ROCKET PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. - Annual Report: 2020 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020

OR

For the transition period from                  to

Commission File Number: 001-36829

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(646) 440-9100

(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange 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 if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes ☒    No ☐

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2020 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $734.6 million, based upon the closing price on the Nasdaq Global Market reported for such date.

As of February 22, 2021, there were 61,778,289 shares of common stock, $0.01 par value per share, outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K incorporates by reference information (to the extent specific sections are referred to herein) from the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Proxy Statement”). The Proxy Statement will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Annual Report”) contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties, as well as assumptions that, if they never materialize or prove incorrect, could cause our results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. We make such forward-looking statements pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this Annual Report are forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would,” or the negative of these words or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements about:

We caution you that the foregoing list may not contain all of the forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report.

Any forward-looking statements in this Annual Report reflect our current views with respect to future events or to our future financial performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, among other things, those listed under Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors and elsewhere in this Annual Report. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update or revise these forward-looking statements for any reason, even if new information becomes available in the future.

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

SUMMARY OF THE MATERIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

Our business is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties that you should be aware of in evaluating our business. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following:

The summary risk factors described above should be read together with the text of the full risk factors below and in the other information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, as well as in other documents that we file with the SEC. If any such risks and uncertainties actually occur, our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The risks summarized above or described in full elsewhere in this report are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us, or that we currently deem to be immaterial may also materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations.

PART I

Overview

We are a clinical-stage, multi-platform biotechnology company focused on the development of first, only and best-in-class gene therapies, with direct on-target mechanism of action and clear clinical endpoints, for rare and devastating diseases. We have four clinical-stage ex vivo lentiviral vector (“LVV”).  These include programs for Fanconi Anemia (“FA”), a genetic defect in the bone marrow that reduces production of blood cells or promotes the production of faulty blood cells, Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (“LAD-I”), a genetic disorder that causes the immune system to malfunction, Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency (“PKD”), a rare red blood cell autosomal recessive disorder that results in chronic non-spherocytic hemolytic anemia and Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis (“IMO”), a genetic disorder characterized by increased bone density and bone mass secondary to impaired bone resorption. Of these, both the Phase 2 FA program and the Phase 1/2 LAD-I program are in registration-enabling studies in the United States (“U.S.”) and Europe (“EU”). In addition, in the U.S., we have a clinical stage in vivo adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) program for Danon disease, a multi-organ lysosomal-associated disorder leading to early death due to heart failure. We have global commercialization and development rights to all of these product candidates under royalty-bearing license agreements. Additional work on a gene therapy program for the less common FA subtypes C and G is ongoing.

Through our gene therapy platforms, we aim to restore normal cellular function by modifying the defective genes that cause each of the targeted disorders.

Gene Therapy Overview

 

Genes are composed of sequences of deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”), which code for proteins that perform a broad range of physiologic functions in all living organisms. Although genes are passed on from generation to generation, genetic changes, also known as mutations, can occur in this process. These changes can result in the lack of production of proteins or the production of altered proteins with reduced or abnormal function, which can in turn result in disease.

Gene therapy is a therapeutic approach in which an isolated gene sequence or segment of DNA is administered to a patient, most commonly for the purpose of treating a genetic disease that is caused by genetic mutations. Currently available therapies for many genetic diseases focus on administration of large proteins or enzymes and typically address only the symptoms of the disease. Gene therapy aims to address the disease-causing effects of absent or dysfunctional genes by delivering functional copies of the gene sequence directly into the patient’s cells, offering the potential for curing the genetic disease, rather than simply addressing symptoms.

We are using modified non-pathogenic viruses for the development of our gene therapy treatments. Viruses are particularly well suited as delivery vehicles because they are adept at penetrating cells and delivering genetic material inside a cell. In creating our viral delivery vehicles, the viral (pathogenic) genes are removed and are replaced with a functional form of the missing or mutant gene that is the cause of the patient’s genetic disease. The functional form of a missing or mutant gene is called a therapeutic gene, or the “transgene.” The process of inserting the transgene is called “transduction.” Once a virus is modified by replacement of the viral genes with a transgene, the modified virus is called a “viral vector.” The viral vector delivers the transgene into the targeted tissue or organ (such as the cells inside a patient’s bone marrow). We have two types of viral vectors in development, LVV and AAV. We believe that our LVV and AAV-based programs have the potential to offer a significant therapeutic benefit to patients that is durable (long-lasting).

The gene therapies can be delivered either (1) ex vivo (outside the body), in which case the patient’s cells are extracted and the vector is delivered to these cells in a controlled, safe laboratory setting, with the modified cells then being reinserted into the patient, or (2) in vivo (inside the body), in which case the vector is injected directly into the patient, either intravenously (“IV”) or directly into a specific tissue at a targeted site, with the aim of the vector delivering the transgene to the targeted cells.

We believe that scientific advances, clinical progress, and the greater regulatory acceptance of gene therapy have created a promising environment to advance gene therapy products as these products are being designed to restore cell function and improve clinical outcomes, which in many cases include prevention of death at an early age. The FDA approval of several gene therapies in recent years indicates that there is a regulatory pathway forward for gene therapy products.

Essential Terminology.

Set forth below is an abbreviated index of certain key terms and optimal ranges of values used in the discussion of LVV and AAV gene therapies.

Pipeline Overview

The chart below shows the current phases of development of Rocket’s programs and product candidates for both LVV and AAV programs:

Descriptions of these conditions and the Rocket programs for each is set forth below.

LVV Programs. Rocket’s LVV-based programs utilize third-generation, self-inactivating lentiviral vectors to target selected rare diseases. Currently, Rocket is developing LVV programs to treat FA, LAD-I, PKD, and IMO.

AAV Program.

Overview of Danon Disease

Danon disease is a multi-organ lysosomal-associated disorder leading to early death due to heart failure. Danon disease is caused by mutations in the gene encoding lysosome-associated membrane protein 2 (“LAMP-2”), a mediator of autophagy. This mutation results in the accumulation of autophagic vacuoles, predominantly in cardiac and skeletal muscle. Male patients often require heart transplantation and typically die in their teens or twenties from progressive heart failure. Along with severe cardiomyopathy, other Danon disease symptoms can include skeletal muscle weakness, liver disease, and intellectual impairment. There are no specific therapies available for the treatment of Danon disease. RP-A501 is in clinical trials as an in vivo therapy for Danon disease, which is estimated to have a prevalence of 15,000 to 30,000 patients in the U.S. and the EU, however new market research is being performed and the prevalence of patients may be updated in the future.

Rationale for Gene Therapy in FA

Danon disease is an autosomal dominant, rare inherited disorder characterized by progressive cardiomyopathy which is almost universally fatal in males even in settings where cardiac transplantation is available. Danon disease predominantly affects males early in life and is characterized by absence of LAMP2B expression in the heart and other tissues.  Pre-clinical models of Danon have demonstrated that AAV-mediated transduction of the heart results in reconstitution of LAMP2B expression and improvement in cardiac function.

The rAAV9-based gene product, RP-A501 is potentially corrective of Danon Disease based on several factors. (1) Danon females who have a 30-60% expression level of LAMP2B compared to normal hearts, have a median lifespan of greater than 40 years of age, which is significantly greater than the median age of death of 18 years old in males. (2) Tropism of the AAV9 vector for cardiomyocytes and the ability to efficiently and stably transduce cardiac cells.  This is clearly demonstrated in both pre-clinical models as well as the durable (9-12 months) cardiac expression of LAMP2B in the ongoing Phase 1b clinical trial. (3) Mammalian cardiomyocytes are an extremely stable cell population with limited reproductive or cell-cycle-entry capacity beyond the perinatal period, implying that sufficient AAV-mediated LAMP2B transduction may enable lifelong reversal of the Danon disease phenotype.

We currently have one adeno-associated viral vector-based program targeting Danon Disease, RP-A501, in a Phase 1 clinical trial. University of California San Diego Health was the initial and lead center for our Phase 1 clinical trial, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia joined UCSD as a trial site for the higher dose cohort.  The non-randomized, open-label Phase 1 trial is designed to enroll both pediatric and young adult male patients in escalating dose cohorts.

As of December 31, 2020, we have treated five patients in the RP-A501 Phase 1 clinical trial and completed the first  cohort of the study evaluating an initial low-dose in male patients age 15 or greater. The preliminary data announced in December 2020 for the low dose cohort included safety and clinical activity results from the three patients treated with the low dose of 6.7×10¹³ genome copies (gc)/kilogram (kg) and early safety information from the two patients treated with the higher dose of 1.1×10¹⁴ gc/kg as of the cutoff date of November 2020.

In the three patients treated in the low dose cohort, RP-A501 showed manageable safety results. No unexpected and serious drug product-related adverse events or severe adverse events were observed. The most common adverse events were mild and were related to elevated transaminases post treatment. Elevation in transaminases was observed in all three low-dose patients and returned to baseline within the first one to two months post-treatment. There was also a transient and reversible decline in platelets observed in these three patients. These changes were largely responsive to corticosteroids and other immunosuppressive therapies. All patients were given oral steroids to prevent or minimize potential immune-related events.

At the higher dose administered (1.1×10¹⁴ gc/kg), additional immunosuppressive therapies were stipulated and administered to mitigate the immune response associated with RP-A501.  One of the two treated patients, who received the higher absolute AAV9 dose and had some degree of pre-existing anti-AAV9 immunity, experienced a non-persistent, immune-related event that was classified as a drug product-related serious adverse event. This was believed to be likely due to complement activation, resulting in reversible thrombocytopenia and acute kidney injury requiring eculizumab and transient hemodialysis. This patient returned to baseline within three weeks and regained normal kidney function.

From the perspective of gene expression results, all three low dose patients demonstrated evidence of cardiac LAMP2B expression by Western blot and/or immunohistochemistry. In two of the three patients in the low dose cohort who had closely monitored compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen, high levels of cardiac LAMP2B expression were observed along with clinical biomarker improvements. In cardiac biopsies of the low dose patients, LAMP2B gene expression was observed in 67.8% of cells compared to normal as determined by immunohistochemistry at 9 months in one patient, and at 92.4% of cells compared to normal at month 12 in the other patient. In this latter patient, Western blot assessment showed 61% of normal LAMP2B protein expression at month 9. The 12-month Western blot data was still pending for all three patients as of the data cutoff.

The first patient in the low dose cohort was not as closely monitored for compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen as the other two patients. Although we did observe evidence of cardiac LAMP2B expression of approximately 15% of cells compared to normal as determined by immunohistochemistry at 12 months in this patient, we believe that such expression was likely limited by inconsistent compliance with the immunosuppressive regimen, as evidenced by transient increases in transaminase levels approximately one month after treatment and a lack of adverse events frequently associated with the immunosuppressive regimen. Additionally, in this patient, Western blot assessment showed 17.9% of normal LAMP2B protein expression at month 6.

At least two of the three low dose patients demonstrated key clinical biomarker improvements consistent with improved cardiac function. Brain natriuretic peptide, a key marker of heart failure, improved in all three patients, including by greater than 50% in the two patients with closely monitored immunosuppressive regimen compliance. Additionally, creatine kinase myocardial band either improved or stabilized in these two patients. For the patient with the potential inconsistent immunosuppressive regimen compliance, the creatine kinase myocardial band was higher than at baseline at month 12. Notably, all three patients showed visible improvements in autophagic vacuoles, a hallmark of Danon disease pathology, as assessed by electron microscopy of cardiac tissue via endomyocardial biopsy. Additionally, two of the three low dose patients with closely monitored immunosuppressive regimen compliance demonstrated improvement in cardiac output as measured by invasive hemodynamics, including one patient who showed a 1.62-fold improvement in cardiac output at month 12, and one patient who showed a 1.35-fold improvement at month 9. For the patient with the apparent inconsistent immunosuppressive regimen compliance, the cardiac output was lower at month 12 than at baseline.

We expect to announce updated data from our open-label Phase 1 trial of RP-A501 in the second half of 2021.

Fanconi Anemia Complementation Group A (FANCA):

Fanconi Anemia Overview

FA, a rare and life-threatening DNA-repair disorder, generally arises from a mutation in a single FA gene. An estimated 60 to 70% of cases arise from mutations in the Fanconi-A (“FANCA”) gene, which is the focus of our program. FA results in bone marrow failure, developmental abnormalities, myeloid leukemia and other malignancies, often during the early years and decades of life. Bone marrow aplasia, which is bone marrow that no longer produces any or very few red and white blood cells and platelets leading to infections and bleeding, is the most frequent cause of early morbidity and mortality in FA, with a median onset before 10 years of age. Leukemia is the next most common cause of mortality, ultimately occurring in about 20% of patients later in life. Solid organ malignancies, such as head and neck cancers, can also occur, although at lower rates during the first two to three decades of life.

Although improvements in allogeneic (donor-mediated) hematopoietic stem cell transplant (“HSCT”), currently the most frequently utilized therapy for FA, have resulted in more frequent hematologic correction of the disorder, HSCT is associated with both acute and long-term risks, including transplant-related mortality, graft versus host disease (“GVHD”), a sometimes fatal side effect of allogeneic transplant characterized by painful ulcers in the GI tract, liver toxicity and skin rashes, as well as increased risk of subsequent cancers. Our gene therapy program in FA is designed to enable a minimally toxic hematologic correction using a patient’s own stem cells during the early years of life. We believe that the development of a broadly applicable autologous gene therapy can be transformative for these patients.

Current Therapy

Allogeneic HSCT may be curative for the hematologic manifestations of FA and is currently considered a standard-of-care in FA. However, HSCT is limited in that not all patients have a suitable donor and there is associated short term mortality and potential for acute and chronic GVHD with HSCT, especially in patients who do not receive an allograft from a sibling-human leukocyte antigen (“HLA”)-matched donor. 100-day mortality following allogeneic HSCT continues to be in the 10 to 15% range due to infection, graft failure and other complications. In a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant 2013 publication, a retrospective analysis detailed results from 795 FA patients receiving HSCT from 1972 to 2010 in which Grade 2-4 Acute GVHD was reported in 19 to 36% of patients and Chronic GVHD was identified in 16 to 20% of patients.

HSCT likely increases the already high risk of subsequent solid tumor malignancies for patients with FA, most notably squamous carcinoma of the head and neck (“SCCHN”). Based on the findings in one series of data, HSCT was associated with a 4-fold increase in SCCHN risk relative to FA patients who did not receive a transplant, with cancers developing at an earlier age. In another more recent but unpublished series, patients with HSCT who developed GVHD had a 30+-fold increase in SCCHN risk.

Other therapies utilized for FA include androgens, corticosteroids and hematopoietic growth factors, although the benefits of these therapies are considered modest and transient for the majority of patients. Side effects may also be considerable. For androgens, for example, these include masculinization, short stature, hepatitis, liver adenomas and hepatocellular carcinoma.

Because of the severity of the disease and limitations with existing standards-of-care, additional, minimally-toxic therapies are urgently needed in FA, especially if these can be administered with reduced short- and long-term toxicity relative to allogeneic HSCT.

Rationale for Gene Therapy in FA

Gene therapy has been considered a compelling investigative therapeutic option in FA since the genetic basis of the disorder was characterized and has been the subject of studies in both preclinical models and in several clinical studies. In addition to the monogenic nature of each patient’s disease. We believe there are several critical factors that will help lead our gene therapy programs into the next generation of promising therapy:

Rocket Clinical Study

Efforts underway at our partners have incorporated the recommendations of an international FA working group that convened November 2010 with the intent of consolidating medical and scientific findings and optimizing future gene therapy clinical study design, with programs designed to overcome FA-specific gene therapy challenges. Our partners have demonstrated the ability to successfully mobilize and harvest target numbers of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (“HSPCs”) generally acknowledged to be required for successful therapy. This has been accomplished through the selection of younger patients, and mobilization with both granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (“G-CSF”) and plerixa for drug products, which are both FDA-approved drugs that increase the number of bone marrow-derived stem cells circulating in the blood. Improvements to cell processing, such as reduced transduction time requirements, optimized transduction conditions, and modified HSPC selection processes, have also led to substantive improvements in cell recovery and in vivo VCN.

Improvements in the clinical and cell-processing components of our FA trials are expected to yield more robust and readily-identifiable disease-reversal. These improvements include selection of younger patients and identification of blood count profiles that are indicative of adequate stem cell populations capable of mobilization and engraftment in numbers sufficient for reversal of the disorder.

In contrast to the high doses of cytotoxic conditioning required for allogeneic transplant in most bone marrow disorders; our expectation is that the selective growth advantage of gene-corrected HSPCs in FA will enable treatment without conditioning agents to facilitate engraftment.

The engraftment of gene-corrected cells is likely to reduce the incidence of bone marrow failure. In addition, gene-corrected cells are likely to diminish the replicative stress in FA bone marrow, which has been increasingly implicated as a likely driver of the development or bone marrow failure or leukemia.

Each of our LVV-based programs utilize third-generation, self-inactivating lentiviral vectors to correct defects in patients’ HSCs, which are the cells found in bone marrow that are capable of generating blood cells over a patient’s lifetime. Defects in the genetic coding of HSCs can result in severe, and potentially life-threatening anemia, which is when a patient’s blood lacks enough properly functioning red blood cells to carry oxygen throughout the body. Stem cell defects can also result in severe and potentially life-threatening decreases in white blood cells resulting in susceptibility to infections, and in platelets responsible for blood clotting, which may result in severe and potentially life-threatening bleeding episodes. Patients with FA have a genetic defect that prevents the normal repair of genes and chromosomes within blood cells in the bone marrow, which frequently results in the development of acute myeloid leukemia (“AML”), a type of blood cancer, as well as bone marrow failure and congenital defects. The average lifespan of an FA patient is estimated to be 30 to 40 years. The prevalence of FA in the U.S. and EU is estimated to be approximately 4,000 patients in total.  In light of the efficacy seen in non-conditioned patients, the addressable annual market opportunity is now believed to be 400 to 500 patients collectively in the U.S. and EU.

We currently have one ex-vivo LVV-based program targeting FA, RP-L102. RP-L102 is our lead lentiviral vector-based program that we in-licensed from Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (“CIEMAT”), which is a leading research institute in Madrid, Spain. RP-L102 is currently being studied in our Phase 2 registrational enabling clinical trials treating FA patients at the Center for Definitive and Curative Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine (“Stanford”), the University of Minnesota, Great Ormond Street Hospital (“GOSH”) in London and Hospital Infantil de Nino Jesus (“HNJ”) in Spain. The trial is expected to enroll a total of ten patients from the U.S. and EU with the first patient in this Phase 2 trial treated in December 2019. Patients will receive a single intravenous infusion of RP-L102 that utilizes fresh cells and “Process B” which incorporates a modified stem cell enrichment process, transduction enhancers, as well as commercial-grade vector and final drug product.

Resistance to mitomycin-C, a DNA damaging agent, in bone marrow stem cells at a minimum time point of one year post treatment is the primary endpoint for our ongoing Phase 2 study.  Per agreement with the FDA and EMA, engraftment leading to bone marrow restoration exceeding a 10% mitomycin-C resistance threshold could support filing the product for approval.

In December, 2020, we presented updated interim data from our FA at the 62^nd American Society of Hematology (“ASH”) Annual Meeting.

The FA data presented at the ASH Annual Meeting were from seven of the nine patients treated (out of twelve patients enrolled) as of October 2020 in both the U.S. Phase 1 and global Phase 2 studies of RP-L102 for FA. Patients in these studies received a single intravenous infusion of “Process B” RP-L102 which incorporates a modified stem cell enrichment process, transduction enhancers, as well as commercial-grade vector. Preliminary data from these studies support “Process B” as a consistent and reproducible improvement over “Process A” which was used in earlier academic FA studies.

Seven patients had follow-up data of at least two-months and three of the seven patients had been followed for twelve-months or longer. As patients are treated with gene therapy product without the use of a conditioning regimen, the data indicated that RP-L102 was generally well-tolerated with no significant safety issues reported with infusion or post-treatment. One drug related serious adverse event of Grade 2 transient infusion-related reaction was observed. In five out of the seven patients for whom there was follow-up data, evidence of preliminary engraftment was observed, with bone marrow (“BM”) vector copy numbers (“VCNs”) from 0.16 to 0.22 (long-term follow-up only) and peripheral VCNs ranging from 0.01 (2-month follow-up) to 0.11 (long-term follow-up). Further, two of the three patients with greater than 12-months follow-up showed evidence of increasing engraftment, mitomycin-C (“MMC”) resistance and stable blood counts, which suggests a halt in the progression of bone marrow failure. The third patient with greater than 12-month follow-up contracted Influenza B nine months post-treatment resulting in progressive BM failure, for which, such patient received a successful bone marrow transplant at 18 months post-treatment.

We expect to report longer-term follow up on these patients in the second quarter of 2021.

Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (LAD-I):

Overview of LAD-I

LAD-I is a rare autosomal recessive disorder of white blood cell adhesion and migration, resulting from mutations in the ITGB2 gene encoding for the Beta-2 Integrin component, CD18. Deficiencies in CD18 result in an impaired ability for neutrophils (a subset of infection-fighting white blood cells) to leave blood vessels and enter tissues where these cells are needed to combat infections. As is the case with many rare diseases,  accurate estimates of incidence are difficult to confirm; however, several hundred cases have been reported to date.

Most LAD-I patients are believed to have the severe form of the disease. Severe LAD-I is notable for recurrent, life-threatening infections and substantial infant mortality in patients who do not receive an allogeneic HSCT. Mortality for severe LAD-I has been reported as 60 to 75% by age two in the absence of allogeneic HCST.

Current Therapy

Allogeneic HSCT is the only known curative therapy, with survival rates of approximately 75% in recent studies. Allogeneic HSCT in LAD-I has been associated with frequent severe and chronic GVHD, and high rates of subsequent non-bacterial infections (most notably cytomegalovirus (“CMV”) and other viral and systemic fungal infections).

Because LAD-I is the result of mutations in a single gene (ITGB2), we are developing RP-L201, an LVV based program, to enable a potentially curative therapy utilizing patients’ own HSPCs, without the dependency on the rapid identification of an appropriate donor required in allogeneic HSCT therapy. It is anticipated that autologous therapy with RP-L201 will also enable definitive correction of this life-threatening disorder with reduced short- and long-term toxicity relative to allogeneic HSCT.

Rationale for Gene Therapy in LAD-I

We believe there are two key reasons why gene therapy could have a transformative role in the treatment of LAD-I: (1) the existence of evidence that even modest correction of the expression of the genetic mutation will increase patient survival in the severe form of the disease, and (2) consistent and robust improvements in transduction and cell processing. Of note, proprietary transduction protocols currently yield product VCNs ≥ 1 and transduction efficiencies of > 50%. In addition, with the addition of either of two transduction enhancing agents, at least a doubling of product VCN has been demonstrated in preliminary experiments.

We believe that combined with a relatively straightforward cell harvest procedure in LAD-I and the likely modest CD18 expression required for clinical impact, RP-L201 can yield a gene therapy product that confers disease resolution comparable to allogeneic HSCT, and without the severe HSCT-associated acute and chronic toxicities.

Rocket Clinical Study

We currently have one ex-vivo program targeting LAD-I, RP-L201. RP-L201 is a clinical program that we in-licensed from CIEMAT. We have partnered with UCLA to lead U.S. clinical development efforts for the LAD-I program. UCLA and its Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research is serving as the lead U.S. clinical research center for the registrational clinical trial for LAD-I, and HNJ is serving as the lead clinical site in Spain.  GOSH in London is also a site for the LAD-I trial. This study has received a $6.5 million CLIN2 grant award from the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (“CIRM”) to support the clinical development of gene therapy for LAD-I.

 

The ongoing open-label, single-arm, Phase 1/2 registration enabling clinical trial of RP-L201 has treated four severe LAD-I patients to assess the safety and tolerability of RP-L201 to date. The first patient was treated at UCLA with RP-L201 in the third quarter 2019. Enrollment is now complete in the Phase 1 portion of the study.

At the virtual European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) 2020 Meeting in October 2020, we provided a clinical update for the LAD-I program. The data presented in the oral presentation was longer-term follow-up data from the Phase 1/2 clinical trial of RP-L201 for LAD-I, from two pediatric patients with severe LAD-I, as defined by CD18 expression of less than 2%. Both patients were treated with RP-L201, our ex-vivo lentiviral gene therapy candidate. Patient L201-003-1001 was 9 years of age at treatment and has been followed for 12 months and Patient L201-003-1004 was 3 years of age at treatment and has been followed for four months. Treatments in both cases were well tolerated, and no safety issues were reported with infusion and post-treatment. Both subjects achieved hematopoietic reconstitution in less than 4 weeks. Patient L201-003-1001 demonstrated durable CD18 expression of 40%, peripheral blood VCN levels of 1.3, visible signs of improvement in existing skin lesions and no new infections reported 12 months post-treatment. Patient L201-003-1004 demonstrated CD18 expression of 28% and early peripheral blood VCN trending similarly to first patient, reported 4 months post-treatment.

Additional data were presented on these two patients, along with a third pediatric severe LAD-I patient at the ASH Annual Meeting. Patient L201-003-1001 was 9 years of age at enrollment and had been followed for 12 months as of November 2020.   Patient L201-003-1004 was 3 years of age at enrollment and had been followed for over 6 months. Patient L201-003-2006 was 7 months of age at enrollment and was recently treated with RP-L201.

The data from these three patients indicated that RP-L201 was generally well-tolerated with no safety issues reported with infusion or post-treatment. There were no drug-related serious adverse events or severe adverse events as of the cut-off date. All patients achieved hematopoietic reconstitution within 5 weeks. Peripheral blood VCN and neutrophil CD18-expression were assessed post-treatment to evaluate engraftment and phenotypic correction, and for the three pediatric patients identified above, (i) at 12-months post treatment, Patient L201 -003-1001 demonstrated durable CD18 expression of approximately 40%, peripheral blood VCN levels of 1.2, resolution of skin lesions, (ii) at 6-months post-treatment, Patient L201-003-1004 demonstrated CD18 expression of 23%and peripheral blood VCN kinetics similar to those of the first patient and (iii) at 2-months post-treatment, Patient L201-003-2006 demonstrated preliminary CD18 expression of 76% and peripheral blood VCN kinetics similar to those of the first patient.

We expect to announce initial Phase 2 data in the second quarter of 2021.

Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency (PKD):

Overview of PKD

Red blood cell PKD is a rare autosomal recessive disorder resulting from mutations in the pyruvate kinase L/R (“PKLR”) gene encoding for a component of the red blood cell (“RBC”) glycolytic pathway. PKD is characterized by chronic non-spherocytic hemolytic anemia, a disorder in which RBCs do not assume a normal spherical shape and are broken down, leading to decreased ability to carry oxygen to cells, with anemia severity that can range from mild (asymptomatic) to severe forms that may result in childhood mortality or a requirement for frequent, lifelong RBC transfusions. The pediatric population is the most commonly and severely affected subgroup of patients with PKD, and PKD often results in splenomegaly (abnormal enlargement of the spleen), jaundice and chronic iron overload which is likely the result of both chronic hemolysis and the RBC transfusions used to treat the disease. The variability in anemia severity is believed to arise in part from the large number of diverse mutations that may affect the PKLR gene. Estimates of disease incidence have ranged between 3.2 and 51 cases per million in the white U.S. and EU population. Industry estimates suggest at least 2,500 cases in the U.S. and EU have already been diagnosed despite the lack of FDA-approved molecularly targeted therapies. Market research indicates the application of gene therapy to broader populations could increase the market opportunity from approximately 250 to 500 per year.

Current Therapy

Therapy for PKD is largely supportive, comprised of RBC transfusions and splenectomy for patients who require frequent transfusions. Chronic RBC transfusions alleviate anemia symptoms, but are associated with increased morbidity, predominantly from iron overload which may result in cirrhosis, which is a loss of liver cells and irreversible scarring of the liver, and cardiomyopathy, a chronic disease of the heart muscle that leads to a larger and bulky but inefficient heart, if not diligently managed. Iron chelation is often considered essential to offset the iron overload associated with chronic hemolysis and RBC transfusions. Iron chelation entails continuous oral or injected therapy, often for the duration of a patient’s lifetime and has been associated with diminished quality of life.

Splenectomy may confer a benefit in PKD, frequently yielding increased hemoglobin (“Hb”) levels of 1-2g/dL and a reduction in transfusion requirements. However, some patients do not benefit from this procedure, and it is estimated that a substantial proportion of PKD patients remain severely anemic or transfusion-dependent despite splenectomy. Splenectomy does not eliminate hemolysis, iron overload or the need for iron chelation. It also confers an increased susceptibility to serious bacterial infections, and potentially increases the risk of other PKD-associated or other complications such as venous thromboembolism and aplastic or hemolytic crises.

Allogeneic HSCT has been performed successfully for a small number of PKD patients, with reported correction of the clinical and laboratory features of the disorder. Although reports of HSCT in PKD suggest that correction of the genetic defect in hematopoietic stem cells may be curative of the disorder, HSCT requires identification of an appropriate HLA-matched donor, is associated with considerable short- and long-term complications including transplant-related mortality and is not considered a standard-of-care in PKD.

Rationale for Gene Therapy in PKD

Patients with heterozygous PKLR mutations have 50% of normal enzyme activity and are phenotypically normal. This suggests that it is not necessary for a therapy to achieve normal enzyme levels to have a clinically meaningful effect. In PKD-affected mice transplanted with normal marrow, the presence of 10% normal marrow was sufficient to restore normal red blood cells. We have conducted experiments in which bone marrow cells from healthy mice are transplanted into PKD affected mice and these results suggest that significant improvement in PKD may be achieved with 20% correction of bone marrow, and complete clinical resolution may likely be achieved when the percentage of bone marrow gene-corrected cells is in the 20 to 40% range. An additional study showed that a PKD-affected dog treated with an ex vivo gene therapy was rendered transfusion independent with a normalization of lactate dehydrogenase, despite only partial gene correction.

Available therapies for PKD, such as splenectomy, are generally associated with an approximate 1.5g/dL increase in hemoglobin levels, and do not modify the underlying iron overload associated with the disorder. As indicated in the pre-clinical studies noted above, and more importantly, in the initial clinical results provided subsequently, gene therapy involving genetic correction of long-term stem and progenitor cells, offers a potential for more comprehensive improvements in hemoglobin, with concomitant reduction in hemolysis and iron overload. As demonstrated in natural history studies published during recent years, the majority of patients receiving splenectomy do not achieve normal hemoglobin levels and hence there continues to be substantial need for therapies with potential to correct the underlying causes of the disorder and associated with hemoglobin corrections reaching or approaching normal range.

Rocket Clinical Study

We currently have one ex-vivo LVV-based program targeting PKD, RP-L301. RP-L301 is a clinical stage program that we in-licensed from CIEMAT. The IND for RP-L301 to initiate the global Phase 1 study cleared in October 2019. This program has been granted US and EMA orphan drug disease designation.

This global Phase 1 open-label, single-arm, clinical trial is expected to enroll six adult and pediatric transfusion-dependent PKD patients in the U.S. and Europe. The trial will be comprised of three cohorts to assess RP-L301 in young pediatric (age 8-11), older pediatric (age 12-17) and adult populations. The trial is designed to assess the safety, tolerability and preliminary activity of RP-L301, and initial safety evaluation will occur in the adult cohort before evaluation in pediatric patients. Stanford will serve as the lead site in the U.S. for adult and pediatric patients, HNJ will serve as the lead site in Europe for pediatrics, and Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz will serve as the lead site in Europe for adult patients. In July 2020, we treated the first patient in our clinical trial of RP-L301.

The data presented at the 2020 ASH Annual Meeting were from two adult PKD patients with significant anemia and transfusion requirements. Patient L301-006-1001 was treated with RP-L301. Preliminary data from this first patient supported initial tolerability of RP-L301, hemoglobin improvement to a normal range at 3-months post treatment and additional normalization of hemolysis markers.  The patient was 31-years of age at the time of enrollment and had been followed for 3-months post treatment as of the data cutoff date of October 2020.

Patient L301-006-1001 received a cell dose of 3.9x10⁶ cells/kilogram (“kg”) with a drug product mean VCN of 2.73. For this patient, hematopoietic reconstitution was observed in less than two weeks. Furthermore, the patient attained peripheral blood VCN of 2.21 at 1-month and 1.55 at 3-months and normalized hemoglobin (“Hgb”) and hemolysis markers at 3-months post-treatment. In particular, at baseline, the patient had Hb of approximately 7.4 grams (“g”)/deciliter (“dL”) to Hb of 14.3 g/dL at 3-months post treatment with RP-L301. In the two years prior to enrollment, the patient underwent approximately 14 transfusion episodes; subsequent to engraftment from RP-L301 treatment, the patient to date has not required any red blood cell transfusions. The patient also exhibited normalization of bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase and erythropoietin levels at 3-months post treatment, each of which had been substantially elevated prior to study enrollment. The patient also had an increase in hepcidin and a decrease in reticulocytes at 3-months post treatment. Patient L301-006-1002, was recently treated with RP-L301, receiving a cell dose of 2.4x10⁶ cells/kg with a mean drug product VCN of 2.08.

The data from Patient L301-006-1001 indicated that RP-L301 was generally well-tolerated and there were no serious safety issues or infusion-related complications observed 3-months post treatment. The patient experienced Grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events of neutropenia, stomatitis, increased liver transaminase levels (AST and ALT) and a Grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse event of hypertriglyceridemia; the investigator did not consider these adverse events related to RP-L301.

Patient L301-006-1001 also experienced Grade 2 serious adverse events of chest pain, dyspnea, and nausea during the apheresis collection. The investigator considered these events related to apheresis, hyperleukocytosis and the mobilizing agents. They resolved with supportive care and without sequelae. Other events included Grade 2 bone pain and Grade 3 leukocytosis.  The second cohort of this study will enroll older pediatric patients and is expected to be initiated in the first half of 2021.

A second patient L301-006-1002, was 47 years old at the time of enrollment and had been recently treated with RP-L301, receiving a cell dose of 2.4x10⁶ cells/kg with a mean drug product VCN of 2.08.

We expect to announce updated data from this study in the second half of 2021.

Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis (IMO):

Overview of Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis

IMO is a genetic disorder characterized by increased bone density and bone mass secondary to impaired bone resorption. During  normal growth and development small areas of bone are constantly being broken down by special cells called osteoclasts, then made again by cells called osteoblasts. In IMO, the cells that break down bone (osteoclasts) do not work properly, which leads to the bones becoming thicker and not as healthy. Untreated IMO patients may suffer from a compression of the bone-marrow space, which results in bone marrow failure, anemia, and increased infection risk due to the lack of production of white blood cells. Untreated IMO patients may also suffer from a compression of cranial nerves, which transmit signals between vital organs and the brain, resulting in blindness, hearing loss and other neurologic deficits.

IMO represents the autosomal recessive, severe variants of a group of disorders characterized by increased bone density and bone mass secondary to impaired bone resorption. IMO typically presents in the first year of life and is associated with severe manifestations leading to death within the first decade of life in the absence of allogeneic HSCT, although HSCT results have been limited to-date and notable for frequent graft failure, GVHD and other severe complications.

Approximately 50% of IMO results from mutations in the TCIRG1 gene, resulting in cellular defects that prevent osteoclast bone resorption. As a result of this defect, bone growth is markedly abnormal. It is estimated that IMO occurs in 1 out of 250,000-300,000 within the general global population, although incidence is higher in specific geographic regions including Costa Rica, parts of the Middle East, the Chuvash Republic of Russia, and the Vasterbotten Province of Northern Sweden.

Current Therapy

Allogeneic HSCT is potentially curative, but notable for considerable rates of engraftment failure, GVHD and pulmonary and hepatic complications. In a recent multicenter retrospective series, long-term survival rates for HSCT recipients with IMO were approximately 60% for matched-sibling recipients, and 40% for those with mismatched or unrelated allografts.

Preclinical Proof-of-Concept

Because osteoclasts are derived from the monocyte/macrophage lineage, correction of the TCIRG1 gene in hematopoietic stem cells will enable development of functional, bone-resorbing osteoclasts, as has been demonstrated in preclinical models. Preclinical results demonstrate that gene correction of HSPCs from IMO patients is feasible, and that these HSPCs can engraft in immunocompromised mice. Osteoclasts from these mice demonstrate increased bone resorption in vitro, as measured by increased calcium and collagen fragment CTX-I.

Additional preclinical experiments have demonstrated correction of an osteopetrotic (IMO) phenotype displayed by the oc/oc mouse model, in which even limited engraftment of wild-type murine bone marrow cells (including 4 to 5% wild-type engraftment) has been associated with reversal of the osteopetrosis phenotype.

Rocket Clinical Study

We currently have one LVV-based program targeting IMO, RP-L401. RP-L401 is a preclinical program that we in-licensed from Lund University, Sweden. This program has been granted ODD and Rare Pediatric Disease designation from the FDA. We have partnered with UCLA to lead U.S. clinical development efforts for the IMO program and UCLA will serve as the lead U.S. clinical site for IMO. The IND for RP-L401 to initiate a global Phase 1 study was cleared by the FDA in June 2020. The non-randomized, open-label Phase 1 clinical trial will enroll two pediatric patients, one month of age or older. The trial is designed to assess safety and tolerability of RP-L401, as well as preliminary efficacy, including potential improvements in bone abnormalities/density, hematologic status, and endocrine abnormalities.

 

In October 2020, we presented pre-clinical data from our LVV-based program targeting IMO, RP-L401, at the ESID 2020 Meeting. Preclinical data on IMO indicate that a modest level of engraftment corrects the disease phenotype in vivo, with increased long-term survival, tooth eruption, weight gain and normalized bone resorption. A comprehensive review of pre-clinical gene therapy investigations in TCIRG1-mediated osteopetrosis published in December 2020 supports acceleration into clinical development for RP-L401.

A clinical trial for RP-L401 was initiated in the fourth quarter of 2020 and recruitment is currently ongoing. On November 12, 2020, the CIRM awarded Rocket up to $3.7 million under a CLIN2 grant award to support the clinical development of its lentiviral vector (LVV)-based gene therapy, RP-L401, for the treatment of IMO.

We expect to report initial Phase 1 clinical trial data in the second half of 2021.

Strategy

We seek to bring hope and relief to patients with devastating, undertreated, rare pediatric diseases through the development and commercialization of potentially curative first-in-class gene therapies. To achieve these objectives, we intend to develop into a fully-integrated biotechnology company. In the near- and medium-term, we intend to develop our first-in-class product candidates, which are targeting devastating diseases with substantial unmet need, develop proprietary in-house analytics and manufacturing capabilities and continue to commence registration trials for our currently planned programs. In the medium and long-term, we expect to submit our first biologics license applications (“BLAs”) and establish our gene therapy platform and expand our pipeline to target additional indications that we believe to be potentially compatible with our gene therapy technologies. In addition, during that time, we believe that our currently planned programs will become eligible for priority review vouchers from the FDA that provide for expedited review. We have assembled a leadership and research team with expertise in cell and gene therapy, rare disease drug development and product approval.

We believe that our competitive advantage lies in our disease-based selection approach, a rigorous process with defined criteria to identify target diseases. We believe that this approach to asset development differentiates us as a gene therapy company and potentially provides us with a first-mover advantage.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect and enhance the proprietary technology, inventions, and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business, including seeking, maintaining, and defending patent rights, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties. We also rely on trade secrets relating to our proprietary technology platform and on know-how, continuing technological innovation and in-licensing opportunities to develop, strengthen and maintain our proprietary position in the field of gene therapy that may be important for the development of our business. We additionally intend to rely on regulatory protection afforded through orphan drug designations, data exclusivity, market exclusivity, and patent term extensions where available.

Our commercial success may depend in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent and other proprietary protection for commercially important technology, inventions and know-how related to our business; defend and enforce our patents; preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and operate without infringing the valid enforceable patents and proprietary rights of third parties. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing its future products may depend on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. With respect to both licensed and company-owned intellectual property, we cannot be sure that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents that may be granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our commercial products and methods of manufacturing the same.

We have developed and in-licensed numerous patents and patent applications and possess substantial know-how and trade secrets relating to the development and commercialization of gene therapy products. Our proprietary intellectual property, including patent and non-patent intellectual property, is generally directed to gene expression vectors and methods of using the same for gene therapy. As of  February 22, 2021, our patent portfolio includes both owned and in-licensed patent families relating to our product candidates and related technologies, discussed more fully below.

Fanconi Anemia

Our Fanconi Anemia program includes two in-licensed patent families. The first family includes pending patents and pending applications in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to polynucleotide cassettes and expression vector compositions containing Fanconi Anemia complementation group genes and methods for using such vectors to provide gene therapy in mammalian cells for treating Fanconi Anemia. This application was exclusively in-licensed from CIEMAT, Centro de Investigacion Biomedica En Red, (“CIBER”), Fundacion Instituto de investigacion Sanitaria Fundacion Jimenez Diaz, (“FIISFJD”), and Fundacion Para la Investigacion Biomedica del Hospital Del Nino Jesus. We expect any patents in this family, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2037, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

The second family includes pending U.S., Japanese, and European patent applications related to a portable platform for use in hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell-based gene therapy. This patent family was exclusively in-licensed from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. we expect any patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2036, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency (PKD)

Our PKD patent portfolio includes a pending patent application in the U.S., EU, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to polynucleotide cassettes and expression vector compositions containing pyruvate kinase genes and methods for using such vectors to provide gene therapy in mammalian cells for treating pyruvate kinase deficiency. This application was exclusively in-licensed from CIEMAT, CIBER, and FIISFJD. We expect any patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2037, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Danon Disease

Our Danon disease patent portfolio includes both proprietary intellectual property and a patent family in-licensed from the University of California, San Diego, which includes patent applications in the U.S., Europe, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to the treatment of Danon disease. We expect any patents in this portfolio, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2037 absent any patent term adjustments or extensions. We also own a U.S. patent and pending patent application in the EU, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to gene therapy vectors for the treatment of Danon disease; the U.S. patent issued in 2020. Any patents, if issued, arising from any national stage applications filed from these patent applications, are expected to expire in 2039, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions, if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid. We have also filed a provisional patent application directed to methods for treatment of Danon disease. Any patents, if issued, arising from this provisional patent application, are expected to expire in 2041, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions, if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid.

Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis (IMO)

Our IMO patent portfolio includes a pending PCT patent application with claims related to a method of manufacturing lentiviral vector used to transduce allogeneic HSCT. We expect any patents arising from any national stage applications filed from this PCT application, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2040, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency (LAD-I)

Our patent portfolio includes pending patent applications in the U.S., EU, Japan, China and other countries with claims directed to transduction of allogeneic HSCT, which may be relevant to our LAD-I program. We expect any patents arising from these patent applications, if issued, and if the appropriate maintenance, renewal, annuity, or other governmental fees are paid, to expire in 2039, absent any patent term adjustments or extensions.

Our objective is to continue to expand its portfolio of patents and patent applications in order to protect our gene therapy product candidates and manufacturing processes. From time to time, we may also evaluate opportunities to sublicense our portfolio of patents and patent applications that we own or exclusively license, and we may enter into such licenses from time to time. The term of individual patents depends upon the legal term of the patents in the countries in which they are obtained. In most countries in which we files, the patent term is 20 years from the date of filing the non-provisional application. In the U.S., a patent’s term may be lengthened by patent term adjustment, which compensates a patentee for administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in granting a patent or may be shortened if a patent is terminally disclaimed over an earlier-filed patent.

The term of a patent that covers an FDA-approved drug may also be eligible for patent term extension, which permits patent term restoration of a U.S. patent as compensation for the patent term lost during the FDA regulatory review process. The Hatch-Waxman Act permits a patent term extension of up to five years beyond the expiration of the patent. The length of the patent term extension is related to the length of time the drug is under regulatory review. 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 one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended. Moreover, a patent can only be extended once, and thus, if a single patent is applicable to multiple products, it can only be extended based on one product. Similar provisions are available in Europe and other foreign jurisdictions to extend the term of a patent that covers an approved drug. When possible, depending upon the length of clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing of a BLA, we expect to apply for patent term extensions for patents covering our product candidates and their methods of use.

We may rely, in some circumstances, on trade secrets to protect our technology. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and third parties. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of its premises and physical and electronic security of its information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors. To the extent that our consultants or collaborators use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions.

Material Contracts

License Agreements with CIEMAT

In March 2016, we entered into a license agreement with CIEMAT, CIBER, and FIISFJD, (collectively, “CIEMAT”), granting us worldwide, exclusive rights to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property relating to lentiviral vectors containing the human PKLR gene solely within the field of treating PKD. Under the terms of the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) develop and obtain regulatory approval for one or more products or processes covered by the licensed intellectual property, introduce such products or processes into the commercial market and then make them reasonably available to the public (b) develop or commercialize at least one product or process covered by the licensed intellectual property in at least one country for at least two uninterrupted years following regulatory approval, and (c) use the licensed intellectual property in an adequate, ethical and legitimate manner. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to pay CIEMAT an up-front payment, royalty payments based on net sales of products or processes involving any of the licensed intellectual property, developmental and regulatory milestone payments, and sublicense revenue payments. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents at our expense, in cooperation with CIEMAT. We also have the first responsibility to enforce and defend the licensed patents against infringement and/or challenge, in cooperation with CIEMAT. For five years following the effective date of the license agreement, we have a right of first refusal to license any improvements to the licensed intellectual property obtained by CIEMAT at market value. We are obligated to license (without charge) to CIEMAT for non-commercial use any improvements to the licensed intellectual property that we create.

As consideration for the licensed rights, we paid CIEMAT an initial upfront license fee of €0.03 million (approximately $0.03 million) which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to €1.4 million (approximately $1.5 million) to CIEMAT upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the PKD license, we are obligated to pay a low to mid-single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. In the event that we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

We may terminate this agreement at any time by providing CIEMAT with 90 days advance notice. The license is in effect for a duration for each of the countries defined in this agreement for as long as a license right exists that covers the licensed product or process in such country, or until the end of any additional legal protection that should be obtained for the license rights in each country.

In July 2016, we entered into a license agreement with CIEMAT granting us worldwide, exclusive rights to certain patents, know-how, data and other intellectual property relating to lentiviral vectors containing the FA-A gene solely within the field of human therapeutic uses of VSV-G packaged integration component lentiviral vectors for FA type-A gene therapy. This license is only sublicensable with the prior consent of CIEMAT, not to be unreasonably withheld. Under the terms of the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) develop and obtain regulatory approval for one or more products or processes covered by the licensed intellectual property, introduce such products or processes into the commercial market and then make them reasonably available to the public (b) develop or commercialize at least one product or process covered by the licensed intellectual property in at least one country for at least two uninterrupted years following regulatory approval, and (c) use the licensed intellectual property in an adequate, ethical and legitimate manner. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to pay CIEMAT an up-front payment, royalty payments based on net sales of products or processes involving any of the licensed intellectual property, regulatory and financing milestone payments, and sublicense revenue payments. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents at our expense, in cooperation with CIEMAT. We also have the first responsibility to enforce and defend the licensed patents against infringement and/or challenge, in cooperation with CIEMAT. For five years following the effective date of the license agreement, we have a right of first refusal to license any improvements to the licensed intellectual property obtained by CIEMAT at market value. We are obligated to license (without charge) to CIEMAT for non-commercial use any improvements to the licensed intellectual property that we creates.

As consideration for the licensed rights, we paid CIEMAT an initial upfront license fee of €0.1 million (approximately $0.1 million), which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to €5.0 million (approximately $6.0 million) to CIEMAT upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the license, we are obligated to pay a mid-single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. In the event that we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

We may terminate this agreement at any time by providing CIEMAT with 90 days’ advance notice. The license is in effect for a duration for each of the countries defined in this agreement for as long as a license right exists that covers the licensed product or process in such country, or until the end of any additional legal protection that should be obtained for the license rights in each country.

Contract Research and Collaboration Agreement with Lund University and J. Richter

In August 2016, we entered into a research and collaboration agreement with Lund University and Johan Richter, M.D., Ph.D. under which Dr. Richter granted to us an exclusive, perpetual, sublicensable, worldwide license to certain intellectual property rights of Dr. Richter relating to lentiviral-mediated gene transfer to treat IMO. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to make an up-front payment, certain clinical and commercial milestone payments, royalty payments (on net sales of products covered by a valid claim within the licensed intellectual property) and sublicense revenue payments to Dr. Richter. Under the terms of the agreement, Lund University and Dr. Richter are obligated to perform contract research for us regarding the use of lentiviral-mediated gene transfer to treat IMO. Intellectual property resulting from the contract research created by Dr. Richter is included in the license described above and also subject to an option for us to purchase ownership of such rights. Intellectual property created by Lund University in conducting such research is non-exclusively licensed to us for non-commercial use and also subject to an option for us to purchase or license such intellectual property under commercially reasonable terms. We are obligated to pay for the contract research according to an agreed budget in quarterly installments in advance.

As consideration for an option to acquire rights from Lund University on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, we paid Lund University an upfront license fee of €0.02 million (approximately $0.02 million), which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to €0.1 million (approximately $0.1 million) to Lund University and Dr. Richter upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the Lund University agreement, we are obligated to pay a low single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. If we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

The research and collaboration agreement had an initial term of 24 months and was amended to extend the term multiple times.  In January 2021, the research and collaboration agreement was extended until July 31, 2021.

License Agreement for LAD-I with CIEMAT and UCLB

We entered into a license agreement in November 2017, effective September 2017, with CIEMAT and UCL Business PLC (“UCLB”), collectively referred to as (“Licensors”), granting us worldwide, exclusive rights to certain patents, know-how and other intellectual property relating to lentiviral vectors containing the human LAD-I gene solely within the field of treating LAD-I. Under the terms of the agreement, we are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (a) develop and obtain regulatory approval for one or more products or processes covered by the licensed intellectual property, introduce such products or processes into the commercial market and then make them reasonably available to the public, (b) develop or commercialize at least one product or process covered by the licensed intellectual property in at least one country for at least two uninterrupted years following regulatory approval, and (c) use the licensed intellectual property in an adequate, ethical and legitimate manner. In exchange for the license, we are obligated to pay Licensors an up-front payment, royalty payments in the mid-single digit percentages based on net sales of products or processes involving any of the licensed intellectual property, developmental and regulatory milestone payments, and sublicense revenue payments. We are responsible for prosecuting and maintaining the licensed patents at our expense, in cooperation with Licensors. We also have the first responsibility to enforce and defend the licensed patents against infringement and/or challenge, in cooperation with Licensors. For five years following the effective date of the license agreement, we have a right of first refusal to license any improvements to the licensed intellectual property obtained by Licensors at market value. We are obligated to license (without charge) to Licensors for non-commercial use any improvements to the licensed intellectual property that we create.

As consideration for the licensed rights, we paid Licensors an initial upfront license fee of €0.03 million (approximately $0.04 million), which was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate payments of up to €1.4 million (approximately $1.5 million) to Licensors upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the LAD-I license, we are obligated to pay a mid-single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments, by us or our sublicensees or affiliates. In the event that we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances.

We may terminate this agreement at any time by providing the Licensors with 90 days’ advance notice. The license is in effect for a duration for each of the countries defined in this agreement for as long as a license right exists that covers the licensed product or process in such country, or until the end of any additional legal protection that should be obtained for the license rights in each country.

License Agreement for Danon Disease with UCSD

In February 2017, we entered into a license agreement with The Regents of the University of California, represented by its San Diego campus (“UCSD”), under which UCSD granted us an exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to certain intellectual property rights for the treatment of lysosomal storage diseases, including Danon disease. In exchange for the license, we became obligated to make an up-front payment, certain clinical and commercial milestone payments, royalty payments (on net sales of products covered by a valid claim within the licensed intellectual property), maintenance fees and sublicense revenue payments.

The upfront license fee of $0.05 million was expensed as R&D costs. We are obligated to make aggregate milestone payments of up to $1.5 million to UCSD upon the achievement of specified development and regulatory milestones for the treatment of Danon disease. A reduced schedule of milestone payments applies to achieving the same milestones for additional indications. With respect to any commercialized products covered by the agreement, we are obligated to pay a low single digit percentage royalty on net sales, subject to specified adjustments. If we enter into a sublicense agreement with a sublicensee, we will be obligated to pay a portion of any consideration received from such sublicensees in specified circumstances. We are also subject to certain diligence milestones for development of a product using the intellectual property licensed from UCSD under this agreement.

The term of the license agreement with UCSD is through the expiration of the licensed patents, some of which are still in the pending application phase.

REGENXBIO, Inc. License

On November 19, 2018, we entered into a license agreement with REGENXBIO Inc. (“RGNX”), pursuant to which we obtained an exclusive license for all U.S. patents and patent applications related to RGNX’s NAV AAV-9 vector for the treatment of Danon disease in humans by in vivo gene therapy using AAV-9 to deliver any known LAMP2 transgene isoforms and all possible combinations of LAMP2 transgene isoforms (the “Field”), as well as an exclusive option to license (the “Option Right”) all U.S. patents and patent applications for two additional NAV AAV vectors in the Field (each, a “Licensed Patent” and collectively, the “Licensed Patents”).

In consideration for the rights granted to us under the license agreement, we made an upfront payment to RGNX of $7.0 million which was expensed to R&D costs in the 2018 consolidated statements of operations. A fee of $2.0 million per additional vector would be due if we exercise our Option Right to purchase additional vectors. The license agreement provides for royalties payable to RGNX in the high-single digits to low-teens on net sales levels of products incorporating the Licensed Patents (the “Licensed Products”) during the royalty term. If successful, we will be required to make milestone payments to RGNX of up to $13.0 million for each Licensed Product upon the achievement of specified clinical development and regulatory milestones in the U.S. and EU. In addition, we shall pay RGNX 20% of the payment fees received from a priority review voucher issued in connection with or otherwise related to a Licensed Product. These royalty obligations are subject to specified reductions if additional licenses from third parties are required. We must also pay RGNX a portion of all non-royalty sublicense income (if any) received from sublicensees. We paid a $1.0 million license fee payment under the RGNX agreement upon the dosing of the first Danon patient in 2019 which was expensed to R&D costs in the 2019 consolidated statements of operations.  There were no additional milestones achieved or related payments made during the year ended December 31, 2020.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, including in the field of gene therapy, are characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products and novel therapies. While we believe that our experience and scientific knowledge provides it with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including larger and better-funded pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, new market entrants and new technologies, as well as from academic institutions, government agencies and private and public research institutions, which may in the future develop products to treat the indications targeted by our pipeline that have not yet been conceived. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies such as bone marrow transplantation and new therapies that may become available in the future. We believe that the key competitive factors affecting the success of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be efficacy, safety, convenience, price, pharmaco-economic value, tolerability and the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental authorities and other third-party payors. In addition, we intend to develop single treatment curative therapies for clinical indications that address mortality or high morbidity, which could differentiate us from potential competitors developing alternative competitive therapies that may require chronic or repetitive treatment.

Other early-stage companies may also compete through collaborative arrangements with large and established companies. Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries may result in even more resources being concentrated among a smaller number of companies developing gene therapies. These companies also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel and establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

We anticipate that we will face intense and increasing competition as new drugs and therapeutic modalities enter the market and advanced technologies become available. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our potential competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer adverse effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our potential competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our products.

Manufacturing

Our gene therapy platform has two main components: the production of LVV vectors and AAV vectors and the target cell transduction process, which results in drug product. We do not currently operate manufacturing facilities for clinical or commercial production of our product candidates, although we anticipate beginning GMP manufacturing at our facility in Cranbury, New Jersey in 2021. We plan to supplement current supply arrangements with our own direct manufacturing capabilities for our AAV programs. We currently rely on third-party manufacturers to produce the plasmids, vectors, cell banks and final drug product for our clinical trials. We manage such production with our vendors on a purchase order basis in accordance with applicable master service and supply agreements. We have long-term agreements with these manufacturers. Whenever possible, we procure materials from redundant and multiple sources to mitigate risk. If any of our existing third-party suppliers should become unavailable to us for any reason, we believe that there are a number of potential replacements, although we might experience a delay in our ability to obtain alternative suppliers. We also do not have any current contractual relationships for the manufacture of commercial supplies of our product candidates if they become registered. With respect to commercial production of our product candidates in the future, we plan to pursue multiple options including direct manufacturing as well as outsourcing production of the active pharmaceutical (drug substance) ingredients and final drug product manufacturing (drug product) to contract manufacturing organizations if these products are approved and registered for marketing authorization by the applicable regulatory bodies.

We expect to continue to develop drug candidates that can be produced in a cost-effective manner through direct manufacturing or at contract manufacturing facilities. Should a supplier or manufacturer on which we have relied to produce a product candidate provide us with a faulty product or such product is later recalled, or should we experience such problems for our own products produced through direct manufacturing, we would likely experience delays and additional costs, each of which could be significant.

Government Regulation

FDA Regulation and Marketing Approval

In the U.S., the FDA regulates drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), and biologics under the Public Health Service Act, the regulations promulgated under both laws and other federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. regulatory requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions and non-approval of product candidates. These sanctions could include, among other things, the imposition by the FDA of a clinical hold on trials, the FDA’s refusal to approve pending applications or related supplements, withdrawal of an approval, untitled or warning letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, or criminal prosecution. Such actions by government agencies could also require us to expend a large amount of resources to respond to the actions. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us.

The FDA and comparable regulatory agencies in state and local jurisdictions and in foreign countries impose substantial requirements upon the clinical development, approval, manufacture, distribution and marketing of pharmaceutical products. These agencies and other federal, state and local entities regulate R&D activities and the testing, manufacture, quality control, safety, effectiveness, labeling, packaging, storage, distribution, record keeping, approval, post-approval monitoring, advertising, promotion, sampling and import and export of our products. Rocket’s drugs must be approved by the FDA as biologics through the BLA approval process applicable to gene therapy product candidates, before they may be legally marketed in the U.S.

Within the FDA, the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) regulates gene therapy products and has published guidance documents with respect to the development these types of products. The FDA also has published guidance documents related to, among other things, gene therapy products in general, their preclinical assessment, observing subjects involved in gene therapy studies for delayed adverse events, potency testing, and chemistry, manufacturing and control information in gene therapy INDs.

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

Preclinical Studies

Preclinical studies include laboratory evaluation of the purity and stability of the manufactured drug substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient and the formulated drug or drug product, as well as in vitro and animal studies to assess the safety and activity of the drug for initial testing in humans and to establish a rationale for therapeutic use. The conduct of preclinical studies is subject to federal regulations and requirements, including GLP regulations. The results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and plans for clinical studies, among other things, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND.

Companies usually must complete some long-term preclinical testing, such as animal tests of reproductive adverse events and carcinogenicity and must also develop additional information about the chemistry and physical characteristics of the drug and finalize a process for manufacturing the drug in commercial quantities in accordance with (“cGMP”) requirements. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the drug candidate and, among other things, the manufacturer must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, and purity of the final drug product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

IND and Clinical Trials

Clinical trials involve the administration of the investigational product to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with GCP requirements. Clinical trials are conducted under written study protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the effectiveness criteria to be evaluated. Prior to commencing the first clinical trial, an initial IND, which contains the results of preclinical testing along with other information, such as information about product chemistry, manufacturing and controls and a proposed protocol, must be submitted to the FDA. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA within the 30-day time period raises concerns or questions about the drug product or the conduct of the clinical trial and imposes a clinical hold. A clinical hold may also be imposed at any time while the IND is in effect. In such a case, the IND sponsor must resolve any outstanding concerns with the FDA before the clinical trial may begin or re-commence. Accordingly, submission of an IND may or may not result in the FDA allowing clinical trials to commence or continue.

In addition to the submission of an IND to the FDA before initiation of a clinical trial in the United States, certain human clinical trials involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules are subject to oversight of institutional biosafety committees, or IBCs, as set forth in the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, or NIH Guidelines. Specifically, under the NIH Guidelines, supervision of human gene transfer trials includes evaluation and assessment by an IBC, a local institutional committee that reviews and oversees research utilizing recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules at that institution. The IBC assesses the safety of the research and identifies any potential risk to public health or the environment, and such review may result in some delay before initiation of a clinical trial. While the NIH Guidelines are not mandatory unless the research in question is being conducted at or sponsored by institutions receiving NIH funding of recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecule research, many companies and other institutions not otherwise subject to the NIH Guidelines voluntarily follow them.

 

A sponsor who wishes to conduct a clinical trial outside the U.S. may, but need not, obtain FDA authorization to conduct the clinical trial under an IND. If a foreign clinical trial is not conducted under an IND, the sponsor may submit data from the clinical trial to the FDA in support of a BLA or IND so long as the clinical trial is conducted in compliance with GCP, and the FDA is able to validate the data from the study through an onsite inspection if the agency deems it necessary.

A separate submission to the existing IND must be made for each successive clinical trial to be conducted during product development. Further, an independent Institutional Review Board (“IRB”) for each site at which the clinical trial will be conducted must review and approve the clinical trial before it commences at that site. Informed written consent must also be obtained from each trial subject. Regulatory authorities, including the FDA, an IRB, a data safety monitoring board or the sponsor, may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the participants are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk or that the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with FDA requirements.

Human clinical trials for BLA approval typically involve a three-phase process, although some phases may overlap or be combined. Phase 1, the initial clinical evaluations, consists of administering the drug and testing for safety and tolerated dosages and in some indications such as rare disease, as preliminary evidence of efficacy in humans. Phase 2 involves a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug for a particular indication and to determine optimal dosage and dose interval and to identify possible adverse side effects and risks in a larger patient group. When a product is found safe, and initial efficacy is established in Phase 2, it is then evaluated in Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 3 trials consist of expanded multi-location testing for efficacy and safety to evaluate the overall benefit-to-risk index of the investigational drug in relationship to the disease treated. The results of preclinical and human clinical testing are submitted to the FDA in the form of a BLA for approval to commence commercial sales.

All clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with FDA regulations, GCP requirements and their protocols in order for the data to be considered reliable for regulatory purposes. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all.

Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of product candidates or new drugs for a considerable period of time and impose costly procedures upon our activities.

Disclosure of Clinical Trial Information

Sponsors of clinical trials of FDA-regulated products, including drugs, are required to register and disclose certain clinical trial information. Information related to the product, patient population, phase of investigation, study sites and investigators, and other aspects of the clinical trial is then made public as part of the registration. Sponsors are also obligated to disclose the results of their clinical trials after completion. Disclosure of the results of these trials can be delayed until the new product or new indication being studied has been approved up to a maximum of two years. Competitors may use this publicly available information to gain knowledge regarding the progress of development programs.

The BLA Approval Process

In order to obtain approval to market a drug in the U.S., a marketing application must be submitted to the FDA that provides data establishing to the FDA’s satisfaction the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug for the proposed indication. The application includes all relevant data available from pertinent non-clinical or preclinical studies and clinical trials, including negative or ambiguous results as well as positive findings, together with detailed information relating to the product’s chemistry, manufacturing, controls and proposed labeling, among other things. Data can come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators that meet GCP requirements.

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 1 or 2, and before a BLA 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.

The results of product development, 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 a BLA requesting approval to market the product for its intended indication. The FDA reviews all BLAs submitted to ensure that they are sufficiently complete for substantive review before it accepts them for filing. It may request additional information rather than accept a BLA for filing. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. The FDA has 60 days from its receipt of a BLA to conduct an initial review to determine whether the application will be accepted for filing based on the agency’s threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit substantive review. The FDA reviews a BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA has agreed to specific performance goals on the review of BLA’s. Specifically, FDA under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, the FDA has 10 months, from the filing date, in which to complete its initial review of an original BLA and respond to the applicant, and six months from the filing date of an original BLA designated for priority review. The review process may be extended by the FDA for three additional months to consider certain late-submitted information or information intended to clarify information already provided in the submission. After the FDA completes its substantive review of a BLA, it will communicate to the sponsor that the drug will either be approved, or it will issue a complete response letter to communicate that the BLA will not be approved in its current form and inform the sponsor of changes that must be made or additional clinical, non-clinical or manufacturing data that must be received before the application can be approved, with no implication regarding the ultimate approvability of the application or the timing of any such approval, if ever. If or when those deficiencies have been addressed to the FDA’s satisfaction in a resubmission of the BLA, the FDA may issue an approval letter. FDA has committed to reviewing such resubmissions in two to six months depending on the type of information included. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation, and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and, if so, 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 a BLA, the FDA typically will inspect the facilities at which the product is manufactured. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP. For a gene therapy product, the FDA also will not approve the product if the manufacturer is not in compliance with the cGTPs. These are FDA regulations that govern the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture of human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, or HCT/Ps, which are human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplant, infusion, or transfer into a human recipient. The primary intent of the CGTP requirements is to ensure that cell and tissue-based products are manufactured in a manner designed to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of communicable disease. FDA regulations also require tissue establishments to register and list their HCT/Ps with the FDA and, when applicable, to evaluate donors through appropriate screening and testing. If the FDA determines that the application, manufacturing process or manufacturing facilities are not acceptable, it typically will outline the deficiencies and often will request additional testing or information. This may significantly delay further review of the application. If the FDA finds that a clinical site did not conduct the clinical trial in accordance with GCP, the FDA may determine the data generated by the clinical site should be excluded from the primary efficacy analyses provided in the BLA. Additionally, notwithstanding the submission of any requested additional information, the FDA ultimately may decide that the application does not satisfy the regulatory criteria for approval.

The FDA may require, or companies may pursue, additional clinical trials after a product is approved. These so-called Phase 4 or post-approval trials may be made a condition to be satisfied for continuing drug approval. The results of Phase 4 trials can confirm the effectiveness of a product candidate and can provide important safety information. In addition, the FDA has authority to require sponsors to conduct post-marketing trials to specifically address safety issues identified by the agency. See “Post-Marketing Requirements” below.

The FDA also has authority to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”), from manufacturers to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. A sponsor may also voluntarily propose a REMS as part of the BLA submission. The need for a REMS is determined as part of the review of the BLA. Based on statutory standards, elements of a REMS may include “Dear Doctor letters,” a medication guide, more elaborate targeted educational programs, and in some cases distribution and use restrictions, referred to as elements to assure safe use (“ETASU”). ETASU can include, but are not limited to, special training or certification for prescribing or dispensing, dispensing only under certain circumstances, special monitoring and the use of patient registries. These elements are negotiated as part of the BLA approval, and in some cases the approval date may be delayed. Once adopted, REMS are subject to periodic assessment and modification.

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

Even if a product candidate receives regulatory approval, the approval may be limited to specific disease states, patient populations and dosages, or might contain significant limitations on use in the form of warnings, precautions or contraindications, or in the form of onerous risk management plans, restrictions on distribution or use, or post-marketing trial requirements. Further, even after regulatory approval is obtained, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product, including safety labeling or imposition of a REMS, the requirement to conduct post-market studies or clinical trials or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market. Delay in obtaining, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval for our products, or obtaining approval but for significantly limited use, would harm our business. In addition, we cannot predict what adverse governmental regulations may arise from future U.S. or foreign governmental action.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments

Under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments, a portion of a product’s U.S. patent term that was lost during clinical development and regulatory review by the FDA may be restored by returning up to five years of patent life for a patent that covers a new product or its use. This period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND (falling after issuance of the patent) and the submission date of a BLA, plus the time between the submission date of a BLA and the approval of that application, provided that the sponsor acted with diligence. Patent term restorations, however, cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the date of product approval and only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and the extension must be applied for prior to expiration of the patent. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration.

Market Exclusivity

The Affordable Care Act, or ACA, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or the BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products shown to be similar to, or interchangeable with, an FDA-approved reference biological product. Bio similarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity, and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies, and a clinical trial or trials. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product and, for products administered multiple times, the biologic and the reference biologic may be switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structure of biological products, as well as the process by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation that are still being worked out by the FDA.

A reference biological product is granted four and twelve (12) year exclusivity periods from the time of first licensure of the product. FDA will not accept an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until four years after the date of first licensure of the reference product, and FDA will not approve an application for a biosimilar or interchangeable product based on the reference biological product until twelve (12) years after the date of first licensure of the reference product. “First licensure” typically means the initial date the particular product at issue was approved in the United States. Date of first licensure does not include the date of licensure of (and a new period of exclusivity is not available for) a biological product if the licensure is for a supplement for the biological product or for a subsequent application by the same sponsor or manufacturer of the biological product (or licensor, predecessor in interest, or other related entity) for a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device or strength, or for a modification to the structure of the biological product that does not result in a change in safety, purity, or potency. Therefore, one must determine whether a new product includes a modification to the structure of a previously approved product that results in a change in safety, purity, or potency to assess whether the licensure of the new product is a first licensure that triggers its own period of exclusivity. Whether a subsequent application, if approved, warrants exclusivity as the “first licensure” of a biological product is determined on a case-by-case basis with data submitted by the sponsor.

In addition, under the Orphan Drug Act, FDA may designate a biologic product as an “orphan drug” if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition (generally meaning that it affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the U.S., or more in cases in which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making a biologic product available in the U.S. for treatment of the disease or condition will be recovered from sales of the product). Orphan product designation must be requested before submitting a BLA. After FDA grants orphan product designation, the identity of the therapeutic agent and its potential orphan use are disclosed publicly by FDA. Orphan product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process. If a product with orphan status receives the first FDA approval for the disease or condition for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to orphan product exclusivity, meaning that FDA may not approve any other applications to market the same drug or biologic product for the same indication for seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority to the product with orphan exclusivity or if the party holding the exclusivity fails to assure the availability of sufficient quantities of the drug to meet the needs of patients with the disease or condition for which the drug was designated. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the same indication than that 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 medicinal product status in the EU has similar, but not identical, benefits.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent marketing exclusivity in the U.S. and, if granted, provides for the attachment of an additional six months of marketing protection to the term of any existing regulatory exclusivity, including the non-patent exclusivity. This six-month exclusivity may be granted if a BLA sponsor submits pediatric data that fairly respond to a written request from the FDA for such data.

Rare Pediatric Disease Designation and Priority Review Vouchers

 

Under the FDCA, the FDA incentivizes the development of drugs and biological products that meet the definition of a “rare pediatric disease,” defined to mean a serious or life-threatening disease in which the serious of life-threatening manifestations primarily affect individuals aged from birth to 18 years and the disease affects fewer than 200,000 individuals in the United States or affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the cost of developing and making in the United States a drug or biological product for such disease or condition will be received from sales in the United States of such drug or biological product. The sponsor of a product candidate for a rare pediatric disease may be eligible for a voucher that can be used to obtain a priority review for a subsequent human drug or biological product application after the date of approval of the rare pediatric disease drug or biological product, referred to as a priority review voucher, or PRV. A sponsor may request rare pediatric disease designation from the FDA prior to the submission of its BLA. A rare pediatric disease designation does not guarantee that a sponsor will receive a PRV upon approval of its BLA. Moreover, a sponsor who chooses not to submit a rare pediatric disease designation request may nonetheless receive a PRV upon approval of their marketing application if they request such a voucher in their original marketing application and meet all of the eligibility criteria. If a PRV is received, it may be sold or transferred an unlimited number of times. Congress has extended the PRV program through September 30, 2024, with the potential for PRVs to be granted through September 30, 2026.

Expedited Development and Review Programs

FDA is authorized to expedite the review of BLAs in several ways. Under the Fast-Track program, the sponsor of a biologic product candidate may request FDA to designate the product for a specific indication as a Fast-Track product concurrent with or after the filing of the IND. Biologic products are eligible for Fast Track designation if they are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening condition and demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs for the condition. Fast Track designation applies to the combination of the product candidate and the specific indication for which it is being studied. In addition to other benefits, such as the ability to have greater interactions with FDA, FDA may initiate review of sections of a Fast-Track BLA before the application is complete, a process known as rolling review.

Any product submitted to FDA for marketing, including under a Fast-Track program, may be eligible for other types of FDA programs intended to expedite development and review, such as regenerative medicine advanced therapy (“RMAT”) designation, priority review and accelerated approval.

Fast Track designation, priority review and accelerated approval do not change the standards for approval but may expedite the development or approval process.

Additionally, biologic products studied for their safety and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing treatments may receive accelerated approval. Accelerated approval means that a product candidate may be approved on the basis of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials establishing that the product candidate has an effect on a surrogate endpoint that is reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit, or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity or mortality or other clinical benefit, taking into account the severity, rarity and prevalence of the condition and the availability or lack of alternative treatments. As a condition of approval, FDA may require that a sponsor of a drug or biologic product candidate receiving accelerated approval perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. In addition, FDA currently requires as a condition for accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials.

In the European Economic Area, the EMA may grant marketing authorizations for certain categories of medicinal products on the basis of less complete data than is normally required, where the benefit of immediate availability of the medicine outweighs the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required, or in the interests of public health. In such cases, it is possible for the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, or CHMP, to recommend the granting of a marketing authorization, subject to certain specific obligations to be reviewed annually, which is referred to as a conditional marketing authorization. This may apply to medicinal products for human use that fall under the jurisdiction of the EMA, including those that aim at the treatment, the prevention, or the medical diagnosis of seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and those designated as orphan medicinal products.

A conditional marketing authorization may be granted when the CHMP finds that, although comprehensive clinical data referring to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product have not been supplied, all the following requirements are met:

The granting of a conditional marketing authorization is restricted to situations in which only the clinical part of the application is not yet fully complete. Incomplete preclinical or quality data may only be accepted if duly justified and only in the case of a product intended to be used in emergency situations in response to public health threats. Conditional marketing authorizations are valid for one year, on a renewable basis. The holder will be required to complete ongoing trials or to conduct new trials with a view to confirming that the benefit-risk balance is positive. In addition, specific obligations may be imposed in relation to the collection of pharmacovigilance data.

The conditional marketing authorization can be converted into a standard marketing authorization (which is no longer subject to specific obligations) once the marketing authorization holder fulfils the obligations imposed under the conditional authorization and the complete data confirm that the medicine’s benefits continue to outweigh its risks.

Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling, or off-label use, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may, in their independent professional medical judgment, prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers typically may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, who may or may not grant approval or may include a lengthy review process.

Prescription drug advertising is subject to federal, state, and foreign regulations. In the U.S., the FDA regulates prescription drug promotion, including direct-to-consumer advertising. Prescription drug promotional materials must be submitted to the FDA in conjunction with their first use. Any distribution of prescription drug products and pharmaceutical samples must comply with the U.S. Prescription Drug Marketing Act, a part of the FDCA.

In the U.S., once a product is approved, its manufacturing is subject to comprehensive and continuing regulation by the FDA. The FDA regulations require that products be manufactured in specific approved facilities and in accordance with cGMP. We rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of our LVV products in accordance with cGMP regulations. We anticipate that we will also utilize direct manufacturing capabilities for clinical supplies for our AAV program, beginning in 2021. cGMP regulations require among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation and the obligation to investigate and correct any deviations from cGMP. 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 and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money, and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain cGMP compliance. These regulations also impose certain organizational, procedural and documentation requirements with respect to manufacturing and quality assurance activities. BLA holders using contract manufacturers, laboratories or packagers are responsible for the selection and monitoring of qualified firms, and, in certain circumstances, qualified suppliers to these firms. These firms and, where applicable, their suppliers are subject to inspections by the FDA at any time, and the discovery of violative conditions, including failure to conform to cGMP, could result in enforcement actions that interrupt the operation of any such product or may result in restrictions on a product, manufacturer, or holder of an approved BLA, including, among other things, recall or withdrawal of the product from the market.

In addition, the manufacturer and/or sponsor under an approved BLA are subject to annual product and establishment fees. These fees are typically increased annually.

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, also known as Phase 4 testing, to monitor the effects of an approved product or place conditions on an approval via a REMS that could restrict the distribution or use of the product. Discovery of previously unknown problems with a product or the failure to comply with applicable FDA requirements can have negative consequences, including adverse publicity, judicial or administrative enforcement, untitled or warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, withdrawal of approval, and civil or criminal penalties, among others. Newly discovered or developed safety or effectiveness data may require changes to a product’s approved labeling, including the addition of new warnings and contraindications, and also may require the implementation of other risk management measures. Also, new government requirements, including those resulting from new legislation, may be established, or the FDA’s policies may change, which could delay or prevent regulatory approval of our products under development.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend in part on the availability of reimbursement from third-party payors, including government healthcare program administrative authorities, managed care organizations, private health insurers, and other entities. Patients who are prescribed medications for the treatment of their conditions, and their prescribing physicians, generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all of part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Patients are unlikely to use our products unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products. Therefore, our products, once approved, may not obtain market acceptance unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of our products.

The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a drug product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of a drug product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the drug product once coverage is approved. Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drugs for a particular indication. A decision by a third-party payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved. Moreover, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular drug product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate. As a result, the coverage determination process will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and will be a time-consuming process.

The containment of healthcare costs has become a priority of federal, state, and foreign governments, and the prices of drugs have been a focus in this effort. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the prices charged for drug products and medical services, examining the medical necessity, and reviewing the cost effectiveness of drug products and medical services, in addition to questioning safety and efficacy. If these third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products after FDA approval or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products at a profit.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided funding for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness. The plan for the research was published in 2012 by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes for Health, and periodic reports on the status of the research and related expenditures will be made to Congress. Although the results of the comparative effectiveness studies are not intended to mandate coverage policies for public or private payors, it is not clear what effect, if any, the research will have on the sales of our product candidates, if any such product or the condition that it is intended to treat is the subject of a study. It is also possible that comparative effectiveness research demonstrating benefits in a competitor’s product could adversely affect the sales of our product candidates, once approved. If third-party payors do not consider our products to be cost-effective compared to other available therapies, they may not cover our products after approval as a benefit under their plans or, if they do, the level of payment may not be sufficient to allow us to sell our products on a profitable basis.

In addition, in some foreign countries, the proposed pricing for a drug must be approved before it may be lawfully marketed. The requirements governing drug pricing vary widely from country to country. 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. There can be no assurance that any country that has price controls or reimbursement limitations for pharmaceutical products will allow favorable reimbursement and pricing arrangements for any of our products. Historically, products launched in the EU do not follow price structures of the U.S. and generally tend to be significantly lower.

Anti-Kickback and False Claims Laws and Other Regulatory Matters

In the U.S., among other things, the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale and promotion of drug products and medical devices are potentially subject to regulation and enforcement by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, state Attorneys General and other state and local government agencies. Our current and future business activities, including for example, sales, marketing, and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with healthcare regulatory laws, as applicable, which may include the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute, the Federal False Claims Act, as amended, the privacy and security regulations promulgated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), as amended, physician payment transparency laws, and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, as amended. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

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

The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute makes it illegal for any person or entity, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf) to knowingly and willfully, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, solicit, receive, offer, or pay any remuneration that is intended to induce the referral of business, including the purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease or order of, any good, facility, item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program, such as Medicare or Medicaid. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. The Federal Anti-Kickback Statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting some common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly. Practices that involve remuneration that may be alleged to be intended to induce prescribing, purchases or recommendations may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all of its facts and circumstances. Additionally, the intent standard under the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute was amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act (collectively, the “ACA”), to a stricter standard such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the ACA codified case law that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the Federal False Claims Act. Violations of this law are punishable by up to five years in prison, criminal fines, administrative civil money penalties, and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state prohibitions apply to the referral of patients for healthcare services reimbursed by any insurer, not just federal healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Due to the breadth of these federal and state anti-kickback laws, and the potential for additional legal or regulatory change in this area, it is possible that our future business activities, including our sales and marketing practices and/or our future relationships with physicians and the medical community might be challenged under anti-kickback laws, which could harm us.

Federal false claims and false statement laws, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibits any person or entity from, among other things, knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, for payment to federal programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) claims for items or services, including drugs, that are false or fraudulent. Although we would not submit claims directly to payors, manufacturers can be held liable under these laws if they are deemed to “cause” the submission of false or fraudulent claims by, for example, providing inaccurate billing or coding information to customers or promoting a product off-label. In addition, our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesaler or estimated retail prices for our products, the reporting of prices used to calculate Medicaid rebate information and other information affecting federal, state, and third-party reimbursement for our products, and the sale and marketing of our products, are subject to scrutiny under this law. For example, pharmaceutical companies have been found liable under the Federal Civil False Claims Act in connection with their off-label promotion of drugs. Penalties for a civil False Claims Act violation include three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus mandatory civil penalties for each separate false claim, the potential for exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, and, although the Federal False Claims Act is a civil statute, conduct that results in a False Claims Act violation may also implicate various federal criminal statutes. If the government were to allege that we were, or convict us of, violating these false claims laws, we could be subject to a substantial fine and may suffer a decline in our stock price. In addition, private individuals have the ability to bring actions under the Federal Civil False Claims Act and certain states have enacted laws modeled after the Federal False Claims Act.

Additionally, HIPAA created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services.

There are also an increasing number of state laws that require manufacturers to make reports to states on pricing and marketing information. Many of these laws contain ambiguities as to what is required to comply with the laws. In addition, as discussed below, a similar federal requirement under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, requires certain manufacturers to track and report to the federal government certain payments provided to physicians and teaching hospitals made in the previous calendar year, as well as certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists, and chiropractors) and their immediate family members. These laws may affect our sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. In addition, given the lack of clarity with respect to these laws and their implementation, our reporting actions could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state and federal authorities. Effective January 1, 2022, these reporting obligations will extend to include transfers of value made to certain non-physician providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and their respective implementing regulations, including the Final Omnibus Rule published on January 25, 2013, imposes specified requirements relating to the privacy, security, and transmission of individually identifiable health information on certain types of individuals and organizations. In addition, certain state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other and from HIPAA in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts.

The failure to comply with regulatory requirements subjects us to possible legal or regulatory action. Depending on the circumstances, failure to meet applicable regulatory requirements can result in significant criminal, civil and/or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of product approvals, refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations.

We plan to develop a comprehensive compliance program that establishes internal controls to facilitate adherence to the law and program requirements to which we will or may become subject because we intend to commercialize products that could be reimbursed under a federal healthcare program and other governmental healthcare programs.

Changes in law or the interpretation of existing law could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

European Regulation

In Europe, our products will also be subject to extensive regulatory requirements. As in the United States, medicinal products can only be marketed if a marketing authorization from the competent regulatory agencies has been obtained, and the various phases of preclinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls. Although the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC (the “EU Clinical Trials Directive”) had sought to harmonize the EU clinical trial regulatory framework, setting out common rules for the control and authorization of clinical trials in the EU, the EU Member States have transposed and applied the provisions of the Directive differently. This has led to some significant variations in the Member State regimes. Under the current regime, before a clinical trial can be initiated it must be approved by two distinct bodies in each of the EU countries where the trial is to be conducted: The National Competent Authority (“NCA”) and one or more Ethics Committees (“ECs”). In addition, all suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions to the investigated drug that occur during the clinical trial must be reported to the NCA and ECs of the Member State where they occurred.

The EU Clinical Trial Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 536/2014) (the “EU Clinical Trial Regulation”) will repeal the EU Clinical Trials Directive when it becomes applicable. It is expected that the EU Clinical Trials Regulation will come into effect following confirmation of full functionality of the Clinical Trials Information System, the centralized EU portal and database for clinical trials foreseen by the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, through an independent audit, which is currently expected to occur in December 2021. The EU Clinical Trial Regulation is aimed at making more uniform and streamlining the clinical trials authorization process, simplifying adverse event reporting procedures, improving the supervision of clinical trials, and increasing the transparency of clinical trials. For instance, the EU Clinical Trials Regulation provides for a streamlined application procedure via a single-entry point and strictly defined deadlines for the assessment of clinical trial applications.

Healthcare Legislative Reform

In both the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the health care system that could impact our ability to sell our products profitably. In particular, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or collectively, the ACA, was enacted, which, among other things, subjected biologic products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars; addressed 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; increased the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by most manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program; extended the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to utilization of prescriptions of individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations; subjected manufacturers to new annual fees and taxes for certain branded prescription drugs; created a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of January 1, 2019) 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; and provided incentives to programs that increase the federal government’s comparative effectiveness research.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court A; the Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices; and Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in early 2021. The  implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals for deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction, which triggered the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of, up to 2% per fiscal year, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030 unless Congress takes additional action. However, the Medicare sequester reductions under the Budget Control Act are suspended from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

We expect that the healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private third-party payors.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal, and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

Drug Review and Approval

In the European Economic Area (“EEA”), which is comprised of the EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, medicinal products can only be commercialized after obtaining a marketing authorization. There are two types of marketing authorizations: (1) the centralized authorization, which is issued by the European Commission through the centralized procedure based on the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”), a body of the EMA, and which is valid throughout the entire territory of the EEA; and (2) national marketing authorizations, which is issued by the competent authorities of the Member States of the EEA and only authorize marketing in that Member State’s national territory and not the EEA as a whole.

The centralized procedure is mandatory for certain types of products, such as biotechnology medicinal products, orphan medicinal products, advanced therapy medicinal products (gene-therapy, somatic cell-therapy, and tissue-engineered medicines) and medicinal products containing a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV / AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, diabetes, auto-immune diseases and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. The centralized procedure is optional for products containing a new active substance not yet authorized in the EEA, or for products that constitute a significant therapeutic, scientific, or technical innovation or which are in the interest of public health. Gene therapy products are a type of advanced therapy medicinal product (“ATMP”) in the EEA. The scientific evaluation of marketing authorization applications for ATMPs is primarily performed by a specialized scientific committee called the Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”). The CAT prepares a draft opinion on the quality, safety, and efficacy of the ATMP which is the subject of the marketing authorization application, which is sent for final approval to the CHMP. The CHMP recommendation is then sent to the European Commission, which adopts a decision binding in all EEA Member States. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorization application for an ATMP is 210 days from receipt of a valid application, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CAT and/or CHMP. Clock stops may extend the timeframe of evaluation of an application considerably beyond 210 days.  Where the CHMP gives a positive opinion, the EMA provides the opinion together with supporting documentation to the European Commission, who make the final decision to grant a marketing authorization, which is issued within 67 days of receipt of the EMA’s recommendation.  Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product is of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts such a request, the timeframe of 210 days for assessment will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops), but it is possible that the CHMP may revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it determines that the application is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment. The development and evaluation of a gene therapy medicinal product must be considered in the context of the relevant EU guidelines, and the EMA may issue new guidelines concerning the development and marketing authorization for gene therapy medicinal products and require that we comply with these new guidelines.

National marketing authorizations are for products not falling within the mandatory scope of the centralized procedure. Where a product has already been authorized for marketing in a Member State of the EEA, this marketing authorization can be recognized in another Member States through the mutual recognition procedure. If the product has not received a national marketing authorization in any Member State at the time of application, it can be approved simultaneously in various Member States through the decentralized procedure. Under the decentralized procedure an identical dossier is submitted to the competent authorities of each of the Member States in which an authorization is sought, one of which is selected by the applicant as the Reference Member State (“RMS”). If the RMS proposes to authorize the product, and the other Member States do not raise objections, the product is granted a national marketing authorization in all the Member States where the authorization was sought.

Under the above-described procedures, before granting the MAA, 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.

Now that the UK (which comprises Great Britain and Northern Ireland) has left the EU, Great Britain will no longer be covered by centralized marketing authorizations (under the Northern Irish Protocol, centralized marketing authorizations will continue to be recognized in Northern Ireland). All medicinal products with a current centralized marketing authorization were automatically converted to Great Britain marketing authorizations on January, 1 2021. For a period of two years from January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, the UK medicines regulator, may rely on a decision taken by the European Commission on the approval of a new marketing authorization in the centralized procedure, in order to more quickly grant a new Great Britain marketing authorization. A separate application will, however, still be required.

Regulatory exclusivity

In the EEA, innovative products authorized for marketing (i.e., reference products) may 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 EEA during a period of eight years from the date on which the reference product was first authorized in the EEA. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EEA until ten years have elapsed from the initial authorization of the reference product. The ten-year market exclusivity period can be extended to a maximum of eleven years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the marketing authorization holder obtains an authorization for one or more new therapeutic indications which, during the scientific evaluation prior to their authorization, are held to bring a significant clinical benefit in comparison with existing therapies. Even if an innovative medicinal product gains the prescribed period of data exclusivity, however, another company may market another version of the product if such company obtained marketing authorization based on a marketing authorization application with a completely independent data package of pharmaceutical tests, preclinical tests, and clinical trials.

Orphan designation and exclusivity

The criteria for designating an orphan medicinal product in the EEA, are similar in principle to those in the U.S. Under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) 141/2000, a medicinal product may be designated as orphan if the following criteria are fulfilled: (i) it is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition; (ii) either (a) such condition affects no more than five in 10,000 persons in the EEA when the application is made, or (b) the product, without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EEA to justify the necessary investment in its development; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment of such condition authorized for marketing in the EEA, or if such a method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by the condition, as defined in Regulation (EC) 847/2000. Orphan medicinal products are eligible for financial incentives such as reduction of fees or fee waivers and are, upon grant of a marketing authorization, entitled to ten years of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication. The application for orphan designation must be submitted before the application for marketing authorization. The applicant will receive a fee reduction for the marketing authorization application if the orphan designation has been granted, but not if the designation is still pending at the time the marketing authorization is submitted. Orphan designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The ten-year market exclusivity may 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 designation, for example, if the product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity. Otherwise, orphan medicine marketing exclusivity may be revoked only in very select cases, such as if:

Brexit and the Regulatory Framework in the United Kingdom

In June 2016, the electorate in the UK voted in favor of leaving the EU (commonly referred to as “Brexit”). Thereafter, in March 2017, the country formally notified the EU of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and the UK formally left the EU on January 31, 2020. A transition period began on February 1, 2020, during which time EU pharmaceutical law remained applicable in the UK, however this ended on December 31, 2020. Since the regulatory framework in the UK covering quality, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, clinical trials, marketing authorization, commercial sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products is derived from EU Directives and Regulations, Brexit could materially impact the future regulatory regime which applies to products and the approval of product candidates in the UK, as UK legislation now has the potential to diverge from EU legislation. It remains to be seen how, if at all, Brexit will impact regulatory requirements for product candidates and products in the UK in the long-term. The MHRA has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow from January 1, 2021 now the transition period is over, which will be updated as the UK’s regulatory position on medicinal products evolves over time.

Human Capital

As of December 31, 2020, we had 91 full-time employees, of whom 89 were located in the United States and two in Spain.  We also leverage temporary workers to provide flexibility for our business needs. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

Our human capital resources objectives include, as applicable, identifying, recruiting, retaining, incentivizing, and integrating our existing and new employees, advisors and consultants. The principal purposes of our equity and cash incentive plans are to attract, retain and reward personnel through the granting of stock-based and cash-based compensation awards, in order to increase stockholder value and the success of our company by motivating such individuals to perform to the best of their abilities and achieve our objectives.

We believe that developing a diverse, equitable and inclusive culture is critical to continuing to attract and retain the top talent necessary to deliver on our growth strategy. As such, we are investing in the creation of a work environment where our employees can feel inspired to deliver their workplace best every day. All employees are responsible for upholding the Rocket Behaviors and the Rocket Code of Conduct, which form the foundation of our policies and practices.

Corporate Information

We were incorporated in Delaware in 1999 as Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation. In January 2018, Inotek merged with Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and changed its name to Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Our principal executive offices are located at 9 Cedarbrook Drive, Cranbury, NJ 08512, and our telephone number is (646) 440-9100. Our internet address is www.rocketpharma.com. We use our website as means of disclosing material non-public information and for complying with our disclosure obligations under Regulation FD. We make available on our website, free of charge, our Annual Report, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Our SEC reports can be accessed through the Investors section of our website. The SEC maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding our filings at www.sec.gov. The information found on our website is not incorporated by reference into this report or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC. Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “RCKT.”

We operate in an industry that involves numerous risks and uncertainties. You should carefully consider the following information about these risks, together with the other information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report, including our financial statements and related notes hereto. The occurrence of any of the following risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future growth prospects. The risks and uncertainties described below may change over time and other risks and uncertainties, including those that we do not currently consider material, may impair our business. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline. In these circumstances, the market price of our common stock could decline.

Risks Related to Current Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic

The outbreak of the novel strain of coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, could adversely impact our business, including our preclinical and clinical studies.

Public health crises such as pandemics or similar outbreaks could adversely impact our business. Throughout 2020 and into 2021, COVID-19 has spread extensively throughout the world and in the United States. In response to the spread of COVID-19, most of our corporate employees converted to working remotely with a smaller number of employees whose roles require them to be on-site working at our Cranbury, NJ facility.

 

As a result of the COVID-19 outbreak, or similar pandemics, we have and may in the future experience disruptions that could severely impact our business, preclinical studies, and clinical trials, including:

These and other factors arising from the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen in areas that are already afflicted with COVID-19, could continue to spread to additional areas, or could return to areas where the pandemic has been partially contained, each of which could further adversely impact our ability to conduct clinical trials and our business generally, and could have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition and results.

The extent to which the outbreak may impact our business, preclinical studies and clinical trials will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted with confidence, such as the ultimate geographic spread of the disease, the duration of the outbreak, travel restrictions and actions to contain the outbreak or treat its impact, such as social distancing and quarantines or lock-downs in the United States and other countries, business closures or business disruptions and the effectiveness of actions taken in the United States and other countries to contain and treat the disease. In addition, a recession, depression, or other sustained adverse market event resulting from the spread of the coronavirus could materially and adversely affect our business and the value of our common shares.

Two vaccines for COVID-19 were granted Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA in late 2020, and more are likely to be authorized in the coming months.  The resultant demand for vaccines and potential for manufacturing facilities and materials to be commandeered under the Defense Production Act of 1950, or equivalent foreign legislation, may make it more difficult to obtain materials or manufacturing slots for the products needed for our clinical trials, which could lead to delays in these trials.

The ultimate impact of the current pandemic, or any other 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 and preclinical programs, our clinical, preclinical, research, manufacturing, and regulatory activities, healthcare systems or the global economy. However, these effects could have a material adverse impact on our operations, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Risks Related to Our Financial Condition and Capital Needs

We have a history of operating losses, and we may not achieve or sustain profitability. We anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. If we fail to obtain additional funding to conduct our planned research and development effort, we could be forced to delay, reduce, or eliminate our product development programs or commercial development efforts.

We are an early-stage gene therapy company with a limited operating history on which to base your investment decision. Gene therapy product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of risk. Our operations to date have been limited primarily to organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring, and developing product and technology rights, building out our R&D and manufacturing capabilities, and conducting preclinical and clinical R&D activities for our product candidates. We have never generated any revenue from product sales. We have not obtained regulatory approvals for any of our product candidates and have funded our operations to date through proceeds from sales of our stock.

We have incurred net losses since our inception. We incurred net losses of $139.7 million, $77.3 million and $74.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $322.8 million.  Substantially all our operating losses have resulted from costs incurred in connection with our R&D programs, buildout of our manufacturing capabilities and from general and administrative (“G&A”) costs associated with our operations. We expect to continue to incur significant expenses and operating losses over the next several years and for the foreseeable future as we intend to continue to conduct R&D, clinical testing, regulatory compliance activities, internal and external manufacturing activities, and, if any of our product candidates is approved, sales and marketing activities that, together with anticipated G&A expenses, will likely result in us incurring significant losses for the foreseeable future.

Our limited operating history may make it difficult for us to evaluate the success of our business to date and to assess our future viability.

Our operations to date have predominantly focused on organizing and staffing our company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring our technology, administering, and expanding our gene therapy platforms, identifying potential product candidates, undertaking research, preclinical studies and clinical trials of our product candidates, building out our R&D and manufacturing capabilities, and establishing licensing arrangements and collaborations. We have not yet completed clinical trials of our product candidates, obtained marketing approvals, manufactured a commercial-scale product, or conducted sales and marketing activities necessary for successful commercialization. Consequently, any predictions made about our future success or viability may not be as accurate as they could be if we had a longer operating history. We are currently a drug discovery and clinical stage company and at a later point we may need to transition to a commercial stage company. We cannot guarantee that we will be successful in this transition.

Changes in tax law could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal, state, and local income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Treasury Department. Changes to tax laws (which changes may have retroactive application) could adversely affect us or holders of our common stock. In recent years, many such changes have been made and changes are likely to continue to occur in the future. Future changes in tax laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, financial condition or results of operations. We urge investors to consult with their legal and tax advisers regarding the implications of potential changes in tax laws on an investment in our common stock.

The amount of and our ability to use net operating losses and research and development credits to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations and uncertainty.

Federal net operating losses generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 generally may not be carried back to prior taxable years, and while such federal net operating losses generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 will not be subject to expiration, the deduction for such net operating loss in any taxable year will be limited to 80% of our taxable income in such year, where taxable income is determined without regard to the net operating loss deduction itself. However, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act repeals the 80% limitation on the utilization of such federal net operating losses for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and beginning before January 1, 2021 and allows for federal net operating losses generated in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2021 to be carried back to each of the five taxable years preceding the taxable year in which the loss arises. This change in law temporarily allowing for the carryback of federal net operating losses is not expected to produce any material benefit for the issuer. In general, under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitations on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating losses, or NOLs or tax credits, or credits, (including federal research and development tax credits) to offset future taxable income or taxes. For these purposes, an ownership change generally occurs where the aggregate stock ownership of one or more stockholders or groups of stockholders who owns at least 5% of a corporation’s stock increases its ownership by more than 50 percentage points over its lowest ownership percentage within a specified testing period. Future changes in our stock ownership, many of which are outside of our control, could result in an ownership change under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue Code and limit our ability to utilize our NOLs and credits. Our NOLs or credits may also be impaired under state law. Accordingly, we may not be able to utilize a material portion of our NOLs or credits if we undergo an ownership change prior to the utilization of all such NOLs or credits.

We may need to raise additional funding, which may not be available on acceptable terms, or at all. Failure to obtain this necessary capital when needed may force us to delay, limit or terminate certain of our licensing activities, product development efforts or other operations.

We expect to require substantial future capital in order to seek to broaden licensing of our gene therapy platforms, complete preclinical and clinical development for our current product candidates and other future product candidates, if any, and potentially commercialize these product candidates. We expect our spending levels to increase in connection with our preclinical and clinical trials and expect to spend up to $9.5 million in non-recurring expenses in 2021 in connection with the buildout of our new facility in Cranbury, New Jersey. Also, if we obtain marketing approval for any of our product candidates, we expect to incur significant expenses related to product sales, medical affairs, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution. Furthermore, we expect to incur additional costs associated with operating as a public company, particularly as we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company or smaller reporting company and are subject to certain disclosure and compliance requirements as a large accelerated filer that we were not previously subject to. Accordingly, we will need to obtain substantial additional funding in connection with our continuing operations, and we may seek to refinance or exchange our convertible notes to further extend their maturity date. If we are unable to raise capital or refinance our convertible notes due 2022 when needed or on acceptable terms, we could be forced to delay, reduce or eliminate certain of our licensing activities, our R&D programs, or other operations. Furthermore, to the extent we raise additional capital by issuing equity securities, or to the extent holders of our 2022 convertible notes exercise their option to convert their notes into shares of our common stock, our stockholders will experience substantial additional dilution.

Our operations have consumed significant amounts of cash since inception. As of December 31, 2020, our cash, cash equivalents and investments was $482.7 million. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including:

Many of these factors are outside of our control. Identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical testing and clinical trials is a time-consuming, expensive and uncertain process that takes years to complete, and we may never generate the necessary data or results required to obtain regulatory and marketing approval and achieve product sales. In addition, our product candidates, if approved, may not achieve commercial success. Accordingly, we will need to continue to rely on additional financing to achieve our business objectives.

To the extent that additional capital is raised through the sale of equity or equity-linked securities, the issuance of those securities could result in substantial dilution for our current stockholders and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our current stockholders. Adequate additional financing may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all. We also could be required to seek funds through arrangements with partners or otherwise that may require us to relinquish rights to our intellectual property, our product candidates or otherwise agree to terms unfavorable to us.

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

Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends on our ability, alone or with strategic collaboration partners, to successfully complete the development of, and obtain the regulatory, pricing and reimbursement approvals necessary to commercialize our product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenues from product sales for the foreseeable future, if ever. Our ability to generate future revenues from product sales depends heavily on our success in:

Even if one or more of the product candidates that we will develop is approved for commercial sale, we anticipate incurring significant costs associated with commercializing any approved product candidate. Our expenses could increase beyond expectations if we are required by the FDA, the EMA, or other regulatory agencies, domestic or foreign, to perform clinical and other studies in addition to those that we currently anticipate. Even if we generate revenues from the sale of any approved products, we may not become profitable and may need to obtain additional funding to continue operations.

Risks Related to Clinical Development and Product Regulatory Matters

We may encounter substantial delays in commencement, enrollment or completion of our clinical trials or may fail to demonstrate safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of applicable regulatory authorities, which could prevent us from commercializing our current and future product candidates on a timely basis, if at all.

Before obtaining marketing approval from regulatory authorities for the sale of our current and future product candidates, we must conduct extensive clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates. Clinical trials are expensive, time-consuming, and outcomes are uncertain.

Our experience with clinical trials has been limited. We have initiated Rocket-sponsored clinical trials for FA, LAD-I, PKD, Danon disease and IMO, but have not completed any clinical trials to date. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. A clinical trial may be delayed or halted at any stage of testing for various reasons, including:

In addition, to the extent we seek to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in foreign countries, our ability to successfully initiate, enroll and complete a clinical study in any foreign country is subject to numerous risks unique to conducting business in foreign countries, including:

If we have difficulty enrolling a sufficient number of patients to conduct our clinical trials as planned, we may need to delay, limit or terminate planned clinical trials, the occurrence of any of which would harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

 

Identifying and qualifying patients to participate in clinical trials of our product candidates is critical to our success. We may not be able to identify, recruit and enroll enough patients, or those with required or desired characteristics, to complete clinical trials in a timely manner. Patient enrollment and trial completion is affected by numerous factors including:

In particular, each of the conditions for which we plan to evaluate our current product candidates are rare genetic diseases with limited patient pools from which to draw for clinical studies. The process of finding and diagnosing patients may prove costly. In some cases, potential patients may be located outside of the U.S., and immigration related issues, including government policy changes, may introduce additional delays into the enrollment process. Finally, the treatment process for our LVV programs requires that the cells be obtained from patients and then shipped to a transduction facility within the required timelines, and this may introduce unacceptable shipping-related delays to the process.

We have not completed any clinical studies of our current product candidates. Initial or interim results in our ongoing clinical studies may not be indicative of results obtained when these studies are completed. Furthermore, success in early clinical studies may not be indicative of results obtained in later studies.

We have initiated our sponsored clinical trials for FA, LAD-I, PKD, IMO and Danon disease but have not completed any clinical trials to date. We cannot guarantee that any clinical trials will be conducted as planned or completed on schedule, if at all. Study designs and results from previous or ongoing studies and clinical trials are not necessarily predictive of future study or clinical trial results, and initial or interim results may not continue or be confirmed upon completion of the study or trial. Positive data may not continue or occur for subjects in our clinical studies or for any future subjects in our ongoing or future clinical studies and may not be repeated or observed in ongoing or future studies involving our product candidates. Furthermore, our product candidates may also fail to show the desired safety and efficacy in later stages of clinical development despite having successfully advanced through initial clinical studies. We cannot guarantee that any of these studies will ultimately be successful or that preclinical or early-stage clinical studies will support further clinical advancement or regulatory approval of our product candidates.

Data obtained from preclinical and clinical activities are subject to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory delays or rejections may be encountered as a result of many factors, including changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development.

Our product candidates may cause undesirable and unforeseen side effects or be perceived by the public as unsafe, which could delay or prevent their advancement into clinical trials or regulatory approval, limit the commercial potential or result in significant negative consequences.

Gene therapy is still a relatively new approach to disease treatment and adverse side effects could develop with our product candidates. There also is the potential risk of delayed adverse events following exposure to gene therapy products due to persistent biologic activity of the genetic material or other components of products used to carry the genetic material.

Possible adverse side effects that could occur with treatment with gene therapy products include an immunologic reaction soon after administration which could substantially limit the effectiveness and durability of the treatment. If certain side effects are observed in testing of our potential product candidates, we may decide or be required to halt or delay further clinical development of our product candidates.

In addition to side effects caused by the product candidate, the administration process or related procedures associated with a given product candidate also can cause adverse side effects. If any such adverse events occur, our clinical trials could be suspended or terminated. Under certain circumstances, the FDA, the European Commission, the EMA or other regulatory authorities could order us to cease further development of, or deny approval of, our product candidates for any or all targeted indications. Moreover, if we elect or are required, to not initiate or to delay, suspend or terminate any future clinical trial of any of our product candidates, the commercial prospects of such product candidates may be harmed and our ability to generate product revenues from any of these product candidates may be delayed or eliminated. Any of these occurrences may harm our ability to develop other product candidates, and may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Furthermore, if undesirable side effects caused by our product candidate are identified following regulatory approval of a product candidate, such as in long-term follow-up studies, several potentially significant negative consequences could result, including:

Any of these occurrences may harm our business, financial condition and prospects significantly.

Our gene therapy product candidates are based on novel technology, which makes it difficult to predict the time and cost of product candidate development and subsequently obtaining regulatory approval. Currently, only a few gene and cell therapy products have been approved in the United States and the European Union.

We have concentrated our R&D efforts to date on a gene therapy platform, and our future success depends on the successful development of viable gene therapy product candidates. We cannot guarantee that we will not experience problems or delays in developing current or future product candidates or that such problems or delays will not cause unanticipated costs, or that any such development problems or delays can be resolved. We may also experience unanticipated problems or delays in developing our manufacturing capacity or transferring our manufacturing process to commercial partners, which may prevent us from completing our clinical studies or commercializing our products on a timely or profitable basis, if at all.

In addition, the clinical study requirements of the FDA, the EMA, and other regulatory agencies 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 potential products. The regulatory approval process for novel product candidates such as ours can be more expensive and take longer than for other, better known or more extensively studied pharmaceutical or other product candidates. Currently, only a few gene and cell therapy products have received marketing authorization in the U.S. or the EU, including Novartis Pharmaceuticals’ Kymriah and Zolgensma (developed by AveXis), Kite Pharma’s Yescarta, GlaxoSmithKline’s Strimvelis and Spark Therapeutics’ Luxturna. It is therefore difficult to determine how long it will take or how much it will cost to obtain regulatory approvals for our product candidates in the U.S., the EU or other jurisdictions. Approvals by the EMA may not be indicative of what the FDA may require for approval. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approvals necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate sufficient product revenue and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially harmed.

Regulatory requirements governing gene therapy products have evolved and may continue to change in the future. For example, FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (“CBER”) may require us to perform additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials that may increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our gene therapy product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. Additionally, the FDA continues to develop its approach to assessing gene and cell therapy products. For example, the agency has released a series of draft and final guidance documents relating to, among other topics, various aspects of gene therapy product development, review, and approval, including aspects relating to clinical and manufacturing issues related to gene therapy products. In January 2020, FDA released a final guidance with recommendations for long-term follow-up studies of patients following human gene therapy administration due to the increased risk of undesirable and unpredictable outcomes with gene therapies that may present as delayed adverse events. The final guidance advises that patients treated with gene therapies that incorporate integrating vectors, such as lentiviral vectors, undergo long-term safety and efficacy follow up of fifteen years post therapy while patients treated with gene therapies that incorporate AAV vectors undergo long-term safety and efficacy follow-up as long as five years post therapy.  We cannot be certain whether such guidance, or others that FDA may issue, will adversely impact our gene therapy candidates or the duration or expense of any applicable regulatory development and review processes.

In addition, the EMA’s Committee for Advanced Therapies (“CAT”) and other regulatory review committees and advisory groups and any new guidelines they promulgate may lengthen the regulatory review process, require us to perform additional studies, increase our development costs, lead to changes in regulatory positions and interpretations, delay or prevent approval and commercialization of our product candidates or lead to significant post-approval limitations or restrictions. As we advance our product candidates, we will be required to consult with these regulatory and advisory groups and comply with applicable guidelines. If we fail to do so, we may be required to delay or discontinue development of certain of our product candidates. These additional processes may result in a review and approval process that is longer than we otherwise would have expected. Delay or failure to obtain, or unexpected costs in obtaining, the regulatory approval necessary to bring a potential product to market could decrease our ability to generate product revenue, and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects would be materially harmed.

Even though we have obtained orphan designation for certain of our product candidates, we may not be able to realize the benefits of such designation, including potential marketing exclusivity of our product candidates, if approved.

 

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and other major markets, may designate drugs intended to treat conditions or diseases affecting relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. The FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as having 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 European Economic Area (EEA) (the European Union Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), EMA’s Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products grants orphan drug designation to promote the development of products that are intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EEA. Additionally, orphan designation is granted for products intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a life-threatening, seriously debilitating or serious and chronic condition and when, without incentives, it is unlikely that sales of the drug in the EEA would be sufficient to justify the necessary investment in developing the drug or biologic product. In either case, the applicant for orphan designation must also demonstrate that there exists no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition in question that has been authorized in the EEA or, if such method exists, the product has to be of significant benefit compared to products available for the condition.

We have received orphan designation from the FDA and the EU for RP-L102 for the treatment of Fanconi Anemia, for RP-L201 for the treatment of Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-1, for RP-L301 for the treatment of Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency, and FDA orphan designation for RP-A501 for treatment of Danon Disease and RP-401 for the treatment of Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis. To date, we have not requested orphan drug designation (or the foreign equivalent) for any other product candidates, and even if we do in the future there can be no assurances that the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities will grant any of our product candidates such designation. Additionally, the designation of any of our product candidates as an orphan product does not mean that any regulatory agency will accelerate regulatory review of, or ultimately approve, that product candidate, nor does it limit the ability of any regulatory agency to grant orphan drug designation to product candidates of other companies that treat the same indications as our product candidates prior to our product candidates receiving exclusive marketing approval.

Generally, if a product candidate with an orphan drug designation receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities from approving another marketing application for a product that constitutes the same drug (or “similar medicinal product” in the EEA, which is defined as a medicinal product containing a similar active substance or substances as contained in an authorized orphan medicinal product, and which is intended for the same therapeutic indication) treating the same indication for that marketing exclusivity period, except in limited circumstances. If another sponsor receives such approval before we do (regardless of our orphan drug designation), we will be precluded from receiving marketing approval for our product for the applicable exclusivity period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and 10 years in the EEA. The exclusivity period in the EEA can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for orphan drug designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be revoked if any regulatory agency determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for a product candidate, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product candidate from competition because different drugs can be approved for the same condition in the United States. Even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA may subsequently approve another drug for the same condition if the FDA concludes that the latter drug is not the same drug or is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. In the EEA, marketing authorization may be granted to a similar medicinal product for the same orphan indication if:

A Fast Track or regenerative medicine advanced therapy, or RMAT, designation by the FDA, even if granted for any of our current or future product candidates, may not lead to a faster development or regulatory review or approval process, and does not increase the likelihood that our current product candidate and any future product candidates will receive marketing approval.

If a product candidate is intended for the treatment of a serious or life-threatening condition and the product demonstrates the potential to address unmet medical needs for this condition, the sponsor may apply for FDA Fast Track designation for a particular indication. We have received fast track designation for RP-A501 for Danon disease, RP-L102 for FA, RP-L201 for LAD-I, RP-L301 for PKD and RP-L401 for IMO, and we may seek Fast Track designation for future product candidates, but there is no assurance that the FDA will grant this status to any of our proposed product candidates. Marketing applications filed by sponsors of products in fast-track development may qualify for priority review under the policies and procedures offered by the FDA.

 

A company may request RMAT designation of its product candidate, and FDA may grant such designation if the product meets the following criteria: (1) it is a cell therapy, therapeutic tissue engineering product, human cell and tissue product, or any combination product using such therapies or products, with limited exceptions; (2) it is intended to treat, modify, reverse, or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition; and (3) preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug has the potential to address unmet medical needs for such a disease or condition. We have received RMAT designation for RP-L102 for FA. RMAT designation provides potential benefits that include more frequent meetings with FDA to discuss the development plan for the product candidate, and potential eligibility for rolling review and priority review. Products granted RMAT designation may also be eligible for accelerated approval on the basis of a surrogate or intermediate endpoint reasonably likely to predict long-term clinical benefit, or reliance upon data obtained from a meaningful number of sites, including through expansion of trials to additional sites.

 

The FDA has broad discretion whether or not to grant Fast Track or RMAT designation, so even if we believe a particular product candidate is eligible for such designations, there can be no assurance that the FDA would decide to grant it. Even if we do receive Fast Track or RMAT designation, we may not experience a faster development process, review or approval compared to conventional FDA development, review, and approval timelines, and receiving a Fast Track or RMAT designation does not provide assurance of ultimate FDA approval. In addition, the FDA may withdraw Fast Track designation if it believes that the designation is no longer supported by data from our clinical development program.

Accelerated approval by the FDA, and conditional approval by the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, may not lead to a faster development process or regulatory review and does not increase the likelihood that our product candidates will receive marketing approval. If we are not successful with this process, the development or commercialization of our product candidates for which we seek accelerated approval or conditional approval could be delayed, abandoned or become significantly more costly.

We may seek approval of using the FDA’s accelerated approval and the EMA’s conditional approval pathways. While we may utilize trial designs to support accelerated approval, such product candidates may not be subject to faster development or regulatory review timelines.

As a condition of approval, regulatory agencies may impose specific obligations with defined timelines, including to perform adequate and well-controlled post-marketing clinical trials. These confirmatory trials must be completed with due diligence. In addition, the FDA currently requires as a condition of accelerated approval pre-approval of promotional materials, which could adversely impact the timing of the commercial launch of a product. If the FDA or the EMA do not approve our product candidates for which we seek accelerated approval or conditional approval, but instead require the completion of a full Phase 3 clinical trial or trials prior to the filing of marketing applications, the development and commercialization timeline of such product candidates will be delayed. Even if we do receive accelerated approval or conditional approval, we may not ultimately receive full approval from the regulatory agencies. The additional data generated through post-marketing clinical trials may not confirm that the benefit-risk balance of any of our product candidates that receive accelerated approval is positive or the burden to further complete the obligations may become too high.

In the European Economic Area, the conditional marketing authorization is subject to an annual renewal procedure that assess the marketing authorization holder’s compliance with the specific obligations of the authorization. If conditions are not complied with, the EMA may decide to extend the timeline for the existing obligations, change the scope of such obligations or add new obligations, which may require additional financial resources and time. We may not be able to comply with such changes or additional obligations and may need to withdraw the marketing authorization. The EMA may also decide not to renew the conditional marketing authorization, although such measure is rarely applied in practice. An analysis of reimbursement decisions for conditionally authorized medicines in the European Union has shown some delays in the timeline for reaching a positive health technology recommendation. If this happens for any product candidate for which we seek conditional approval, it may delay the timing and success of the commercialization of such product. Finally, if new data obtained from fulfilment of the conditions of the conditional authorization or otherwise show that our product’s benefits no longer outweigh its risks, the EMA can take regulatory action, such as suspending or revoking the conditional marketing authorization.

We have received rare pediatric disease designation for RP-A501 for Danon disease, RP-L102 for FA, RP-L201 for LAD-I, and RP-L401 for IMO. However, a marketing application for these product candidates, if approved, may not meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher.

We have received rare pediatric disease designation for RP-A501 for Danon disease, RP-L102 for FA, RP-L201 for LAD-I, and RP-L401 for IMO. Designation of a biological product as a product for a rare pediatric disease does not guarantee that a BLA for such biological product will meet the eligibility criteria for a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher at the time the application is approved. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act  (“FDCA”) , we will need to request a rare pediatric disease priority review voucher in our original BLA for our product candidates for which we have received rare pediatric disease designation. The FDA may determine that a BLA for any such product candidates, if approved, do not meet the eligibility criteria for a priority review voucher.

 

The authority for the FDA to award rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers for biological products after September 30, 2024 is currently limited to biological products that receive rare pediatric disease designation on or prior to September 30, 2024, and FDA may only award rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers through September 30, 2026. However, it is possible the authority for FDA to award rare pediatric disease priority review vouchers will be further extended by Congress.

Even if we successfully complete the necessary preclinical studies and clinical trials, we cannot predict when, or if, we will obtain regulatory approval to commercialize a product candidate and the approval may be for a narrower indication than we seek.

We cannot commercialize a product candidate until the appropriate regulatory authorities have reviewed and approved the product candidate. We have not received approval from regulatory authorities in any jurisdiction to market any of our product candidates. Even if our product candidates meet their safety and efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, the regulatory authorities may not complete their review processes in a timely manner, issue a complete response letter, or ultimately, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections if an FDA Advisory Committee recommends disapproval or restrictions on use. In addition, we may experience delays or rejections based upon additional government regulation from future legislation or administrative actions, or changes in regulatory authority policy during the period of product development, clinical trials and the review process. Regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept any application or may decide that our data are insufficient for approval and require additional preclinical, clinical or other studies. In addition, varying interpretations of data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing could delay, limit or prevent the receipt of marketing approval for a product candidate.

Regulatory authorities also may approve a product candidate for more limited indications than requested or they may impose significant limitations in the form of narrow indications, warnings or other labeling changes. These regulatory authorities may require precautions or contra-indications with respect to conditions of use or they may grant approval subject to the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. Regulatory authorities may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, or equivalent requirement. In addition, regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that are necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates and materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

Even if we obtain regulatory approval in a jurisdiction, the applicable regulatory authority may still impose significant restrictions on the indicated uses or marketing of our product candidates or impose ongoing requirements for potentially costly post-approval studies, post-market surveillance or patient or drug restrictions. Additionally, the holder of an approved BLA is obligated to monitor and report adverse events and any failure of a product to meet the specifications in the BLA. The holder of an approved BLA must also submit new or supplemental applications and obtain FDA approval for certain changes to the approved product, product labeling or manufacturing process. FDA guidance advises that patients treated with some types of gene therapy undergo follow-up observations for potential adverse events for as long as 15 years. Advertising and promotional materials must comply with FDA rules and are subject to FDA review, in addition to other potentially applicable federal and state laws.

In addition, product manufacturers and their facilities are subject to payment of user fees and continual review and periodic inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities for compliance with GMP, and current good tissue practice, as well as adherence to commitments made in the BLA. If we or a regulatory agency discover previously unknown problems with a product such as adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or problems with the facility where the product is manufactured, a regulatory agency may impose restrictions on that product or the manufacturing facility, including requiring recall or withdrawal of the product from the market or suspension of manufacturing.

If we fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements following approval of any of our product candidates, a regulatory agency may take a variety of actions, including:

Any government investigation of alleged violations of law could require us to expend significant time and resources in response and could generate negative publicity. The occurrence of any event or penalty described above may inhibit our ability to commercialize our product candidates and generate revenues and could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In addition, the FDA’s policies, and those of comparable foreign regulatory authorities, may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative actions, either in the U.S. or abroad. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval which we may have obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may never obtain FDA or EMA approval for any of our product candidates in the U.S. or the EU, and even if we do, we may never obtain approval for or commercialize any of our product candidates in any other jurisdiction, which would limit our ability to realize our full market potential.

In order to eventually market any of our product candidates in any particular jurisdiction, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements regarding safety and efficacy on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. Approval by the FDA in the U.S. or the EMA in the EU, if obtained, does not ensure approval by regulatory authorities in other countries or jurisdictions. In addition, preclinical studies and clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not guarantee regulatory approval in any other country. Approval processes vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approval could result in difficulties and costs for us and require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which could be costly and time-consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. The foreign regulatory approval process involves similar risks to those associated with FDA and EMA approval. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, nor have we attempted to obtain such approval. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, or if regulatory approvals in international markets are delayed, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be unrealized.

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

The U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions have enacted or proposed legislative and regulatory changes affecting the healthcare system that could prevent or delay marketing approval of our product candidates or any future product candidates, restrict or regulate post-approval activities and affect our ability to profitably sell any product for which we obtain marketing approval. Changes in regulations, statutes or the interpretation of existing regulations could impact our business in the future by requiring, for example: (i) changes to our manufacturing arrangements; (ii) additions or modifications to product labeling; (iii) the recall or discontinuation of our products; or (iv) additional record-keeping requirements. If any such changes were to be imposed, they could adversely affect the operation of our business.

In the United States, there have been and continue to be legislative initiatives to contain healthcare costs. For example, in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, or the ACA, was passed, which substantially changed the way health care is financed by both governmental and private insurers, and significantly impacts the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. The ACA, among other things, subjects biological products to potential competition by lower-cost biosimilars, addresses a new methodology by which rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program are calculated for drugs that are inhaled, infused, instilled, implanted or injected, increases the minimum Medicaid rebates owed by manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and extends the rebate program to individuals enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations, establishes annual fees and taxes on manufacturers of certain branded prescription drugs, and creates a new Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% (increased to 70% pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, effective as of January 2019) 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.

Since its enactment, there have been numerous judicial, administrative, executive, and legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA, and we expect there will be additional challenges and amendments to the ACA in the future. Various portions of the ACA are currently undergoing legal and constitutional challenges in the United States Supreme Court; the Trump Administration issued various Executive Orders which eliminated cost sharing subsidies and various provisions that would impose a fiscal burden on states or a cost, fee, tax, penalty or regulatory burden on individuals, healthcare providers, health insurers, or manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or medical devices; and Congress has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at significantly revising or repealing the ACA. The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ACA in early 2021. The  implementation of the ACA is ongoing, the law appears likely to continue the downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing, especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Litigation and legislation related to the ACA are likely to continue, with unpredictable and uncertain results. It is unclear whether the ACA will be overturned, repealed, replaced, or further amended. We cannot predict what affect further changes to the ACA would have on our business, especially given the new administration.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. In August 2011, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011, which, among other things, created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to recommend to Congress proposals for deficit reduction of at least $1.2 trillion for the years 2013 through 2021. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction did not achieve a targeted deficit reduction, which triggered the legislation’s automatic reduction to several government programs. This includes aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of, up to 2% per fiscal year, and, due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect through 2030 unless Congress takes additional action. However, the Medicare sequester reductions under the Budget Control Act are suspended from May 1, 2020 through May 31, 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposed legislation, if passed, would extend this suspension until the end of the pandemic. In January 2013, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years.

There has been increasing legislative and enforcement interest in the United States with respect to specialty drug pricing practices. Specifically, there have been several recent U.S. Congressional inquiries and proposed federal and state legislation designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to drug pricing, reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drugs. The Trump administration’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 includes a $135 billion allowance to support legislative proposals seeking to reduce drug prices, increase competition, lower out-of-pocket drug costs for patients, and increase patient access to lower-cost generic and biosimilar drugs. On March 10, 2020, the Trump administration sent “principles” for drug pricing to Congress, calling for legislation that would, among other things, cap Medicare Part D beneficiary out-of-pocket pharmacy expenses, provide an option to cap Medicare Part D beneficiary monthly out-of-pocket expenses, and place limits on pharmaceutical price increases. However, it is unclear whether the Biden administration will challenge, reverse, revoke or otherwise modify these executive and administrative actions after January 20, 2021. Additionally, the Trump administration previously released a “Blueprint” to lower drug prices and reduce out of pocket costs of drugs that contains additional proposals to increase manufacturer competition, increase the negotiating power of certain federal healthcare programs, incentivize manufacturers to lower the list price of their products and reduce the out-of-pocket costs of drug products paid by consumers. HHS has already started the process of soliciting feedback on some of these measures and, at the same time, is immediately implementing others under its existing authority. For example, in May 2019, CMS issued a final rule to allow Medicare Advantage Plans the option of using step therapy for prior authorization, Part B drugs beginning January 1, 2020. This final rule codified CMS’s policy change that was effective January 1, 2019. It is unclear whether the Biden administration will challenge, reverse, revoke or otherwise modify these executive and administrative actions after January 20, 2021.

In addition, there have been several changes to the 340B drug pricing program, which imposes ceilings on prices that drug manufacturers can charge for medications sold to certain health care facilities. On December 27, 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia invalidated a reimbursement formula change under the 340B drug pricing program, and CMS subsequently altered the FYs 2019 and 2018 reimbursement formula on specified covered outpatient drugs (“SCODs”). The court ruled this change was not an “adjustment” which was within the Secretary’s discretion to make but was instead a fundamental change in the reimbursement calculation. However, most recently, on July 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and found that the changes were within the Secretary’s authority. On September 14, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (i.e., before the full court), but was denied on October 16, 2020.  It is unclear how these developments could affect covered hospitals who might purchase our future products and affect the rates we may charge such facilities for our approved products in the future, if any. Although a number of these, and other proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, Congress has indicated that it may continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs.

Further, on July 24, 2020 and September 13, 2020, President Trump signed a series of Executive Orders aimed at lowering drug prices and at implementing several of the administration’s proposals. On November 20, 2020 CMS issued an Interim Final Rule implementing the Most Favored Nation, or MFN, Model under which Medicare Part B reimbursement rates will be calculated for certain drugs and biologicals based on the lowest price drug manufacturers receive in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries with a similar gross domestic product per capita.  The MFN Model regulations mandate participation by identified Part B providers and will apply in all U.S. states and territories for a seven-year period beginning January 1, 2021 and ending December 31, 2027.  The Interim Final Rule has not been finalized and is subject to revision and challenge. Additionally, on November 20, 2020, HHS finalized a regulation removing safe harbor protection for price reductions from pharmaceutical manufacturers to plan sponsors under Part D, either directly or through pharmacy benefit managers, unless the price reduction is required by law. The rule also creates a new safe harbor for price reductions reflected at the point-of-sale, as well as a safe harbor for certain fixed fee arrangements between pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers. Implementation of the amendments to the discount safe harbor have been delayed until at least January 1, 2023. Although a number of these, and other proposed measures will require authorization through additional legislation to become effective, and the Biden administration may reverse or otherwise change these measures, Congress has indicated that it will continue to seek new legislative and/or administrative measures to control drug costs.

At the state level, legislatures have increasingly passed legislation and implemented regulations designed to control pharmaceutical and biological product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.

We expect that the healthcare reform measures that have been adopted and may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product and could seriously harm our future revenues. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private third-party payors.

There have been, and likely will continue to be, legislative and regulatory proposals at the foreign, federal and state levels directed at broadening the availability of healthcare and containing or lowering the cost of healthcare. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability, or commercialize our product. Such reforms could have an adverse effect on anticipated revenue from product candidates that we may successfully develop and for which we may obtain regulatory approval and may affect our overall financial condition and ability to develop product candidates.

The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union could result in increased regulatory and legal complexity, which may make it more difficult for us to do business in Europe and impose additional challenges in securing regulatory approval of our product candidates in Europe and/or the United Kingdom.

We currently have clinical trial sites in the United Kingdom, contract laboratories in the United Kingdom conducting testing for our global clinical trials, and other collaborators and potential collaborators in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe. Pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on EU, the UK ceased being a Member State of the EU on January 31, 2020. There was a transitional period, during which EU laws, including pharmaceutical laws, continued to apply in the UK, however this ended on December 31, 2020. The UK reached a trade agreement with the European Union on December 24, 2020, which became provisionally applicable on January 1, 2021 and will become formally applicable once ratified by both the UK and the EU.  Under the terms of the deal, the EU and UK have separate regulatory regimes for pharmaceutical products, although there are some provisions for mutual recognition of standards, for example with regards to GMP. For instance, the UK will now no longer be covered by the centralized procedure for obtaining EEA-wide marketing authorizations for medicinal products, and a separate process for authorization of medicinal products will be required in the UK, resulting in an authorization covering the UK or Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) only. The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has recently published detailed guidance for industry and organizations to follow now that the transition period is over, which will be updated as the UK’s regulatory position on medicinal products and medical devices evolves over time.

The cumulative effects of the disruption to the regulatory framework may add considerably to the development lead time to marketing authorization and commercialization of products in the European Union and/or the United Kingdom. It is possible that there will be increased regulatory complexities which can disrupt the timing of our clinical trials and regulatory approvals. In addition, changes in, and legal uncertainty with regard to, national and international laws and regulations may present difficulties for our clinical and regulatory strategy.

In addition, as a result of Brexit, other European countries may seek to conduct referenda with respect to their continuing membership with the European Union. Given these possibilities and others we may not anticipate, as well as the absence of comparable precedent, it is unclear what financial, regulatory and legal implications the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union would have and how such withdrawal would affect us, and the full extent to which our business could be adversely affected.

If we are successful in commercializing any product, our relationships with customers and third-party payors will be subject to applicable anti-kickback, fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, exclusion from government healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors will play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any products for which we obtain regulatory approval. Our arrangements with third-party payors, healthcare providers and physicians may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct our operations, including how we research, market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain regulatory approval. These include the following:

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties, and our business generally, will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may 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 these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, the exclusion from participation in federal and state healthcare programs, individual imprisonment, reputational harm, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, as well as additional reporting obligations and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. Defending against any such actions can be costly, time-consuming and may require significant financial and 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. If any of the physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we expect to do business are found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to significant criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government funded healthcare programs.

If we fail to comply with applicable U.S. and foreign privacy and data protection laws and regulations, we may be subject to liabilities that adversely affect our business, operations and financial performance.

We may also be subject to or affected by foreign laws and regulation, including regulatory guidance, governing the collection, use, disclosure, security, transfer and storage of personal data, such as information that we collect about patients and healthcare providers in connection with clinical trials and our other operations in the U.S. and abroad. For example, the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which introduces strict requirements for processing personal data. The GDPR increases the compliance burden on us, including by mandating potentially burdensome documentation requirements and granting certain rights to individuals to control how we collect, use, disclose, retain and leverage information about them. The processing of sensitive personal data, such as physical health conditions, imposes heightened compliance burdens under the GDPR and is a topic of active interest among foreign regulators. In addition, the GDPR provides for breach reporting requirements, more robust regulatory enforcement and fines of up to 20 million euros or up to 4% of annual global revenue. While the GDPR affords some flexibility in determining how to comply with the various requirements, significant effort and expense has been, and will continue to be, invested to ensure continuing compliance. Moreover, the requirements under the GDPR may change periodically or may be modified by EU national law and could affect our business operations if compliance becomes substantially more costly than under current requirements.

The global legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection continues to evolve, and implementation standards and enforcement practices are likely to remain uncertain for the foreseeable future. This evolution may create uncertainty in our business, result in liability or impose additional costs on us. The cost of compliance with these laws, regulations and standards is high and is likely to increase in the future.

 

It is possible that each of these privacy laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. Any failure or perceived failure by us to comply with federal, state, or foreign laws or self-regulatory standards could result in negative publicity, diversion of management time and effort and proceedings against us by governmental entities or others. In many jurisdictions, enforcement actions and consequences for noncompliance are rising. As we continue to expand into other foreign countries and jurisdictions, we may be subject to additional laws and regulations that may affect how we conduct business.

We are subject to environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and we may become exposed to liability and substantial expenses in connection with environmental compliance or remediation activities.

 

Our operations, including our development, testing and manufacturing activities, are subject to numerous environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations govern, among other things, the controlled use, handling, release and disposal of and the maintenance of a registry for, hazardous materials and biological materials, such as chemical solvents, human cells, carcinogenic compounds, mutagenic compounds and compounds that have a toxic effect on reproduction, laboratory procedures and exposure to blood-borne pathogens. If we fail to comply with such laws and regulations, we could be subject to fines or other sanctions.

As with other companies engaged in similar activities, we face a risk of environmental liability inherent in our activities, including liability relating to releases of or exposure to hazardous or biological materials. Environmental, health and safety laws and regulations are becoming more stringent. We may be required to incur substantial expenses in connection with future environmental compliance or remediation activities, in which case, the production efforts of our third-party manufacturers or our development efforts may be interrupted or delayed.

Risks Related to Manufacturing, Commercialization and Development of Our Product Candidates

Products intended for use in gene therapies are novel, complex and difficult to manufacture. We could experience production problems that result in delays in our development or commercialization programs, limit the supply of our products or otherwise harm our business.

We currently have development, manufacturing and testing agreements with third parties to manufacture supplies of our product candidates. Several factors could cause production interruptions, including equipment malfunctions, facility contamination, raw material shortages or contamination, natural disasters, public health crises such as pandemics and epidemics, disruption in utility services, human error or disruptions in the operations of suppliers.

Our product candidates require processing steps that are more complex than those required for small molecule pharmaceuticals.

We may encounter problems contracting with, hiring and retaining the experienced scientific, quality control and manufacturing personnel needed to operate our manufacturing process which could result in delays in our production or difficulties in maintaining compliance with applicable regulatory requirements.

Any problems in our manufacturing process or the facilities with which we contract could make us a less attractive collaborator for potential partners, including larger pharmaceutical companies and academic research institutions, which could limit our access to attractive development programs. Problems in third-party manufacturing processes or facilities also could restrict our ability to complete our clinical trials in a timely manner or meet market demand for our products. Additionally, should our manufacturing agreements with third parties be terminated for any reason, there may be a limited number of manufacturers who would be suitable replacements and it could take a significant amount of time to transition the manufacturing to a replacement. Changes to the manufacturing process that occur in the transfer or setup of new manufacturing facilities could require that we conduct bridging studies before being able to proceed with either clinical or commercial manufacturing activities. Further, the shift would likely be expensive and time-consuming, particularly since the new facility would need to comply with the necessary regulatory requirements or may require approval before selling any products manufactured at that facility.

We are in the process of completing the build-out of a manufacturing site that could support future production of our product candidates. We have no experience in manufacturing, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to complete our manufacturing facility or, if completed, we will be able to successfully manufacture products.

We have historically relied on third parties to manufacture supplies of our product candidates. We have completed a build-out of a new manufacturing facility in Cranbury, New Jersey, and are now preparing the facility to be ready for cGMP manufacturing in 2021.

Although some of our employees have experience in the manufacturing of biopharmaceutical products from prior employment at other companies, we as a company have no prior experience in manufacturing. In addition, government approvals will be required for us to operate a manufacturing facility and can be time-consuming to obtain, and there can be no assurance that such approval will be obtained. As a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, we also will be required to demonstrate and maintain compliance with cGMP requirements related to production processes, quality control and assurance and recordkeeping. Furthermore, establishing and maintaining manufacturing operations may require a reallocation of other resources, particularly the time and attention of certain of our senior management as well as potentially significant capital expenditures. Any failure or delay in the development of our manufacturing capabilities could adversely impact the development or commercialization of our product candidates.

Our manufacturing facilities are subject to significant government regulations and approvals, which are often costly and could result in adverse consequences to our business if we fail to comply with the regulations or maintain the approvals.

We must comply with cGMP requirements, as set out in statute, regulations and guidance. We may encounter difficulties in achieving quality control and quality assurance and may experience shortages in qualified personnel. We are subject to inspections by the FDA and comparable agencies in other jurisdictions to confirm compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. Any failure to follow cGMP or other regulatory requirements or delay, interruption or other issues that arise in the manufacture, fill-finish, packaging, or storage of our product candidates as a result of a failure of our facilities or the facilities or operations of third parties to comply with regulatory requirements or pass any regulatory authority inspection could significantly impair our ability to develop and commercialize our product candidates, including leading to significant delays in the availability of drug product for our clinical trials or the termination or hold on a clinical trial, or the delay or prevention of a filing or approval of marketing applications for our product candidates. Significant noncompliance could also result in the imposition of sanctions, including fines, injunctions, civil penalties, failure of regulatory authorities to grant marketing approvals for our product candidates, delays, suspension or withdrawal of approvals, license revocation, seizures or recalls of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecutions, any of which could damage our reputation. If we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may not be permitted to market our product candidates and/or may be subject to product recalls, seizures, injunctions, or criminal prosecution.

Our ability to successfully develop and commercialize our product candidates will substantially depend upon the availability of reimbursement funds for the costs of the resulting drugs and related treatments.

In the United States and markets in other countries, patients generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their treatment. The availability and extent of reimbursement by governmental and private payors is essential for most patients to be able to afford expensive treatments. Sales of our product candidates will depend substantially, both domestically and abroad, on the extent to which the costs of our product candidates will be covered and paid by government authorities and other third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations. We cannot guarantee that reimbursement will be available for any of our product candidates. We have not commenced efforts to have our product candidates reimbursed by government or third-party payors. If coverage and reimbursement are not available or are available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our products. Even if coverage is provided, the approved reimbursement amount may not be high enough to allow us to establish or maintain pricing sufficient to realize a sufficient return on our investment. We may not be able to provide data sufficient to gain acceptance with respect to coverage and reimbursement. If reimbursement is not available, or is available only at limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our product candidates, if approved. The process for determining whether a payor will provide coverage for a product may be separate from the process for setting the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product. Payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication A decision by a payor not to cover our product candidates could reduce physician utilization of our products once approved and have a material adverse effect on our sales, results of operations and financial condition.

There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. In the U.S., the principal decisions about coverage and reimbursement for new medicines are typically made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, as CMS decides whether and to what extent a new medicine will be covered and reimbursed under Medicare. Private payors tend to follow the CMS to a substantial degree. It is difficult to predict what the CMS will decide with respect to reimbursement for fundamentally novel products such as ours, as there is no body of established practices and precedents for these new products. Factors payors consider in determining reimbursement are based on whether the product is:

In recent years, numerous proposals to change the health care system in the U.S. have been made. These reform proposals include measures that would limit or prohibit payments for certain medical treatments or subject the pricing of drugs to government control. In addition, in many foreign countries, particularly the countries of the EU, the pricing of prescription drugs is subject to government control. If our products are or become subject to government regulation that limits or prohibits payment for our products, or that subjects the price of our products to governmental control, we may not be able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our products.

In addition, third-party payors are increasingly limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement of new drugs. They may also impose strict prior authorization requirements and/or refuse to provide any coverage of uses of approved products for medical indications other than those for which the FDA has granted market approvals. As a result, significant uncertainty exists as to whether and how much third-party payors will reimburse patients for their use of newly approved drugs. If we are unable to obtain adequate levels of reimbursement for our product candidates, our ability to successfully market and sell our product candidates will be harmed. The manner and level at which reimbursement is provided for services related to our product candidates (e.g., for administration of our product to patients) is also important to successful commercialization of our product candidates. Inadequate reimbursement for such services may lead to physician resistance and limit our ability to market or sell our products.

Even if approved, we may not successfully commercialize our drug candidates.

Our gene therapy product candidates are subject to the risks of failure inherent in the development of pharmaceutical products based on new technologies, and our failure to develop safe, commercially viable products would severely limit our ability to become profitable or to achieve significant revenues. Even if one or more of our drug candidates is approved, we may be unable to successfully commercialize our product candidates for several reasons, including:

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

We are engaged in gene therapy for severe genetic and rare diseases, which is a competitive and rapidly changing field. Although we are not currently aware of any gene therapy competitors addressing any of the same indications as those in our pipeline, we may have competitors both in the U.S. and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies and universities and other research institutions.

Our potential competitors may have substantially greater financial, technical and other resources, such as larger R&D staff, manufacturing capabilities and experienced marketing and manufacturing organizations. These competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing on an exclusive basis, products that are more effective or less costly than any product candidate that we may develop, or achieve earlier patent protection, regulatory approval, product commercialization and market penetration than us. Additionally, technologies developed by our competitors may render our potential product candidates uneconomical or obsolete, and we may not be successful in marketing our product candidates against those of our competitors.

In addition, if our patent rights were to expire or be successfully challenged, we could face increased litigation with respect to the validity and/or scope of patents relating to our competitors’ products. The availability of our competitors’ products could limit the demand, and the price we are able to charge, for any products that we may develop and commercialize, thereby causing harm to our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

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

Ethical, social, legal and other concerns about gene therapy could result in additional regulations restricting or prohibiting our products. Even with the requisite approvals from the FDA in the U.S., the EMA in the EU and other regulatory authorities internationally, the commercial success of our product candidates will depend, in part, on the acceptance of physicians, patients and health care payors of gene therapy products in general, and our product candidates in particular, as medically beneficial, cost-effective and safe. Any product that we commercialize may not gain acceptance by physicians, patients, health care payors and others in the medical community. If these products do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance, we may not generate significant product revenue and may not become profitable. The degree of market acceptance of gene therapy products and our product candidates, if approved for commercial sale, will depend on several factors, including:

Even if a potential product displays a favorable efficacy and safety profile in preclinical studies and clinical trials, market acceptance of the product will not be fully known until after it is approved and launched and is subject to change over time if adverse long-term follow-up data become available after approval. The failure of any of our product candidates to achieve market acceptance could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may not be successful in our efforts to build a pipeline of additional product candidates.

Our business model is centered on applying our expertise in rare genetic diseases by establishing focused selection criteria to develop and advance a portfolio of gene therapy product candidates through development into commercialization. We may not be able to continue to identify and develop new product candidates in addition to the pipeline of product candidates that our R&D efforts to date have resulted in. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development. If we do not successfully develop and commercialize product candidates based upon our approach, we will not be able to obtain product revenue in future periods, which would likely result in significant harm to our financial position and results of operations.

The success of our research and development activities, clinical testing and commercialization, upon which we primarily focus, is uncertain.

Our primary focus is on our R&D activities and the clinical testing and commercialization of our product candidates and we anticipate that we will remain principally engaged in these activities for an indeterminate, but substantial, period. R&D was our most significant operating expense for the year ended December 31, 2020. R&D activities, including the conduct of clinical studies, by their nature, preclude definitive statements as to the time required and costs involved in reaching certain objectives. Actual R&D costs, therefore, could significantly exceed budgeted amounts and estimated time frames may require significant extension. Cost overruns, unanticipated regulatory delays or demands, unexpected adverse side effects or insufficient therapeutic efficacy will prevent or substantially slow our R&D effort and our business could ultimately suffer.

Risks Related to Third Parties

We rely on third parties to conduct certain aspects of our preclinical studies and clinical trials and perform other tasks for us. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines, or comply with regulatory requirements, we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or commercialize our product candidates and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be substantially harmed.

We have relied upon and plan to continue to rely upon third parties, including CROs, medical institutions, and contract laboratories for certain aspects of our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs. Nevertheless, we maintain responsibility for ensuring that each of our clinical trials and preclinical studies is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory, and scientific standards and our reliance on these third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our vendors are required to comply with current requirements of GMP, good clinical practice (“GCP”), and good laboratory practice (“GLP”), which are a collection of laws and regulations enforced by the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities for our drug candidates in clinical development.

Regulatory authorities enforce these regulations through periodic inspections of preclinical study and clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators, preclinical study and clinical trial sites, and other contractors. If we or any of our vendors fail to comply with applicable regulations, the data generated in our preclinical studies and clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, the EMA or comparable foreign authorities may require us to perform additional preclinical studies and clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. We cannot assure you that upon inspection by a given regulatory authority, such regulatory authority will determine that any of our clinical trials comply with GCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced consistent with GMP regulations. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the development and regulatory approval processes.

If any of our relationships with these third parties, medical institutions, clinical investigators or contract laboratories terminate, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. In addition, our CROs are not our employees, and except for remedies available to us under our agreements with such CROs, we cannot control whether they devote sufficient time and resources to our ongoing preclinical and clinical programs.

If our CROs do not successfully carry out their contractual duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if they need to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the data, they obtain is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our protocols, regulatory requirements, or for other reasons, our clinical trials may be extended, delayed or terminated and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize our product candidates. CROs may also generate higher costs than anticipated. As a result, our business, financial condition and results of operations and the commercial prospects for our product candidates could be materially and adversely affected, our costs could increase, and our ability to generate revenue could be delayed.

Switching or adding additional CROs, medical institutions, clinical investigators or contract laboratories involves additional cost and requires management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO commences work replacing a previous CRO. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. Though we carefully manage our relationships with our CROs, we cannot guarantee that we will not encounter similar challenges or delays in the future or that these delays or challenges will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We expect to rely on third parties to conduct some or all aspects of our drug product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing, and these third parties may not perform satisfactorily.

We do not expect to independently conduct all aspects of our gene therapy production, product manufacturing, research and preclinical and clinical testing. We currently rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties with respect to certain of these items. In some cases, these third parties are academic, research or similar institutions that may not apply the same quality control protocols utilized in certain commercial settings.

Our reliance on these third parties for R&D activities will reduce our control over these activities but will not relieve us of our responsibility to ensure compliance with all required regulations and study protocols. If these third parties do not successfully carry out their contractual duties, meet expected deadlines or conduct our studies in accordance with regulatory requirements or our stated study plans and protocols, we will not be able to complete, or may be delayed in completing, the preclinical and clinical studies required to support future product submissions and approval of our product candidates.

Generally, these third parties may terminate their engagements with us at will upon notice. If we need to enter into alternative arrangements, it could delay our product development activities.

We expect to rely on third-party manufacturers to manufacture supplies of certain of our product candidates, including all of the LVV product candidates. Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured all the product candidates ourselves, including:

Any of these events could lead to clinical study delays or failure to obtain regulatory approval or impact our ability to successfully commercialize future products. Some of these events could be the basis for FDA action, including an injunction, recall, seizure or total or partial suspension of production.

We may not be successful in finding strategic collaborators for continuing development of certain of our product candidates or successfully commercializing our product candidates.

We may seek to establish strategic partnerships for developing and/or commercializing certain of our product candidates due to relatively high capital costs required to develop the product candidates, manufacturing constraints or other reasons. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish such strategic partnerships or other alternative arrangements for our product candidates for several reasons, including because our R&D pipeline may be insufficient, our product candidates may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort or third parties may not view our product candidates as having the requisite potential to demonstrate efficacy or market opportunity. In addition, we may be restricted under existing agreements from entering into future agreements with potential collaborators.

If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable licensees or collaborators on a timely basis, on acceptable terms or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay our development program, delay our potential commercialization, reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to independently fund development or commercialization activities, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into collaboration arrangements and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates and our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be materially harmed.

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

 

We rely on third parties to manufacture our products and to perform quality testing, and because we collaborate with various organizations and academic institutions for the advancement of our gene therapy platform, we must, at times, share our proprietary technology and confidential information, including trade secrets, with them. We seek to protect our proprietary technology, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements and, if applicable, material transfer agreements, collaborative research agreements, consulting agreements or other similar agreements with our collaborators, advisors, employees and consultants prior to beginning research or disclosing proprietary information. These agreements typically limit the rights of the third parties to use or disclose our confidential information. Despite the contractual provisions employed when working with third parties, the need to share trade secrets and other confidential information increases the risk that such trade secrets become known by our competitors, are inadvertently incorporated into the technology of others or are disclosed or used in violation of these agreements. Given that our proprietary position is based, in part, on our know‑how and trade secrets, a competitor’s discovery of our proprietary technology and confidential information or other unauthorized use or disclosure would impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

 

Despite our efforts to protect our trade secrets, our competitors may discover our trade secrets, either through breach of these agreements, independent development or publication of information including our trade secrets by third parties. A competitor’s discovery of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

 

Disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages or global health concerns could hinder their ability to hire, retain or deploy key leadership and other personnel, or otherwise prevent new or modified products from being developed, approved, or commercialized in a timely manner or at all, which could negatively impact our business.

 

The ability of the FDA to review and approve new products can be affected by a variety of factors, including government budget and funding levels, statutory, regulatory, and policy changes, the FDA’s ability to hire and retain key personnel and accept the payment of user fees, and other events that may otherwise affect the FDA’s ability to perform routine functions. Average review times at the agency have fluctuated in recent years as a result. In addition, government funding of other government agencies that fund research and development activities is subject to the political process, which is inherently fluid and unpredictable. Disruptions at the FDA and other agencies may also slow the time necessary for biologics or modifications to approved biologics to be reviewed and/or approved by necessary government agencies, which would adversely affect our business. For example, over the last several years, including for 35 days beginning on December 22, 2018, the U.S. government has shut down several times and certain regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, have had to furlough critical FDA employees and stop critical activities.

 

Additionally, as of June 23, 2020, the FDA noted it is continuing to ensure timely reviews of applications for medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic in line with its user fee performance goals; however, FDA may not be able to continue its current pace and approval timelines could be extended, including where a pre-approval inspection or an inspection of clinical sites is required and due to the COVID-19 pandemic and travel restrictions FDA is unable to complete such required inspections during the review period. In 2020, several companies announced receipt of complete response letters due to the FDA’s inability to complete required inspections for their applications. Regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may adopt similar restrictions or other policy measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and may experience delays in their regulatory activities. If the FDA becomes unable to continue its current level of performance, we could experience delays and setbacks for our product candidates and for any approvals we may seek which could adversely affect our business.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our rights to intellectual property for the development and commercialization of our product candidates are subject to the terms and conditions of licenses granted to us by others.

We are heavily reliant upon licenses to certain patent rights and proprietary technology from third parties that are important or necessary to the development of our technology and products, including technology related to our manufacturing process and our gene therapy product candidates. These and other licenses may not provide exclusive rights to use such intellectual property and technology in all relevant fields of use and in all territories in which we may wish to license our platform or develop or commercialize our technology and products in the future. As a result, we may not be able to prevent competitors from developing and commercializing competitive products in territories not included in our licenses.

Licenses to additional third-party technology that may be required for our licensing or development programs may not be available in the future or may not be available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, which could materially harm our business and financial condition.

In some circumstances, 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 that we license from third parties. If our licensors fail to maintain such patents, or lose rights to those patents or patent applications, the rights we have licensed may be reduced or eliminated and our right to develop and commercialize any of our products that are the subject of such licensed rights could be impacted. In addition to the foregoing, the risks associated with patent rights that we license from third parties will also apply to patent rights we may own in the future.

Furthermore, the research resulting in certain of our licensed patent rights and technology was funded 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 U.S. Any exercise by the government of such rights could harm our competitive position, business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are unable to obtain and maintain patent protection for products and related technology, or if the scope of the patent protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products and technology similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products may be harmed.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection in the U.S. and other countries with respect to our product candidates and our manufacturing technology. Our licensors have sought, and we may intend to seek, to protect our proprietary position by filing patent applications in the U.S. and abroad related to many of our novel technologies and product candidates that are important to our business.

The patent prosecution process is expensive, time-consuming and complex, and we may not be able to file, prosecute, maintain, enforce or license all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. In addition, certain patents in the field of gene therapy that may have otherwise potentially provided patent protection for certain of our product candidates may expire prior to commercial launch of our products; this patent expiration risk could be partially addressed by pursuing and receiving 10 years Biologics regulatory exclusivity from the FDA, which would grant protection in later years where patent expiration may not exist. In some cases, the work of certain academic researchers in the gene therapy field has entered the public domain, which we believe precludes our ability to obtain patent protection for certain inventions relating to such work. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our R&D output before it is too late to obtain patent protection.

We are party to intellectual property license agreements with several entities, each of which is important to our business, and we expect to enter into additional license agreements in the future. Our patent portfolio includes a number of patents and patent applications in-licensed pursuant to those license agreements, and those agreements impose, and we expect that future license agreements will impose various diligence, development and commercialization timelines, milestone obligations, payments and other obligations on us. If we or our licensors fail to comply with our obligations under these agreements, or we are subject to a bankruptcy, the licensor may have the right to terminate the license, in which event we could lose certain rights provided by the licenses, including our ability to market products covered by the license.

The patent position of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has, in recent years, been the subject of much litigation. As a result, the issuance, scope, validity, enforceability and commercial value of our patent rights are highly uncertain. Pending and future patent applications may not result in patents being issued which protect our technology or product candidates or which effectively prevent others from commercializing competitive technologies and product candidates. Changes in either the patent laws or interpretation of the patent laws in the U.S. and other countries may diminish the value of our patent rights or narrow the scope of our patent protection.

While we believe our intellectual property allows us to pursue our current development programs, several companies and academic institutions are pursuing alternate approaches to gene therapy and have built intellectual property around these approaches and methods. For example, Institut Pasteur controls a patent family related to vector elements for lentiviral-based gene therapy. These patents relate to an element that improves nuclear localization. While these patents began expiring in 2019, and will entirely expired by 2023, if our products were to launch before the fourth quarter of 2023, we may need to secure a license. In addition, we may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our technology and product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the U.S. 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 owned or any licensed patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for patent protection of such inventions.

Even if the patent applications we license or may own in the future do issue as patents, they may not issue in a form that will provide us with any meaningful protection, prevent competitors or other third parties from competing with us or otherwise provide us with any competitive advantage. Our competitors or other third parties may avail themselves of safe harbor under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments) to conduct research and clinical trials and may be able to circumvent our patent rights by developing similar or alternative technologies or products in a non-infringing manner.

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

If we breach our license agreements, it could have a material adverse effect on our commercialization efforts for our product candidates.

If we breach any of the agreements under which we license intellectual property relating to the use, development and commercialization rights to our product candidates or technology from third parties, we could lose license rights that are important to our business. Licensing of intellectual property is of critical importance to our business and involves complex legal, business and scientific issues. Disputes may arise between us and our licensors regarding intellectual property subject to a license agreement, including:

If disputes over intellectual property that we have in-licensed prevent or impair our ability to maintain our current licensing arrangements on acceptable terms, we may be unable to successfully develop and commercialize the affected product candidates. In addition, if disputes arise as to ownership of licensed intellectual property, our ability to pursue or enforce the licensed patent rights may be jeopardized. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability to commercialize our products could suffer.

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

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely upon unpatented trade secret protection, unpatented know-how and continuing technological innovation to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our contractors, collaborators, employees and consultants. Nonetheless, we may not be able to prevent the unauthorized disclosure or use of our technical know-how or other trade secrets by the parties to these agreements, however, despite the existence generally of confidentiality agreements and other contractual restrictions. 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. If any of the contractors, collaborators, employees and consultants who are parties to these agreements breaches or violates the terms of any of these agreements, we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach or violation. As a result, we could lose our trade secrets. Enforcing a claim that a third-party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets, like patent litigation, is expensive and time consuming and the outcome is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the United States are sometimes less willing or unwilling to protect trade secrets.

Our trade secrets could otherwise become known or be independently discovered by our competitors. Competitors could attempt to replicate some or all of the competitive advantages we derive from our development efforts, willfully infringe our intellectual property rights, design around our protected technology or develop their own competitive technologies that fall outside of our intellectual property rights. If any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent them, or those to whom they communicate it, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If our trade secrets are not adequately protected or sufficient to provide an advantage over our competitors, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating our trade secrets.

If we are unable to obtain or protect intellectual property rights related to our product candidates, we may not be able to compete effectively in our markets.

We rely upon a combination of patents, trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect the intellectual property related to our product candidates. The strength of patents in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical field involves complex legal and scientific questions and can be uncertain. The patent applications that we own, or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries. There is no assurance that all of the potentially relevant prior art relating to patents and patent applications owned or in-licensed by us have been found, which can invalidate a patent or prevent a patent from issuing from a pending patent application. Even if patents do successfully issue and even if such patents cover our product candidates, third parties may challenge their validity, enforceability or scope, which may result in such patents being narrowed or invalidated. Furthermore, even if they are unchallenged, patents and patent applications that we own or in-license may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates or prevent others from designing around our claims. Any of these outcomes could impair our ability to prevent competition from third parties, which may have an adverse impact on our business.

If the patent applications we hold or have in-licensed with respect to our programs or product candidates fail to issue, if their breadth or strength of protection is threatened, or if they fail to provide meaningful exclusivity for our product candidates, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to develop product candidates, and threaten our ability to commercialize, future products. In addition to our existing patent application filings, we expect to continue to file additional patent applications covering our product candidates. Further, we intend to pursue additional activities to protect the patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property covering our product candidates. We cannot offer any assurances about which, if any, patents will issue, the breadth of any such patent or whether any issued patents will be found invalid and unenforceable or will be threatened by third parties. Any successful opposition to these patents or any other patents owned by or licensed to us could deprive us of rights necessary for the successful commercialization of any product candidates that we may develop. Further, if we or the relevant licensor encounter delays in regulatory approvals, the period of time during which we could market a product candidate under patent protection could be reduced. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing, and some remain so until issued, we cannot be certain that we or the relevant licensor were the first to file any patent application related to a product candidate. Furthermore, if third parties have filed such patent applications, an interference proceeding in the United States can be initiated by a third-party to determine who was the first to invent any of the subject matter covered by the patent claims of our applications. In addition, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years after it is filed. Various extensions may be available however the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired for a product, we may be open to competition from generic medications.

In addition to the protection afforded by patents, we rely on trade secret protection and confidentiality agreements to protect proprietary know-how that is not patentable or that we elect not to patent, processes for which patents are difficult to enforce and any other elements of our product candidate discovery and development processes that involve proprietary know-how, information or technology that is not covered by patents. However, trade secrets can be difficult to protect. We seek to protect our proprietary technology and processes, in part, by entering into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors and contractors. We also seek to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of our data and trade secrets by maintaining physical security of our premises and physical and electronic security of our information technology systems. While we have confidence in these individuals, organizations and systems, agreements or security measures may be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any breach. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently discovered by competitors.

Although we expect all of our employees and consultants to assign their inventions to us, and all of our employees, consultants, advisors and any third parties who have access to our proprietary know-how, information or technology to enter into confidentiality agreements, we cannot provide any assurances that all such agreements have been duly executed or that our trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information will not be disclosed or that competitors will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets or independently develop substantially equivalent information and techniques. Misappropriation or unauthorized disclosure of our trade secrets could impair our competitive position and may have a material adverse effect on our business. Additionally, if the steps taken to maintain our trade secrets are deemed inadequate, we may have insufficient recourse against third parties for misappropriating our trade secret. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information.

Further, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent or in the same manner as the laws of the United States. As a result, we may encounter significant problems in protecting and defending our intellectual property, both in the United States and abroad. If we are unable to prevent material disclosure of the non-patented intellectual property related to our technologies to third parties, and there is no guarantee that we will have any such enforceable trade secret protection, it may not be able to establish or maintain a competitive advantage in our market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may not be successful in obtaining or maintaining necessary rights to gene therapy product components and processes for our development pipeline through acquisitions and in-licenses.

Presently we have rights to the intellectual property, through licenses from third parties and under patents that we own, to develop our gene therapy product candidates. Because our programs may involve additional product candidates that may require the use of proprietary rights held by third parties, the growth of our business will likely depend in part on our ability to acquire, in-license or use these proprietary rights. In addition, our product candidates may require specific formulations to work effectively and efficiently and these rights may be held by others. We may be unable to acquire or in-license any compositions, methods of use, processes or other third-party intellectual property rights from third parties that we identify. The licensing and acquisition of third-party intellectual property rights is a competitive area, and a number of more established companies are also pursuing strategies to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights that we may consider attractive. These established companies may have a competitive advantage over us due to their size, cash resources and greater clinical development and commercialization capabilities.

For example, we sometimes collaborate with U.S. and foreign academic institutions to accelerate our preclinical research or development under written agreements with these institutions. Typically, these institutions 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 right of first negotiation for intellectual property, we may be unable to negotiate a license within the specified time frame or under terms that are acceptable to it. If we are unable to do so, the institution may offer the intellectual property rights to other parties, potentially blocking our ability to pursue our program.

In addition, companies that perceive us to be a competitor may be unwilling to assign or license rights to us. We also may be unable to license or acquire third-party intellectual property rights on terms that would allow us to make an appropriate return on our investment. If we are unable to successfully obtain rights to required third-party intellectual property rights, our business, financial condition and prospects for growth could suffer.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents and/or applications will be due to be paid to the U.S. PTO and various governmental patent agencies outside of the United States in several stages over the lifetime of the patents and/or applications. We and, to our knowledge, our licensors have systems in place to remind us and them to pay these fees, and we and, to our knowledge, our licensors employ outside firms and rely on our and their respective outside counsel to pay these fees due to non-U.S. patent agencies. The U.S. PTO and various non-U.S. governmental patent agencies require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We and, to our knowledge, our licensors employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us and them comply, and 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 non-compliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. In such an event, our competitors might be able to enter the market and this circumstance would have a material adverse effect on our business.

Issued patents covering our product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged in court.

If we or one of our licensing partners initiated legal proceedings against a third-party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that the patent covering our product candidate is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, including patent eligible subject matter, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the U.S. PTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. Third parties may also raise similar claims before administrative bodies in the United States or abroad, even outside the context of litigation. Such mechanisms include re-examination, post grant review, and equivalent proceedings in foreign jurisdictions (e.g., opposition proceedings). Such proceedings could result in revocation or amendment to our or our licensing partners’ patents in such a way that they no longer cover our product candidates. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on our product candidates. Such a loss of patent protection would have a material adverse impact on our business.

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

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success is heavily dependent on intellectual property, particularly patents. Obtaining and enforcing patents in the biotechnology industry involves both technological and legal complexity, and therefore obtaining and enforcing biotechnology patents is costly, time-consuming and inherently uncertain. Congress may pass patent reform legislation that is unfavorable to us.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, narrowing the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances and weakening the rights of patent owners in certain situations. Depending on future actions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. courts, the USPTO and the relevant law-making bodies in other countries, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

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

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

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

We may incur substantial costs as a result of litigation or other proceedings relating to patent and other intellectual property rights and we may be unable to protect our rights to, or use, our technology.

If we choose to engage in legal action to prevent a third-party from using the inventions claimed in our patents or patents which we license, that third-party has the right to ask the court to rule that these patents are invalid and/or should not be enforced against that third-party. These lawsuits are expensive and would consume time and other resources even if we were successful in stopping the infringement of these patents. In addition, there is a risk that the court will decide that these patents are not valid and that we do not have the right to stop the other party from using the inventions. There is also the risk that, even if the validity of these patents is upheld, the court will refuse to stop the other party on the ground that such other party’s activities do not infringe our rights to these patents.

Furthermore, a third-party may claim that we are using inventions covered by the third-party’s patent rights and may go to court to stop us from engaging in our normal operations and activities, including making or selling our product candidates. These lawsuits are costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of managerial and technical personnel. There is a risk that a court would decide that we are infringing the third-party’s patents and would order us to stop the activities covered by the patents. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us to pay the other party damages for having violated the other party’s patents. The biotechnology industry has produced a proliferation of patents, and it is not always clear to industry participants which patents cover various types of products or methods of use. The coverage of patents is subject to interpretation by the courts, and the interpretation is not always uniform. If we are sued for patent infringement, we would need to demonstrate that our products or methods of use either do not infringe the patent claims of the relevant patent and/or that the patent claims are invalid. Proving invalidity, in particular, is difficult since it requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity enjoyed by issued patents. Our competitors have filed, and may in the future file, patent applications covering technology similar to ours. Any such patent application may have priority over our in-licensed patent applications and could further require us to obtain rights to issued patents covering such technologies. If another party has filed a U.S. patent application on inventions similar to ours, we may have to participate in an interference proceeding declared by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, to determine priority of invention in the U.S. The costs of these proceedings could be substantial, and it is possible that such efforts would be unsuccessful, resulting in a loss of our United States patent position with respect to such inventions.

Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. In addition, any uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of any litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to raise the funds necessary to continue our operations.

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

We may also be subject to claims that former employees, collaborators or other third parties have an ownership interest in our patents or other intellectual property. We may have in the future, ownership disputes arising, for example, from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship or ownership. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Such an outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Third-party claims of intellectual property infringement may prevent or delay our development and commercialization efforts.

Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the patents and proprietary rights of third parties. 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, ex parte reexaminations, post-grant review, and inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or U.S. PTO, and corresponding foreign patent offices. Numerous U.S. and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, exist in the fields in which we are pursuing development candidates. As the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries expand 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.

Third parties may assert that we are employing their proprietary technology without authorization. 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. Because patent applications can take many years to issue, there may be currently pending patent applications which may later result in issued patents that our product candidates may infringe. In addition, third parties may obtain patents in the future and claim that use of our technologies infringes upon these patents. If any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover the manufacturing process of any of our product candidates, any molecules formed during the manufacturing process or any final product itself, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to commercialize such product candidate unless we obtained a license under the applicable patents, or until such patents expire. Similarly, if any third-party patents were held by a court of competent jurisdiction to cover aspects of our formulations, processes for manufacture or methods of use, including combination therapy, the holders of any such patents may be able to block our ability to develop and commercialize the applicable product candidate unless we obtained a license or until such patent expires. In either case, such a license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Parties making claims against us may obtain injunctive or other equitable relief, which could effectively block our ability to further develop and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of employee resources from our business. In the event of a successful claim of infringement against us, we may have to pay substantial damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for willful infringement, pay royalties, redesign our infringing products or obtain one or more licenses from third parties, which may be impossible or require substantial time and monetary expenditure.

Risks Related to Personnel and Expansion of our Company

Our business could suffer if it loses the services of, or fails to attract, key personnel.

We are highly dependent upon the efforts of our senior management, including our Chief Executive Officer, Gaurav Shah, MD; our Chief Medical Officer and Head of Clinical Development, Jonathan Schwartz, MD; our President and Chief Operating Officer, Head of Development, Kinnari Patel, PharmD, MBA; and our Chief Financial Officer, Carlos Garcia-Parada. The loss of the services of these individuals and other members of our senior management could delay or prevent the achievement of research, development, marketing, or product commercialization objectives. Our employment arrangements with the key personnel are “at-will.” We do not maintain any “key-man” insurance policies on any of the key employees nor do we intend to obtain such insurance. In addition, due to the specialized scientific nature of our business, we are highly dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific and technical personnel and consultants. There is intense competition among major pharmaceutical and chemical companies, specialized biotechnology firms and universities and other research institutions for qualified personnel in the areas of our operations, and we may be unsuccessful in attracting and retaining these personnel.

Our employees, principal investigators, consultants and commercial partners may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including non-compliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of fraud or other misconduct by our employees, consultants and commercial partners. Misconduct by these parties could include intentional failures to comply with the regulations of the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, provide accurate information to the FDA and non-U.S. regulators, comply with healthcare fraud and abuse laws and regulations in the U.S. and abroad, report financial information or data accurately or disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the healthcare industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Such misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained during clinical studies, which could result in regulatory sanctions and cause serious harm to our reputation or could cause regulatory agencies not to approve our product candidates. We have a code of business ethics and conduct applicable to all employees, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee or third-party misconduct, 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 comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

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

We employ individuals who were previously employed at universities or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. Although we endeavor to ensure that our employees, consultants and independent contractors do not use the proprietary information or know-how of others in their work for us, we may be subject to claims that we or our employees, consultants or independent contractors have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed intellectual property, including trade secrets or other proprietary information, of any of our employees’ former employers or other third parties. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights or personnel, which could adversely impact our business. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

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

As of February 22, 2021, we had 101 full-time employees. As our business activities expand, we may expand our full-time employee base and hire more consultants and contractors. Our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of its attention away from day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, operational setbacks, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity among remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our growth, our expenses may increase more than expected our ability to generate and/or grow revenues could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy.

Given our commercial relationships outside of the United States, in particular in the European Union, a variety of risks associated with international operations could harm our business.

We engage in various commercial relationships outside the U.S. and we may commercialize our product candidates outside of the U.S. In many foreign countries, it is common for others to engage in business practices that are prohibited by U.S. laws and regulations applicable to us, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Although we may implement policies and procedures specifically designed to comply with these laws and policies, there can be no assurance that our employees, contractors and agents will comply with these laws and policies. If we are unable to successfully manage the challenges of international expansion and operations, our business and operating results could be harmed.

We may be, and to the extent we commercialize our product candidates outside the United States, expect to be subject to various risks associated with operating internationally, including:

These and related risks could materially harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Future acquisitions of businesses or products, formations of strategic alliances or joint ventures with third parties could disrupt our business and harm our financial condition and operating results.

We may acquire additional businesses or products, form strategic alliances or create joint ventures with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our existing business. If we acquire businesses with promising markets or technologies, we may not be able to realize the benefit of acquiring such businesses if we are unable to successfully integrate them with our existing operations and company culture. We may encounter numerous difficulties in developing, manufacturing and marketing any new products resulting from a strategic alliance or acquisition that delay or prevent us from realizing their expected benefits or enhancing our business. We cannot assure you that, following any such acquisition, we will achieve the expected synergies to justify the transaction. The risks we face in connection with any anticipated business or product acquisitions, include:

Our failure to address these risks or other problems encountered in connection with our past or future acquisitions or strategic alliances could cause us to fail to realize the anticipated benefits of these transactions, cause us to incur unanticipated liabilities and harm the business generally. There is also a risk that future acquisitions will result in the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, amortization expenses or incremental operating expenses, any of which could harm our financial condition or operating results.

Future sales of our common stock in the public market could cause the market price of our common stock to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception or the perception that such sales may occur, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Our outstanding shares of common stock may be freely sold in the public market at any time to the extent permitted by Rules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or to the extent such shares have already been registered under the Securities Act and are held by non-affiliates of ours. In addition, certain of our employees, executive officers, directors and affiliated stockholders have entered or may enter into Rule 10b5-1 plans providing for sales of shares of our common stock from time to time. Under a Rule 10b5-1 plan, a broker executes trades pursuant to parameters established by the employee, director or officer when entering into the plan, without further direction from the employee, officer, director or affiliated stockholder. A Rule 10b5-1 plan may be amended or terminated in some circumstances. Our employees, executive officers, directors and affiliated stockholders also may buy or sell additional shares outside of a Rule 10b5-1 plan when they are not in possession of material, nonpublic information. In addition, in the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock or other equity or debt securities convertible into common stock in connection with a financing, acquisition, litigation settlement, employee arrangements or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing stockholders and could cause our stock price to decline.

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

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

The price of our common stock may be volatile and fluctuate substantially, which could result in substantial losses for our stockholders.

Our stock price is likely to be volatile. The stock market in general, and the market for biopharmaceutical companies in particular, has experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. As a result of this volatility, our stockholders may not be able to sell their shares of common stock at or above the price they paid for their shares. The market price for our common stock may be influenced by many factors, including:

If our quarterly operating results fall below the expectations of investors or securities analysts, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Furthermore, any quarterly fluctuations in our operating results may, in turn, cause the price of our stock to fluctuate substantially. We believe that quarterly comparisons of our financial results are not necessarily meaningful and should not be relied upon as an indication of our future performance.

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class-action litigation often has been instituted against that company. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could cause us to incur substantial costs to defend such claims and divert management’s attention and resources, which could seriously harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

RTW Investments, LP, our largest stockholder, may have the ability to significantly influence all matters submitted to stockholders for approval.

RTW Investments, LP (“RTW”), in the aggregate, beneficially owns approximately 28.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock. This concentration of voting power gives RTW the power to significantly influence all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, as well as our management and affairs. For example, RTW could significantly influence the election of directors and approval of any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, this may prevent or discourage unsolicited acquisition proposals or offers for our capital stock that you may believe are in your best interest as one of our stockholders.

Because we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable future, capital appreciation, if any, will be stockholders’ sole source of gain.

We have never declared or paid cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all future earnings, if any, to finance the growth and development of our business. In addition, the terms of any future debt agreements may preclude us from paying dividends. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common stock will be stockholders’ sole source of gain for the foreseeable future.

Effective as of December 31, 2020, we are a large accelerated filer, which will increase our costs and demand on management.  As of December 31, 2020, we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. or  a “smaller reporting company” as defined in the Exchange Act.

As a large accelerated filer, we will be subject to certain disclosure and compliance requirements that apply to other public companies but did not previously apply to us due to our status as an emerging growth company. These requirements include, but are not limited to:

We expect that compliance with the additional requirements of being a large accelerated filer will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and cause management and other personnel to divert attention from operational and other business matters to devote substantial time to public company reporting requirements. In addition, if we are not able to comply with changing requirements in a timely manner, the market price of our stock could decline and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the stock exchange on which our common stock is listed, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities, which would require additional financial and management resources.

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal control over financial reporting, our ability to produce accurate and timely financial statements could be impaired, which could harm our operating results, investors’ views of us and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

As a public company, we are required to maintain internal control over financial reporting and to report any material weaknesses in such internal control. Beginning in 2021, we will be required to furnish a report by management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“Section 404”). Pursuant to Section 404 our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Preparing such attestation report and the cost of compliance with reporting requirements that we have not previously implemented will increase our expenses and require significant management time. Investors may find our common stock less attractive because of the additional compliance costs. 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.

The rules governing the standards that must be met for management and our independent registered public accounting firm to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing, and possible remediation. In connection with our and our independent registered public accounting firm’s evaluations of our internal control over financial reporting, we may need to upgrade systems, including information technology, implement additional financial and management controls, reporting systems, and procedures, and hire additional accounting and finance staff.

Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, any testing by us or our independent registered public accounting firm conducted in connection with Section 404 may reveal deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses or that may require prospective or retroactive changes to our financial statements or identify other areas for further attention or improvement. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common stock. Internal control deficiencies could also result in a restatement of our financial results in the future. We could become subject to stockholder or other third-party litigation, as well as investigations by the SEC, the New York Stock Exchange, or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources and could result in fines, trading suspensions, payment of damages or other remedies. Further, any delay in compliance with the auditor attestation provisions of Section 404 could subject us to a variety of administrative sanctions, including ineligibility for short-form resale registration, action by the SEC and the suspension or delisting of our common stock, which could reduce the trading price of our common stock and could harm our business.

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

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

Moreover, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits a person who owns in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us for a period of three years after the date of the transaction in which the person acquired in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock, unless the merger or combination is approved in a prescribed manner. Any of these provisions of our charter documents or Delaware law could, under certain circumstances, depress the market price of our common stock.

Our internal computer systems, or those of our third-party collaborators or other contractors, may fail or suffer security breaches, which could result in a material disruption of our development programs.

Our internal computer systems and those of our current and any future collaborators and other consultants and contractors are vulnerable to damage from computer viruses, unauthorized access, cyberattacks, data breaches, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication and electrical failures. While we have not experienced any such material system failure, accident, attack or security breach to date, if such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our development programs and our business operations, whether due to a loss of our trade secrets or other proprietary information or other similar disruptions. For example, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. To the extent that any disruption or security breach were to result in a loss of, or damage to, our data or applications, or inappropriate disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, we could incur liability, our competitive position could be harmed and the further development and commercialization of our product candidates could be delayed.

The increasing use of social media platforms presents new risks and challenges.

Social media is increasingly being used to communicate about our clinical development programs and the diseases our product candidates are being developed to treat. We intend to utilize appropriate social media in connection with our commercialization efforts following approval of our product candidates. Social media practices in the biopharmaceutical industry continue to evolve and regulations relating to such use are not always clear. This evolution creates uncertainty and risk of noncompliance with regulations applicable to our business. For example, patients may use social media channels to report an alleged adverse event. When such disclosures occur, there is a risk that we fail to monitor and comply with applicable adverse event reporting obligations, or we may not be able to defend our business or the public’s legitimate interests in the face of the political and market pressures generated by social media due to restrictions on what we may say about our investigational products. There is also a risk of inappropriate disclosure of sensitive information or negative or inaccurate posts or comments about us on any social networking website, or a risk that a post on a social networking website by any of our employees may be construed as inappropriate promotion. If any of these events were to occur or we otherwise fail to comply with applicable regulations, we could incur liability, face regulatory actions, or incur other harm to our business.

None.

Corporate Headquarters, R&D and GMP Manufacturing Facility

Rocket’s corporate headquarters is located in Cranbury, New Jersey, in a leased facility consisting of 103,720 square feet of space including areas for offices, process development, research and development laboratories and 50,000 square feet dedicated to AAV Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) manufacturing to support our pipeline, which will begin manufacturing in 2021. A smaller area within this facility was originally leased in August 2018, and the lease was amended in June 2019 to include the full building (such lease, as amended, the “NJ Lease Agreement) The NJ Lease Agreement has an initial term which ends in 2034, with an option to renew for an additional two consecutive five-year renewal terms.

In addition, we lease space in New York, New York at the Empire State Building, which consists of approximately 6,600 square feet of office space under a lease that expires in July 2021.

Facility in Lexington, Massachusetts

 

We currently lease approximately 15,000 square feet of office space in Lexington, Massachusetts under a lease that expires in February 2023. This space is the former headquarters of Inotek and is subleased through the remainder of the lease term.

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

Not applicable.

PART II

Market Information

Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Select under the symbol “RCKT”. Effective December 24, 2018, we began trading on the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index (Nasdaq: NBI).  On February 22, 2021, the last reported sale price for our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market was $55.73 per share.

Stock Performance Graph

The graph set forth below compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020 with the cumulative total return of (a) the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index and (b) the Nasdaq Composite Index, over the same period. This graph assumes the investment of $100 on January 1, 2016 of our common stock, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index and the Nasdaq Composite Index and assumes the reinvestment of dividends, if any.

The comparisons shown in the graph below are based upon historical data. We caution that the stock price performance shown in the graph below is not necessarily indicative of, nor is it intended to forecast, the potential future performance of our common stock.

Stockholders

As of February 22, 2021, there were 13 stockholders of record, which excludes stockholders whose shares were held in nominee or street name by brokers.  We completed a reverse merger which closed on January 4, 2018.  The stock performance information prior to January 4, 2018, represents the share price of our predecessor company Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation prior to the reverse merger as adjusted for a 4 for 1 reverse split completed upon the reverse merger.

Dividend Policy

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our capital stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings, if any, to fund the development and expansion of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay cash dividends will be made at the discretion of our board of directors. In addition, the terms of our outstanding indebtedness restrict our ability to pay cash dividends, and any future indebtedness that we may incur could preclude us from paying cash dividends. Investors should not purchase our common stock with the expectation of receiving cash dividends.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

None

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

There were no repurchases of our common stock during the year ended December 31, 2020.

Item 6.          Selected Financial Data

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements, related notes and other financial information included elsewhere in this Annual Report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties such as our plans, objectives, expectations, and intentions. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those identified below and those discussed in “Risk Factors” included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to the terms the “combined company,” “Rocket,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly known as Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation) and its subsidiaries. The term “Rocket Ltd” refers to privately-held Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. prior to its merger with Rome Merger Sub, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The term “Inotek” refers to Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries prior to the reverse merger. For accounting purposes, the reverse merger is treated as a “reverse acquisition” under U.S. GAAP and Rocket Ltd is considered the accounting acquirer. Accordingly, the historical financial information included in this Annual Report, unless otherwise indicated or as the context otherwise requires, is that of Rocket Ltd prior to the reverse merger.

Introduction

We are a clinical-stage, multi-platform biotechnology company focused on the development of first, only and best-in-class gene therapies, with direct on-target mechanism of action and clear clinical endpoints, for rare and devastating diseases. We have four clinical-stage ex vivo lentiviral vector (“LVV”) programs.  These include programs for Fanconi Anemia (“FA”), a genetic defect in the bone marrow that reduces production of blood cells or promotes the production of faulty blood cells, Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency-I (“LAD-I”), a genetic disorder that causes the immune system to malfunction, Pyruvate Kinase Deficiency (“PKD”), a rare red blood cell autosomal recessive disorder that results in chronic non-spherocytic hemolytic anemia and Infantile Malignant Osteopetrosis (“IMO”), a genetic disorder characterized by increased bone density and bone mass secondary to impaired bone resorption. Of these, both the Phase 2 FA program and the Phase 1/2 LAD-I program are in registration-enabling studies in the United States (“U.S.”) and Europe (“EU”). In addition, in the U.S., we have a clinical stage in vivo adeno-associated virus (“AAV”) program for Danon disease, a multi-organ lysosomal-associated disorder leading to early death due to heart failure. We have global commercialization and development rights to all of these product candidates under royalty-bearing license agreements. Additional work on a gene therapy program for the less common FA subtypes C and G is ongoing.

Recent Developments

On February 20, 2020 and June 5, 2020, we entered into separate, privately negotiated exchange agreements (the “Exchange Agreements”) with certain holders of the 2021 Convertible Notes. Pursuant to the Exchange Agreements, on February 20, 2020, we exchanged approximately $39.35 million aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Convertible Notes (representing approximately 76% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the 2021 Convertible Notes) for (a) approximately $39.35 million aggregate principal amount of 6.25% Convertible Senior Notes due August 2022 (the “2022 Convertible Notes”) (an exchange ratio equal to 1.00 2022 Convertible Note per exchanged 2021 Convertible Note) and (b) $0.1 million to pay the accrued and unpaid interest on the exchanged 2021 Convertible Notes from February 1, 2020, to February 20, 2020, the closing date of the February 20, 2020 exchange transactions. Additionally, we repurchased 3,000 shares of its common stock that have been retired for an aggregate amount of $72 from certain holders of the 2021 Convertible Notes participating in the exchange transactions in privately negotiated, private transactions.

On June 12, 2020, we entered into an exchange agreement (substantially in the form of the exchange agreement we entered into with holders in prior exchange transactions for our 2021 Convertible Notes with holders of the 2021 Convertible Notes, wherein we exchanged $7.5 million aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Convertible Notes for (a) $7.5 million aggregate principal amount of the 2022 Convertible Notes (an exchange ratio equal to 1.00 2022 Convertible Notes per exchanged 2021 Convertible Note) and (b) approximately $11 to pay the accrued and unpaid interest on the exchanged 2021 Convertible Notes from, and including, February 1, 2020, to, but excluding, the closing date of the exchange transaction, adjusted to take into account the unearned accrued interest on the 2022 Convertible Notes from, and including, February 20, 2020, to, but excluding, the closing date of the exchange transaction. The 2022 Convertible Notes were issued in a private placement exempt from registration in reliance on Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act.

On November 12, 2020, the CIRM awarded Rocket up to $3.7 million under a CLIN2 grant award to support the clinical development of its lentiviral vector (LVV)-based gene therapy, RP-L401, for the treatment of IMO.  We received a $1.1 million cash advance on January 4, 2021 related to the CIRM IMO award and recorded a receivable, included in prepaid and other assets in the consolidated balance sheet, and a reduction of research and development expenses of $0.9 million.

On December 14, 2020, we completed a public offering of 5,339,286 shares of common stock, which includes the full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase an additional 696,428 shares of our common stock, at a public offering price of $56.00 per share. The gross proceeds to Rocket from the public offering were approximately $299.0 million before deducting $18.2 million of offering costs, commissions, legal and other expenses for net proceeds from the offering of $280.8 million.

In  December, 2020, $8.5 million principal amount, representing a carrying value of $7.6 million of the 2022 Convertible Notes were converted into 298,562 shares of common stock.

Financial Overview

Since our inception, we have devoted substantially all of our resources to organizing and staffing the company, business planning, raising capital, acquiring or discovering product candidates and securing related intellectual property rights, conducting discovery, R&D activities for our product candidates and planning for potential commercialization. We do not have any products approved for sale and have not generated any revenue from product sales. From inception through December 31, 2020, we raised net cash proceeds of approximately $654.1 million from investors through both equity and convertible debt financing to fund operating activities.

Revenue

To date, we have not generated any revenue from any sources, including from product sales, and we do not expect to generate any revenue from the sale of products in the near future. If our development efforts for product candidates are successful and result in regulatory approval or license agreements with third parties, we may generate revenue in the future from product sales.

Research and Development Expenses

Our R&D program expenses consist primarily of external costs incurred for the development of our product candidates. These expenses include:

We recognize external development costs based on contractual payment schedules aligned with program activities, invoices for work incurred, and milestones which correspond with costs incurred by the third parties. Nonrefundable advance payments for goods or services to be received in the future for use in R&D activities are recorded as prepaid expenses.

Our direct R&D expenses are tracked on a program-by-program basis for product candidates and consist primarily of external costs, such as research collaborations and third-party manufacturing agreements associated with our preclinical research, process development, manufacturing, and clinical development activities. Our direct R&D expenses by program also include fees incurred under license agreements. Our personnel, non-program and unallocated program expenses include costs associated with activities performed by our internal R&D organization and generally benefit multiple programs. These costs are not separately allocated by product candidate and consist primarily of:

Our R&D activities are central to our business model. Product candidates in later stages of clinical development generally have higher development costs than those in earlier stages of clinical development. As a result, we expect that R&D expenses will increase substantially over the next several years as we increase personnel costs, including stock-based compensation, support ongoing clinical studies, seek to achieve proof-of-concept in additional product candidates, advance preclinical programs to clinical programs, and prepare regulatory filings for product candidates.

We cannot determine with certainty the duration and costs to complete current or future clinical studies of product candidates or if, when, or to what extent we will generate revenues from the commercialization and sale of any of its product candidates that obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. The duration, costs, and timing of clinical studies and development of product candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including:

We expect R&D expenses to increase for the foreseeable future as we continue to invest in R&D activities related to developing product candidates, including investments in manufacturing, as our programs advance into later stages of development and as we conduct additional clinical trials. The process of conducting the necessary clinical research to obtain regulatory approval is costly and time-consuming, and the successful development of product candidates is highly uncertain. As a result, we are unable to determine the duration and completion costs of R&D projects or when and to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates.

Our future R&D expenses will depend on the clinical success of our product candidates, as well as ongoing assessments of the commercial potential of such product candidates. In addition, we cannot forecast with any degree of certainty which product candidates may be subject to future collaborations, when such arrangements will be secured, if at all, and to what degree such arrangements would affect our development plans and capital requirements. We expect our R&D expenses to increase in future periods for the foreseeable future as we seek to complete development of our product candidates.

The successful development and commercialization of our product candidates is highly uncertain. This is due to the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with product development and commercialization, including the uncertainty of:

A change in the outcome of any of these variables with respect to the development of our product candidates that we may develop could mean a significant change in the costs and timing associated with the development of our product candidates. For example, if the FDA or another regulatory authority were to require us to conduct clinical trials or other testing beyond those that we currently contemplate for the completion of clinical development of any of our product candidates that we may develop 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 of that product candidate.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses consist primarily of salaries and related benefit costs for personnel, including stock-based compensation and travel expenses for our employees in executive, operational, finance, legal, business development, and human resource functions. In addition, other significant general and administrative expenses include professional fees for legal, consulting, investor and public relations, auditing and tax services as well as other expenses for rent and maintenance of facilities, insurance and other supplies used in general and administrative activities. We expect general and administrative expenses to increase for the foreseeable future due to anticipated increases in headcount to support the continued advancement of our product candidates. We also anticipate that as we continue to operate as a public company with increasing complexity, we will continue to incur increased accounting, audit, legal, regulatory, compliance and director and officer insurance costs as well as investor and public relations expenses.

Interest Expense

Interest expense is related to the 2021 Convertible Notes, which mature in August 2021, and the 2022 Convertible Notes, which mature in August 2022, as well as the financing lease obligation for our Cranbury, NJ facility.

Interest Income

Interest income is related to interest earned from investments and cash equivalents.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2020 and 2019

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019:

(in thousands)

Research and Development Expenses

R&D expenses increased $47.8 million to $106.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to the year ended December 31, 2019.  The increase was primarily the result of an increase in new research agreements totaling $26.5 million in non-cash expenses, an increase in manufacturing consumables of $5.5 million, an increase in compensation expense of $6.2 million due to increased R&D headcount; an increase in clinical trials expense of $3.9 million, an increase in amortization expense related to the Cranbury, NJ lease of $1.7 million, and an increase in lab supplies of $2.0 million, offset by the CIRM grant of $1.1 million which was offset against LAD-1 R&D expenses, and a decrease in research agreements of $0.6 million primarily due to the $1.4 million license payment for the Stanford University’s Laboratory for Cell and Gene Therapy (“LCGM”) facility made in 2019.

General and Administrative Expenses

G&A expenses increased $10.4 million to $27.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to the year ended December 31, 2019. The increase in G&A expenses was primarily driven by fees of $2.0 million incurred in connection with the February and June 2020 convertible notes exchange, an increase in non-cash stock compensation expense of $4.2 million, an increase in compensation and benefits of $2.5 million due to increased G&A headcount and an increase in office and administrative expense of $1.0 million due primarily to increased insurance expense for the year ended December 31, 2020 as compared to 2019.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net was $5.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to other income (expense), net of $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. The change was primarily due to a decrease in interest income related to our investments of $2.8 million due to lower interest rates, an increase in interest expense of $1.0 million, and a decrease in research and development incentives due to the receipt of the New York City biotech tax credit in 2019, which was phased out by New York City and did not reoccur in 2020.

Comparison of the Years Ended December 31, 2019 and 2018

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018:

(in thousands)

Research and Development Expenses

R&D expenses increased $5.4 million to $58.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase in R&D expenses was primarily a result of increases in clinical trial expenses of $6.3 million, an increase in compensation expense of $2.9 million due to increased R&D headcount, an increase in research agreements of $1.7 million, offset by a decrease in license expense of $5.6 million primarily due to the $7.0 million REGENXBIO Inc. license fee paid in 2018 which did not reoccur in 2019.

General and Administrative Expenses

G&A expenses decreased $0.4 million to $17.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the year ended December 31, 2018. Rocket incurred certain one-time stock compensation and severance termination expenses in Q-1, 2018 of $5.3 million related to the reverse merger with Inotek. Excluding the $5.3 million one-time reverse merger related G&A expenses incurred in 2018, G&A expenses would have increased $5.0 million primarily due to an increase in stock compensation expense of $4.5 million and G&A compensation expense of $1.0 million, offset by a decrease in legal fees of $0.5 million.

Other Income (Expense), Net

Other income (expense), net was $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to other income (expense), net of $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The change was primarily due to an increase in interest income of $1.7 million and an increase in accretion income of $0.4 million. The increase in interest income for the year ended December 31, 2019, was due to the Company’s investment portfolio which increased primarily due to the proceeds from financings and higher interest rates reflected in the first half of 2019.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

We have not generated any revenue and have incurred losses since inception. Operations of the Company are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, including, among others, uncertainty of drug candidate development, technological uncertainty, uncertainty regarding patents and proprietary rights, having no commercial manufacturing experience, marketing or sales capability or experience, dependency on key personnel, compliance with government regulations and the need to obtain additional financing. Drug candidates currently under development will require significant additional R&D efforts, including extensive preclinical and clinical testing and regulatory approval, prior to commercialization. These efforts require significant amounts of additional capital, adequate personnel infrastructure and extensive compliance-reporting capabilities.

Our drug candidates are in the development and clinical stage. There can be no assurance that our R&D will be successfully completed, that adequate protection for our intellectual property will be obtained, that any products developed will obtain necessary government approval or that any approved products will be commercially viable. Even if our product development efforts are successful, it is uncertain when, if ever, we will generate significant revenue from product sales. We operate in an environment of rapid change in technology and substantial competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

Our consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the basis of continuity of operations, realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the ordinary course of business. Rocket has incurred net losses and negative cash flows from its operations each year since inception. Rocket incurred net losses of $139.7 million, $77.3 million, and $74.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively. We have experienced negative cash flows from operations and has an accumulated deficit of $322.8 million as of December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2020, we had $482.7 million of cash, cash equivalents and investments. Rocket expects such resources would be sufficient to fund its operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements into the second half of 2023. Rocket has funded its operations primarily through the sale of its equity and debt securities.

On November 12, 2020, the CIRM awarded Rocket up to $3.7 million under a CLIN2 grant award to support the clinical development of its lentiviral vector (LVV)-based gene therapy, RP-L401, for the treatment of IMO.  We received a $1.1 million cash advance on January 4, 2021 related to the CIRM IMO award and recorded a receivable, included in prepaid and other assets in the consolidated balance sheet, and a reduction of research and development expenses of $0.9 million.

In the longer term, our future viability is dependent on its ability to generate cash from operating activities or to raise additional capital to finance its operations. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, our stockholders will experience dilution. Any future debt financing into which we enter may impose upon us additional covenants that restrict our operations, including limitations on our ability to incur liens or additional debt, pay dividends, repurchase our common stock, make certain investments and engage in certain merger, consolidation, or asset sale transactions. Any debt financing or additional equity that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our stockholders. Our failure to raise capital as and when needed could have a negative impact on its financial condition and ability to pursue its business strategies.

Convertible Notes Payable

On January 4, 2018, in connection with the reverse merger with Inotek, Inotek’s obligations under its outstanding convertible notes, with an aggregate principal value of $52.0 million, were assumed by us (the “2021 Convertible Notes”). The 2021 Convertible Notes were issued in 2016 and mature on August 1, 2021 (“Maturity Date”). The 2021 Convertible Notes are unsecured, accrue interest at a rate of 5.75% per annum and interest is payable semi-annually on February 1 and August 1 of each year. Each holder of a 2021 Convertible Note (the “Holder”) has the option until the close of business on the second business day immediately preceding the Maturity Date to convert all, or any portion, of the 2021 Convertible Notes held by it at a conversion rate of 31.1876 shares of the Company’s common stock per $1 principal amount of 2021 Convertible Notes (the “Conversion Rate”) which is $32.08 per share. The Conversion Rate is subject to adjustment from time to time upon the occurrence of certain events, including the issuance of stock dividends and payment of cash dividends.

 

On February 20, 2020 and June 5, 2020, we entered into separate, privately negotiated exchange agreements (the “Exchange Agreements”) with certain holders of the 2021 Convertible Notes. Pursuant to the Exchange Agreements, on February 20, 2020, we exchanged approximately $39.35 million aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Convertible Notes (representing approximately 76% of the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the 2021 Convertible Notes) for (a) approximately $39.35 million aggregate principal amount of 6.25% Convertible Senior Notes due August 2022 (the “2022 Convertible Notes”) (an exchange ratio equal to 1.00 2022 Convertible Note per exchanged 2021 Convertible Note) and (b) $0.1 million to pay the accrued and unpaid interest on the exchanged 2021 Convertible Notes from February 1, 2020, to February 20, 2020, the closing date of the February 20, 2020 exchange transactions. Additionally, we repurchased 3,000 shares of its common stock that have been retired for an aggregate amount of $72 from certain holders of the 2021 Convertible Notes participating in the exchange transactions in privately negotiated, private transactions.

Also pursuant to the Exchange Agreements, on June 12, 2020, we exchanged $7.5 million aggregate principal amount of the 2021 Convertible Notes for (a) $7.5 million aggregate principal amount of its newly issued 2022 Convertible Notes (an exchange ratio equal to 1.00 2022 Convertible Notes per exchanged 2021 Convertible Notes) and (b) approximately $11 to pay the accrued and unpaid interest on the exchanged 2021 Convertible Notes from, and including, February 1, 2020, to, but excluding, the closing date of the exchange transaction, adjusted to take into account the unearned accrued interest on the 2022 Convertible Notes from, and including, February 20, 2020, to, but excluding, the closing date of the exchange transaction.

 

In  December, 2020, $8.5 million principal amount, representing a carrying value of $7.6 million of the 2022 Convertible Notes were converted into 298,562 shares of common stock.

 

The conversion rate for the 2022 Convertible Notes is initially 31.1876 shares of our common stock per $1,000 principal amount of 2022 Notes, which is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $32.06 per share of common stock and is subject to adjustment under the terms of the New Notes. We may redeem for cash all or any portion of the 2022 Notes, at its option, if the last reported sale price of its common stock is equal to or greater than 130% of the conversion price then in effect for at least 20 trading days (whether or not consecutive) during any 30 consecutive trading day period (including the last trading day of such period) ending within the five trading days immediately preceding the date on which we provides written notice of redemption. The 2022 Convertible Notes Indenture contains customary terms and covenants and events of default.

Cash Flows

The following table summarizes our cash flows for each of the periods presented:

(in thousands)

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

During the year ended December 31, 2020, operating activities used $74.6 million of cash, primarily resulting from our net loss of $139.7 million and net changes in our operating assets and liabilities of $15.0 million, partially offset by net non-cash charges of $50.0 million, including expenses in connection with the issuance of warrant of $26.6 million, stock-based compensation expense of $18.6 million and accretion of discount on convertible notes of $2.8 million. Changes in our operating assets and liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2020 consisted of an increase in finance lease liability of $5.6 million, an increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $6.4 million and an increase in prepaid expenses and other assets of $1.5 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, operating activities used $64.7 million of cash, primarily resulting from our net loss of $77.3 million and net changes in our operating assets and liabilities of $3.7 million, partially offset by net non-cash charges of $16.3 million, including stock-based compensation expense of $13.4 million and accretion of discount on convertible notes of $3.6 million. Changes in our operating assets and liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2019 consisted of a decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $2.7 million and an increase in prepaid expenses and other assets of $0.9 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, operating activities used $53.8 million of cash, primarily resulting from our net loss of $74.5 million and net changes in our operating assets and liabilities of $4.4 million, partially offset by net non-cash charges of $16.3 million, including stock-based compensation expense of $13.6 million and accretion of discount on convertible notes of $3.1 million. Changes in our operating assets and liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2018 consisted of an increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses of $5.9 million, offset by an increase in prepaid expenses and other assets of $1.5 million.

Net Cash Used in Investing Activities

During the year ended December 31, 2020, net cash outflow of investing activities was $96.6 million, consisting of proceeds of $141.8 million from the maturities of investments, offset by purchases of investments of $209.3 million, purchases of property and equipment of $20.6 million, and payments made to acquire right of use asset of $8.5 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, net cash outflow of investing activities was $39.0 million, consisting primarily of purchases of property and equipment which is considered construction in progress of $23.3 million related primarily to our Cranbury, New Jersey facility, and investment purchases of $184.3 million offset by proceeds of $168.6 million from the maturities of investments.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, net cash outflow of investing activities was $5.3 million, consisting primarily of investment purchases of $141.1 million and purchases of property and equipment of $1.5 million, offset by $76.3 million of cash acquired in connection with the reverse merger, and $61.3 million from the maturities of investments.

Net Cash Provided by Financing Activities

During the year ended December 31, 2020, net cash provided by financing activities was $283.0 million, consisting primarily of proceeds from the issuance of common stock for $280.8 million. On December 14, 2020, we completed a public offering of 5,339,286 shares of common stock, which included the full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase an additional 696,428 shares of our common stock, at a public offering price of $56.00 per share. The net proceeds to Rocket from the December 2020 public offering were approximately $280.8 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2019, net cash provided by financing activities was $177.8 million, consisting of proceeds from the issuance of common stock for $177.8 million. On April 18, 2019, we completed a public offering of 5,175,000 shares of common stock. The net proceeds to Rocket from the April 2019 public offering were approximately $86.1 million. On December 10, 2019, we completed a public offering of 4,393,000 shares of common stock. The net proceeds to Rocket from the December 2019 public offering were approximately $91.7 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, net cash provided by financing activities was $153.5 million, consisting primarily of proceeds from the issuance of common stock. On January 26, 2018, we completed a public offering of common stock and received net proceeds of approximately $78.5 million. On November 30, 2018, we completed a public offering of common stock and received net proceeds of $74.1 million.

Contractual Commitments

The following table summarizes our principal contractual commitments, excluding open orders that support normal operations, as of December 31, 2020 (in thousands):

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We did not have during the periods presented, and do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined in the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Goodwill

Business combinations are accounted for under the acquisition method. The total cost of an acquisition is allocated to the underlying identifiable net assets, based on their respective estimated fair values as of the acquisition date. Determining the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed requires management’s judgment and often involves the use of significant estimates and assumptions, including assumptions with respect to future cash inflows and outflows, discount rates, asset lives and market multiples, among other items. Assets acquired and liabilities assumed are recorded at their estimated fair values. The excess of the purchase price over the estimated fair values of the net assets acquired is recorded as goodwill.

Goodwill is tested for impairment annually as of December 31, or more frequently when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired. Examples of such events or circumstances include, but are not limited to, a significant adverse change in legal or business climate, an adverse regulatory action or unanticipated competition. We have one segment and one reporting unit and as such review’s goodwill for impairment at the consolidated level.

When testing goodwill, we have the option to first assess qualitative factors for reporting units that carry goodwill. The qualitative assessment includes assessing the totality of relevant events and circumstances that affect the fair value or carrying value of the reporting unit. These events and circumstances include macroeconomic conditions, industry and competitive environment conditions, overall financial performance, reporting unit specific events and market considerations. We also consider recent valuations of the reporting unit, including the magnitude of the difference between the most recent fair value estimate and the carrying value, as well as both positive and adverse events and circumstances, and the extent to which each of the events and circumstances identified may affect the comparison of a reporting unit’s fair value with its carrying value. If the qualitative assessment results in a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds the carrying value, then no further testing is performed for that reporting unit.

As of January 1, 2018, we early adopted ASU No. 2017-04, “Intangibles- Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment”, an amendment to simplify the subsequent quantitative measurement of goodwill by eliminating step two from the goodwill impairment test. An entity will recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, not to exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to the reporting unit. An entity still has the option to perform the qualitative test for a reporting unit to determine if the quantitative impairment test is necessary. We performed the qualitative assessment of its goodwill and determined that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds the carrying value of the reporting unit. As a result, we have determined there was no goodwill impairment as of and for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

We review long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the asset’s carrying amount may not be recoverable. We conducted our long-lived asset impairment analyses in accordance with ASC 360-10-15, Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets.”ASC 360-10-15 requires us to group assets and liabilities at the lowest level for which identifiable cash flows are largely independent of the cash flows of other assets and liabilities and evaluate the asset group against the sum of the undiscounted future cash flows. If the undiscounted cash flows do not indicate the carrying amount of the asset is recoverable, an impairment charge is measured as the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset group exceeds its fair value based on discounted cash flow analysis or appraisals. There is no impairment of long-lived assets as of and for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018.

Accrued Research and Development Expenses

As part of the process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we are required to estimate our accrued research and development expenses. This process involves reviewing open contracts and purchase orders, communicating with our personnel to identify services that have been performed on our behalf and estimating the level of service performed and the associated costs incurred for the services when we have not yet been invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual costs. The majority of our service providers invoice us in arrears for services performed, on a pre-determined schedule or when contractual milestones are met; however, some require advanced payments. We make estimates of our accrued expenses as of each balance sheet date in our consolidated financial statements based on facts and circumstances known to us at that time. Examples of estimated accrued research and development expenses include fees paid to:

We base our expenses related to clinical trials on our estimates of the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contracts with multiple CROs that conduct and manage non-clinical studies and clinical trials on our behalf. The financial terms of these agreements are subject to negotiation, vary from contract to contract and may result in uneven payment flows. There may be instances in which payments made to our vendors will exceed the level of services provided and result in a prepayment of the clinical expense. Payments under some of these contracts depend on factors such as the successful enrollment of patients and the completion of clinical trial milestones. In accruing service fees, we estimate the time period over which services will be performed, enrollment of patients, number of sites activated and level of effort to be expended in each period. If the actual timing of the performance of services or the level of effort varies from our estimate, we adjust the accrual or prepaid accordingly. Although we do not expect our estimates to be materially different from amounts actually incurred, our understanding of the status and timing of services performed relative to the actual status and timing of services performed may vary and may result in us reporting expenses that are too high or too low in any particular period.

Fair Value Measurements

We are required to disclose information on all assets and liabilities reported at fair value that enables an assessment of the inputs used in determining the reported fair values. FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”), establishes a hierarchy of inputs used when available. Observable inputs are inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on market data obtained from sources independent of us. Unobservable inputs are inputs that reflect our  assumptions about the inputs that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability and are developed based on the best information available in the circumstances. The fair value hierarchy applies only to the valuation inputs used in determining the reported fair value of the investments and is not a measure of the investment credit quality. The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

Level 1—Valuations based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the Company has the ability to access at the measurement date.

Level 2—Valuations based on quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active or for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3—Valuations that require inputs that reflect the Company’s own assumptions that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable.

To the extent that valuation is based on models or inputs that are less observable or unobservable in the market, the determination of fair value requires more judgment. Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised by us in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The fair value of our financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, deposits, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate their respective carrying values due to the short-term nature of these instruments.

Stock-Based Compensation

 

We issue stock-based awards to employees and non-employees, generally in the form of stock options and restricted stock units. We account for stock-based compensation awards in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation (“ASC 718”). ASC 718 requires all stock-based payments, including grants of stock options and restricted stock units and modifications to existing stock options, to be recognized in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss based on their fair values.  We measure the compensation expense of employee and nonemployee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments based on the fair value of the award on the grant date. That cost is recognized on a straight-line basis over the period during which the employee and nonemployee is required to provide service in exchange for the award. The fair value of options on the date of grant is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model based on key assumptions such as stock price, expected volatility and expected term. We estimate these assumptions are primarily based on the trading price of the Company’s stock, historical data, peer company data and judgment regarding future trends and factors.

We classify stock-based compensation expense in its statement of operations in the same manner in which the award recipient’s payroll costs and services are classified or in which the award recipient’s service payments are classified.  The Company recognizes compensation expense for at least the portion of awards that are vested. Forfeitures are accounted for as they occur.

 

Effective July 1, 2018, we adopted ASU No. 2018-07, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Nonemployee Share-Based Payment Accounting (“ASU 2018-07”), which expands the scope of Topic 718 to include stock-based payment awards to nonemployees. As a result, stock-based awards granted to consultants and non-employees are accounted for in the same manner as awards granted to employees and directors as described above. Prior to the adoption of ASU 2018-07, for stock-based awards granted to consultants and non-employees, we recognized compensation expense over the period during which services are rendered by such consultants and non-employees until completed. At the end of each financial reporting period prior to completion of the service, the estimated fair value of these awards was re-measured using the then-current fair value of our common stock and updated assumption inputs in the Black-Scholes option-pricing model.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-13 (“ASU 2018-13”), Fair Value Measurement - Disclosure Framework (Topic 820). The updated guidance improves the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements. The updated guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted for any removed or modified disclosures. We adopted this guidance on January 1, 2020. The adoption of ASU 2018-13 had no impact on us as we do not have Level 3 investments.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 362): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Statements (“ASU 2016-13”). The new standard requires that expected credit losses relating to financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis and available-for-sale debt securities be recorded through an allowance for credit losses. It also limits the amount of credit losses to be recognized for available-for-sale debt securities to the amount by which carrying value exceeds fair value and also requires the reversal of previously recognized credit losses if fair value increases. The targeted transition relief standard allows filers an option to irrevocably elect the fair value option of ASC 825-10, Financial Instruments-Overall, applied on an instrument-by-instrument basis for eligible instruments. The new standard became effective beginning January 1, 2021. We are currently evaluating the potential impact ASU 2016-13, and related updates, will have on its financial position and results of operations upon adoption, however ASU 2016-13 is not expected to have a material impact.  .

Not applicable

The financial statements required by this Item 8 are included in Item 15 of this Annual Report.

None.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, with the participation of our principal executive and our principal financial and accounting officers, evaluated, as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report, the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures. Based on that evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2020, our principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officers concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of such date are effective at the reasonable assurance level. The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act, means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by a company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act are recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. Management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and our management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal control over financial reporting is defined in Rules 13(a)-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f) promulgated under the Exchange Act as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, our principal executive and principal financial officers and effected by our board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and includes those policies and procedures that:

Under the supervision and with the participation of management, including our principal executive and financial officers, we assessed our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2020, based on criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework (2013), issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Our management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting included testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of our internal controls.  In our management’s opinion, we have maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2020, based on criteria established in the COSO 2013 framework.

The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2020 has been audited by EisnerAmper LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included herein.

Inherent Limitations of Internal Controls

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

None.

PART III. — OTHER INFORMATION

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in the Proxy Statement for the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (“Proxy Statement”) under the headings “Election of Directors,” “Executive Officers,” “Delinquent Section 16(a) Reports” and “Corporate Governance” and is incorporated herein by reference. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in the Proxy Statement under the headings “Executive Compensation” and “Director Compensation” and is incorporated herein by reference. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in the Proxy Statement under the headings “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” and “Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans” and is incorporated herein by reference. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in the Proxy Statement under the headings “Transactions with Related Persons” and “Information about the Board and Corporate Governance” and is incorporated herein by reference. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.

Information with respect to this item will be set forth in the Proxy Statement under the heading “Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” and is incorporated herein by reference. The Proxy Statement will be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.

PART IV

(a)	The following documents are filed as part of this Annual Report:

(1)	Financial Statements:

All financial statement schedules have been omitted because they are not applicable, not required or the information required is shown in the financial statements or the notes thereto.

**Certain portions of this exhibit have been excluded because they are both not material and would likely cause competitive harm to the Company if publicly disclosed.

Item 16.          Form 10-K Summary

None.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant) has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Cranbury, State of New Jersey, on March 1, 2021.

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each person whose individual signature appears below hereby constitutes and appoints Gaurav Shah, MD and Carlos Garcia-Parada, and each of them, with full power of substitution and resubstitution and full power to act without the other, as his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent to act in his or her name, place and stead and to execute in the name and on behalf of each person, individually and in each capacity stated below, and to file any and all amendments to this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing, ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them or their or his substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the Registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements

Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”).  In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the consolidated results of its their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2020, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2020, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”), and our report dated March 1, 2021 expressed an unqualified opinion.

Basis for Opinion

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

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

Critical Audit Matters

The critical audit matter communicated below is a matter arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that was communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relates to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of the critical audit matter does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matter below, providing a separate opinion on the critical audit matter or on the accounts or disclosures to which it relates.

Accruals for research and development expenses

As disclosed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company estimates accrued research and development expenses for existing contracts, evaluates and identifies services that have been performed for the Company, estimates the level of service performed and the associated costs incurred for the services when not yet invoiced or otherwise notified of the actual costs, and evaluates contractual milestones reached.  The Company estimates costs on clinical trials in progress based on the services received and efforts expended pursuant to contacts with multiple contract research organizations (CROs), investigative sites in connection with clinical trials, and contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs).  The accrued research and development expenses as of December 31, 2020 were approximately $15 million.

We identified accruals related to research and development activities as a critical audit matter due to the complexity of the estimation of those accruals related to third party CROs, CMOs and investigative sites. The complexity of the Company’s estimates for these accruals was primarily the determination of progress and direct and indirect costs incurred under these arrangements, where invoicing of costs and milestones may not match the timing of services provided to date.  As a result, auditor judgement was required to perform procedures and evaluate audit evidence related to the accruals for research and development expenses.

Addressing the matter involved performing procedures and evaluating audit evidence in connection with forming our overall opinion on the consolidated financial statements.  We obtained an understanding, evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of the Company’s controls over the determination of estimates of the research and development accruals, including controls over inputs used by management to make the estimates and the completeness and accuracy of the data used in the estimates.  Our audit procedures also included inspection of a sample of contracts, invoices and payments, confirmation of total payments made by the Company and the amount owed by the Company as of December 31, 2020 for a sample of third-party research and development vendors, comparing the Company’s estimates of progress to the contracts, statements of work, data confirmed by third party vendors, invoices and payments to the resulting accruals.

/s/ EisnerAmper LLP

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

EISNERAMPER LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 1, 2021

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Opinion on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2020, based on criteria established in the Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”).  In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2020 based on criteria established in the Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”), the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December 31, 2020 and 2019, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes and our report dated March 1, 2021 expressed an unqualified opinion.

Basis for Opinion

The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.  We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.  Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk.  Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

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

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

/s/ EisnerAmper LLP

EISNERAMPER LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

March 1, 2021

Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)