (30%) target lesion reduction, including one confirmed complete response.  

Preliminary clinical data from darovasertib monotherapy arm shows that darovasertib activity is independent of HLA status.  

In the skin melanoma cohort, 80% (n=4) of evaluable patients (n=5) had tumor reduction per RECIST 1.1. evaluation, including one confirmed partial response.

The overall safety profile of darovasertib monotherapy, as of the April 13, 2021 data and analyses cutoff, was consistent with prior experience and included primarily common low grade but manageable GI and skin toxicities. Drug-related adverse events observed with darovasertib as monotherapy include: serious adverse events of hypotension, nausea, vomiting, rash and liver toxicity; and adverse events that occurred in greater than 10% of patients of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, rash, edema, and abdominal distention.

Darovasertib was initially developed as a monotherapy by Novartis, and we obtained an exclusive, worldwide license to darovasertib from Novartis in September 2018.  Pursuant to our license agreement with Novartis, except for Novartis’ ongoing Phase 1 clinical trial, we control all future clinical development, and all commercial rights to darovasertib, and may rely on and incorporate data previously submitted to the FDA by Novartis into our own regulatory submissions.  Novartis has completed enrollment in a Phase 1 clinical trial it is conducting to evaluate darovasertib in metastatic uveal melanoma.  Phase 1 monotherapy data from Novartis was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research, or AACR, in April 2019.

94

Regulatory / Potentially Registration-Enabling Clinical Trial

We plan to evaluate additional clinical tolerability and efficacy data from the ongoing darovasertib and crizotinib combination therapy Phase 2 portion of the clinical trial in MUM patients, as well as potential strategic partnering of the darovasertib program, prior to initiation of a potentially registrational clinical trial in MUM.  We are planning to obtain guidance from the FDA on a clinical trial design for enabling a potential registrational trial.

Subject to feedback and guidance from the FDA, we are considering scenarios for potential registrational clinical studies.  In one scenario, a single-arm Phase 2 clinical trial could comprise further enrollment of patients into the current single-arm Phase 2 clinical trial evaluating darovasertib and crizotinib as combination therapy in MUM.  In an alternative scenario, a randomized Phase 2 clinical trial could comprise a darovasertib and crizotinib combination arm as well as comparative arm in MUM.  The comparative agent could be, for example, darovasertib monotherapy.  In either approach, we believe there may be an opportunity for an accelerated approval based on the Phase 2 ORR as a primary endpoint, with a post-approval randomized Phase 3 as a confirmatory study based on a progression free survival, or PFS, and/or overall survival, or OS, as endpoints.  

Other Potential Indications

We are preclinically evaluating potential expansion opportunities in oncology for darovasertib – including in cMET-driven solid tumors such as HCC or NSCLC. In March 2022, we entered into the Third Pfizer Agreement, pursuant to which we plan to evaluate, subject to preclinical validation, darovasertib and Pfizer’s cMET inhibitor, crizotinib, as a combination therapy in cMET-driven tumors such as HCC or NSCLC in a Phase 1 clinical trial. We will provide IDE196 and pay for the costs of this combination study; Pfizer will provide crizotinib for this combination study at no cost to us.

We are also preclinically evaluating potential expansion opportunities in KRAS-driven solid tumors, evaluating darovasertib in combination with a KRAS inhibitor.

In addition, we are exploring potential expansion opportunities in GNAQ/11 rare diseases, such as Sturge Weber Syndrome, or SWS, and Port Wine Stain, or PWS.

2020 Public Offering and Sale of IDEAYA Common Stock

On June 22, 2020, we closed on an underwritten public offering, or the Offering, of 6,666,667 shares of our common stock at an offering price of $15.00 per share, pursuant to which we received gross proceeds of $100.0 million, before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses.  

On July 22, 2020, as part of the Offering, we sold and issued an additional 500,000 shares of common stock upon the exercise of the overallotment option by the underwriters for gross proceeds of $7.5 million before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering.  We realized aggregate gross proceeds of $107.5 million from the Offering, including gross proceeds from the sale of shares in the base Offering and the sale of shares from exercise of the overallotment option, and before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses payable by us.

2020 Private Placement of IDEAYA Common Stock with GSK

On June 17, 2020, we entered into a stock purchase agreement with Glaxo Group Limited, or GGL, an affiliate of GlaxoSmithKline, pursuant to which GGL agreed to purchase in a private placement, subject to certain conditions, 1,333,333 shares of our common stock at a price per share of $15.00, which is equal to the public offering price per share in the Offering.  The common stock sold pursuant thereto was not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act. The closing of this private placement occurred on August 3, 2020, following HSR Clearance of the associated GSK Collaboration Agreement, described below, and satisfaction of other certain customary closing conditions.  

On August 3, 2020, following HSR Clearance of the associated GSK Collaboration Agreement, we closed on the private placement with GGL. We received proceeds of $20.0 million from the sale of these shares in this private placement.  

95

Prospectus Supplement - At-the-Market Facility

On August 12, 2020, we filed a prospectus supplement to the prospectus dated June 10, 2020, activating our at-the-market, or ATM, facility by entering into an Open Market Sale Agreement, or August 2020 Sales Agreement, with Jefferies LLC, or Jefferies, relating to shares of our common stock offered by the prospectus supplement and the accompanying prospectus. Pursuant to the terms of the August 2020 Sales Agreement, we may offer and sell shares of our common stock, $0.0001 par value per share, having an aggregate offering price of up to $50,000,000 from time to time through Jefferies acting as agent. Pursuant to the August 2020 Sales Agreement, Jefferies, as sales agent, receives a commission of 3.0% of the aggregate gross proceeds that we receive from each sale of its shares of common stock sold under the August 2020 Sales Agreement.

During the year ended December 31, 2020, we sold 410,896 shares of our common stock for aggregate net proceeds of $6.6 million after deducting sales commission and other expenses at a weighted average sales price of approximately $16.92 per share under an at-the-market offering pursuant to the August 2020 Sales Agreement with Jefferies as sales agent.

On January 20, 2021, we entered into a new Open Market Sale Agreement, or January 2021 Sale Agreement, with Jefferies, with respect to an at-the-market offering program under which we may offer and sell, from time to time at our sole discretion, shares of its common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the “Common Stock”), having aggregate gross proceeds of up to $90.0 million through Jefferies as its sales agent. Under the January 2021 Sale Agreement, we will pay Jefferies a commission equal to three percent (3.0%) of the aggregate gross proceeds from each sale of shares sold through Jefferies under the January 2021 Sale Agreement.  

During the year ended December 31, 2021, we sold an aggregate of 3,407,872 shares of our common stock for aggregate net proceeds of $57.3 million at a weighted average sales price of approximately $17.40 per share under the at-the-market offering pursuant to the August 2020 and January 2021 Sales Agreements with Jefferies as sales agent.  As of December 31, 2021, approximately $73.8 million of common stock remained available to be sold under the ATM facility.

In January 2022, we sold an aggregate of 2,173 shares of our common stock for aggregate net proceeds of $0.05 million at a weighted average sales price of approximately $24.01 per share under the at-the-market offering pursuant to the January 2021 Sales Agreements with Jefferies as sales agent.

2021 Public Offering and Sale of IDEAYA Common Stock

On July 12, 2021, we completed an underwritten public offering of 5,333,333 shares of our common stock at an offering price to the public of $17.25 per share, including 695,652 shares of common stock upon the exercise in full of the overallotment option by the underwriters, pursuant to which we received aggregate net proceeds of $86.0 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses.  

Management / Leadership Team

We continue to enhance our leadership team.  Michael White, Ph.D., joined as Senior Vice President and Chief Scientific Officer, in November 2021. Dr. White was previously Chief Scientific Officer and Head of Tumor Biology at Pfizer, Inc. and at UT Southwestern, where he was a Professor of Cell Biology and founding Director of the Cancer Intervention and Prevention Discovery Program.  Matthew Maurer, M.D. joined us as Vice President, Head of Clinical Oncology and Medical Affairs in January 2021.  Dr. Maurer was previously with Bristol Myers Squibb, and was earlier an oncologist and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.  

Board of Directors

Susan L. Kelley, M.D. has joined as a member of our board of directors effective February 12, 2021, serving as a Class III director, with an initial term expiring at our 2022 annual meeting of stockholders.  Dr. Kelley has over 25 years of experience in oncology drug research and development, including most recently as Chief Medical Officer of the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC), and previously at Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals and Bayer-Schering Pharma, and at Bristol-Myers Squibb.

96

Corporate Update

We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue since inception. We have funded our operations through December 31, 2021 primarily through the sale and issuance of common stock, redeemable convertible preferred stock, and convertible promissory notes, including our initial public offering, or IPO, in May 2019, a follow-on underwritten public offering in June 2020, a direct private placement equity investment by GGL in June 2020, the sale and issuance of common stock under our at-the-market facility pursuant to the August 2020 and January 2021 Sales Agreements with Jefferies as sales agent, and through a follow-on underwritten public offering in July 2021.  Additionally, we received a non-dilutive upfront cash payment from GSK in July 2020 in connection with the GSK Collaboration Agreement.

Since our inception in June 2015, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to discovering and developing our product candidates. We have incurred significant operating losses to date and expect that our operating expenses will increase significantly as we advance our product candidates through preclinical and clinical development; seek regulatory approval, and prepare for, and, if approved, proceed to commercialization; acquire, discover, validate and develop additional product candidates; obtain, maintain, protect and enforce our intellectual property portfolio; and hire additional personnel.  Certain program costs that contribute to our operating expenses will be reimbursed by GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement, including 100% of costs we incur for research we perform in connection with the Pol Theta program and 80% of the aggregate program costs incurred by us and GSK for research each of us performs for the Werner Helicase program, and if GSK exercises their exclusive option to obtain an exclusive license to continue development of and commercialize MAT2A products arising out of the MAT2A program, also the MAT2A program. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company.

Our net losses were $49.8 million and $34.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $176.7 million.

Our ability to generate product revenue will depend on the successful development, regulatory approval and eventual commercialization of one or more of our product candidates, ourselves, or for some programs, in collaboration with our strategic partners. We are leading and solely responsible for preclinical, translational and clinical research and development, as applicable, for (i) the darovasertib monotherapy arm of our IDE196-001 clinical trial, (ii) our PARG program and (iii) our earlier pipeline programs, including our MTAP-SL program and our DNA Damage Target or DDT programs.  We are leading clinical development in the ongoing darovasertib / crizotinib combination arm of our IDE196-001 clinical trial, in each case in coordination with Pfizer pursuant to the Pfizer Agreement.  We are leading preclinical development and early-stage clinical development for evaluation of IDE397 in the ongoing IDE397-001 Phase 1 clinical trial, in coordination with GSK pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.  We are collaborating with GSK on preclinical research for our Pol Theta and Werner Helicase programs, pursuant to the GSK Collaboration Agreement.

Until such time as we can generate significant revenue from product sales, if ever, we expect to finance our operations through the sale of equity, debt financings, or other capital sources, including potential collaborations with other companies or other strategic transactions. Adequate funding may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. If we fail to raise capital or enter into such agreements as and when needed, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue the development and commercialization of our product candidates.

As of December 31, 2021, we had cash, cash equivalents, and short-term and long-term marketable securities of $368.1 million.

We believe that our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term and long-term marketable securities will be sufficient to fund our planned operations for at least twelve months from the date of the issuance of our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed March 17, 2022.

These funds will support our efforts through potential achievement of multiple preclinical and clinical milestones across multiple programs.

Components of Operating Results

Collaboration Revenues

To date, we have not generated any revenue from product sales, and we do not expect to generate any revenue from product sales for the foreseeable future. Our revenue consists exclusively of collaboration revenue under the GSK Collaboration Agreement, including amounts that are recognized related to previously received upfront payments and amounts due and payable to us for research and development services. In the future, revenue may include additional milestone payments, option exercise payments, profit sharing, and royalties on any net product sales under our collaborations. We expect that any revenue we generate will fluctuate from period to period as a result of various factors, such as the timing and amount of license, research and development services, and milestone and other payments. The revenue we recognize or generate under

97

the GSK Collaboration Agreement may also fluctuate from period to period due to changes to prospective collaboration research budgets or changes to respective allocation of resources as between the parties and as between internal or external (e.g., CRO) sources, in each case on a program by program basis, as part of ongoing collaboration research management.

Operating Expenses

Research and Development Expenses

Substantially all of our research and development expenses consist of expenses incurred in connection with discovery and development of our product candidates. These expenses include certain payroll and personnel-related expenses, including salaries, employee benefit costs and stock-based compensation expenses for our research and product development employees, fees to third parties to conduct certain research and development activities on our behalf including fees to CMOs and CROs in support of manufacturing and clinical activity for IDE397 and darovasertib (IDE196), consulting costs, costs for laboratory supplies, costs for product licenses and allocated overhead, including rent, equipment, depreciation, information technology costs and utilities. We expense both internal and external research and development expenses as they are incurred.

We have entered into various agreements with CMOs and CROs. Our research and development accruals are estimated based on the level of services performed, progress of the studies, including the phase or completion of events, and contracted costs. The estimated costs of research and development provided, but not yet invoiced, are included in accrued liabilities on the balance sheet. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from the original estimates, we will adjust the accrual accordingly. Payments made to CMOs and CROs under these arrangements in advance of the performance of the related services are recorded as prepaid expenses and other current assets until the services are rendered.

Costs of certain activities, such as preclinical studies, are generally recognized based on an evaluation of the progress to completion of specific tasks. Nonrefundable payments made prior to the receipt of goods or services that will be used or rendered for future research and development activities are deferred and capitalized as prepaid expenses and other current assets on our balance sheet. The capitalized amounts are recognized as expense as the goods are delivered or the related services are performed.

We do not allocate our internal costs by product candidate, including internal costs, such as payroll and other personnel expenses, laboratory supplies and allocated overhead. With respect to internal costs, several of our departments support multiple product candidate research and development programs, and therefore the costs cannot be allocated to a particular product candidate or development program. The following table summarizes our external clinical development expenses by program:

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

98

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of payroll and personnel-related expenses, including salaries, employee benefit costs and stock-based compensation expense, professional fees for legal, patent, consulting, accounting and tax services, allocated overhead, including rent, equipment, depreciation, information technology costs and utilities, and other general operating expenses not otherwise classified as research and development expenses.

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

Other Income (Expense)

Interest Income and Other Income (Expense), Net

Interest income and other income (expense), net consists primarily of interest income earned on our cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities.

Results of Operations

A discussion regarding our financial condition and results of operations for fiscal year 2021 compared to fiscal year 2020 is presented below. A discussion regarding our financial condition and results of operations for fiscal year 2020 compared to fiscal year 2019 can be found in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 23, 2021.

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020

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