Risk Factors Dashboard

SUMMARY OF RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR BUSINESS

An investment in shares of our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Below is a list of the more significant risks associated with our business. This summary does not address all of the risks that we face. Additional discussion of the risks listed in this summary, as well as other risks that we face, are set forth under Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors in this Annual Report. Some of the material risks associated with our business include the following:

PART I

Item 1. Business.

As used in this Annual Report, unless the context indicates or otherwise requires, “ARS,” “ARS Pharma,” the “company,” “we,” “us,” “our,” and other similar terms refer to ARS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries.

neffy and EURneffy are trademarks of ours that we use in this Annual Report. This Annual Report also includes trademarks, trade names, and service marks that are the property of other organizations. Solely for convenience, our trademarks and trade names referred to in this Annual Report appear without the ® or ™ symbols, but those references are not intended to indicate, in any way, that we will not assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights, or the right of the applicable licensor, to our trademark and trade names. The use or display of other companies’ trade names or trademarks do not suggest or imply a relationship or affiliation with, or endorsement or sponsorship of us by, any other companies.

Overview

Company Summary

We are a biopharmaceutical company focused on the commercialization and development of neffy (currently identified in the European Union (“EU”) and United Kingdom (“U.K.”) by the trade name EURneffy and in China by the trade name 优敏速) for needle-free intranasal delivery of epinephrine for emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. neffy is the first and only FDA and European Commission (“EC”)-approved needle-free epinephrine product, and also has approvals in the U.K., Japan, Australia, and China. It is the first new delivery method for epinephrine in more than 35 years. neffy is a proprietary composition of epinephrine with an innovative absorption enhancer called Intravail, which allows neffy to safely provide intranasal delivery of epinephrine at a low dose within the exposures of approved injectable products across a range of dosing conditions (including repeat dosing and allergen challenge).

We believe neffy’s “no needle, no injection” approach addresses a significant unmet need in the use of epinephrine. There are approximately 40 million people in the U.S. who experience Type I allergic reactions. Of this group, approximately 20 million people are reported to have been diagnosed and experienced severe Type I allergic reactions that may lead to anaphylaxis, and approximately 6.5 million of those were prescribed an epinephrine autoinjector. However, in recent years, only an estimated one-half of those consistently fill their prescribed autoinjector with them. We believe the market opportunity for neffy in the U.S. is significant. Those estimated 3.2 million patients who currently fill their active epinephrine autoinjector prescription would represent approximately $1.8 billion in annual U.S. net sales at neffy’s estimated gross-to-net yield based on epinephrine device unit volume in 2025.

In August 2024, the FDA approved neffy 2 mg for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in adults and children who weigh 30 kg or greater, with neffy 1 mg subsequently approved in March 2025 for patients who are four years of age and older and weigh 15 kg to less than 30 kg. Our commercialization efforts for neffy currently include a direct sales force of 106 individuals targeting high-volume prescribers, an additional co-promotion U.S. sales force of approximately 70 individuals with our partner, ALK-Abelló, Inc. (“ALK U.S.”, an affiliate of ALK-Abelló A/S (“ALK”)), targeting pediatricians that launched in May 2025, as well as our getneffy.com virtual prescriber website formally launched in November 2025 to minimize physician and patient burden. Our sales force and virtual prescriber options are supported by branded direct-to-consumer marketing through streaming platforms, traditional broadcast and cable television, consumer-facing digital channels, non-personal promotion with healthcare providers, and disease awareness campaigns with advocacy groups.

Our U.S. commercial launch is building momentum, and our launch data shows meaningful physician and patient demand. As of February 2026, more than 22,500 physicians have prescribed neffy since launch. With increasing demand, we’re securing broad insurance coverage, which we believe is a critical factor for accelerating adoption in the high patient volume epinephrine market. Currently, we have approximately 93% overall commercial coverage, inclusive of plans that may still require prior authorization, approximately 57% coverage with commercial insurance without prior authorization, and 8 of 50 Medicaid states covering neffy without prior authorization.

The EC has granted marketing authorization in the EU for EURneffy 2 mg (the trade name for neffy 2 mg in the EU and U.K.), for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in adults and children who weigh 30 kg or greater and on January 29, 2026, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (“CHMP”) of the EMA adopted a positive opinion, recommending marketing authorization in the EU for EURneffy 1 mg for children who are four years of age and older and weigh 15 kg to less than 30 kg. Through our collaboration with ALK, EURneffy 2 mg was launched in Europe, beginning with Germany in June 2025, followed by the U.K. in October 2025. We received approval of neffy 2 mg and 1 mg in Japan in September 2025, which is expected to launch in the first quarter of 2026 by our collaboration partner, Alfresa. We also received approval of neffy 2 mg and 1 mg doses in Australia in December 2025, with commercial launch by our collaboration partner, Seqirus, initiated in February 2026. In December 2025, we received approval in China of 优敏速 (the trade name for neffy 2 mg in China), with commercial launch by our collaboration partner, Pediatrix, expected to start in the first half of 2026. neffy 2 mg is under review by Health Canada, with a regulatory decision expected in the second quarter of 2026 and if approved, commercial launch by our collaboration partner, ALK, expected to start later in 2026. neffy has already been approved or is under regulatory review in countries representing approximately 98% of the current global epinephrine autoinjector sales. For more information regarding our partners and collaboration agreements, see “Business—Our Collaboration and Licensing Agreements.”

Real-world data supports that neffy delivers similar response rates as injections for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions. In September 2025, we reported survey results of anaphylaxis treatment outcomes in the neffy experience program, which provides 1 mg and 2 mg doses of neffy to allergists for in-office use if patients experience an anaphylactic event during oral food challenges or allergen immunotherapy. These results showed that approximately 90% of patients experiencing anaphylaxis symptoms were effectively treated with a single dose of neffy, which is consistent with that historically reported for epinephrine injection. The results were presented as an oral presentation at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (“ACAAI”) meeting in early November 2025 and was also published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the official peer-reviewed journal of the ACAAI, in December 2025.

We reported positive topline results demonstrating statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in treatment-refractory chronic urticaria patients at the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology medical conference in February 2024. In the second quarter of 2025, we initiated a Phase 2b randomized, placebo-controlled outpatient clinical trial involving chronic spontaneous urticaria patients on chronic treatment regimens, who still experience flares or exacerbations. Interim data from this clinical trial is anticipated in the second half of 2026, followed by the potential initiation of a single pivotal efficacy study in mid-2027. We estimate that there are approximately 1.5 million diagnosed chronic urticaria patients in the U.S., of whom approximately half are not well-controlled by antihistamines and continue to experience multiple acute flares a year, and therefore would be prescribed multiple epinephrine nasal spray devices if approved. The chronic urticaria indication represents an addressable market opportunity of more than $2.0 billion annually based on neffy’s current net pricing.

We currently own, co-own and exclusively license a robust global intellectual property portfolio including issued composition of matter and method patents relating to neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates that are not expected to expire until 2038.

Epinephrine and Allergic Reactions Background

Type I allergic reactions are potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions that can occur within minutes of exposure to an allergen and need to be treated immediately to relieve symptoms and prevent further progression. Initial symptoms significantly impact patient quality of life and include difficulty breathing, bronchospasms, hypotension, presyncope, itching, hives, swelling of eyes and lips, and abdominal pain and vomiting. If not treated immediately, more severe reactions known as anaphylaxis that involve constriction of the airways, swelling of the throat, rapid heart rate, severe hypotension and other respiratory and cardiac symptoms can develop and potentially present a medical and life-threatening emergency. Immediate administration of epinephrine is currently the only first-line treatment for Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. The only out-of-hospital delivery option today is an intra-muscular injectable product, typically offered as prefilled syringes or auto-injector devices, such as EpiPen, which is marketed by Viatris Inc., and generic versions of EpiPen, marketed by Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. These intra-muscular auto-injection devices have several limitations that include:

We believe neffy’s and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates’ design, particularly the compact size and “no needle, no injection” delivery, eliminates needle-related apprehension and pain, improves portability and ease of use, is highly reliable, and will increase prescriptions for epinephrine, making it more likely that patients and caregivers will administer epinephrine sooner, achieve more rapid symptom relief, and prevent the allergic reaction from progressing to a level of severity that could lead to hospitalization or even death.

Our Approach

neffy 2 mg is approved in the U.S, E.U., U.K., Japan, Australia, and China for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, for adults and children who weigh 30 kg or greater; neffy 1 mg is approved in the U.S., Australia, and China for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, for patients who are four years of age and older and weigh 15 kg to less than 30 kg.

neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates are designed to address the shortcomings of intra-muscular injectable devices. Based on the factors set forth below, we believe that neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates can transform the paradigm of epinephrine delivery by achieving more rapid symptom relief and preventing symptoms from becoming serious or life-threatening.

Our Management Team, Financing History and Investors

We were created to innovate, develop and commercialize neffy, a novel, first-in-class treatment that addresses Type I allergy patients’ desire and need for a no needle, no injection, easy-to-use, portable and reliable solution for delivering epinephrine. To achieve this goal, we have assembled a management team with extensive experience in the development and commercialization of drugs, such as approved nasal sprays NARCAN (naloxone nasal spray) and VALTOCO (diazepam nasal spray).

Our company was founded by Richard Lowenthal, M.S., MSEL, Robert Bell, Ph.D. and Sarina Tanimoto, M.D., MBA. Pratik Shah, Ph.D. was our first external investor.

Mr. Lowenthal, our Co-Founder, President, Chief Executive Officer, and one of our directors, has more than 25 years of biotechnology and pharmaceutical development experience including leading the regulatory approvals of VALTOCO (diazepam nasal spray) and NARCAN (naloxone nasal spray). Dr. Bell, our Co-Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, has more than 25 years of product development experience including leading research and development at Barr Laboratories, Inc., Somerset Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and UDL Laboratories, Inc. Dr. Tanimoto, our Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer, has more than 20 years of pharmaceutical experience in clinical drug development including supporting the approval of multiple nasal spray products such as VALTOCO and NARCAN. Dr. Shah, our Chairman, has more than 30 years of experience founding and leading biopharmaceutical companies and healthcare investment decisions including his role as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Design Therapeutics, Inc., former Chairman of Synthorx, Inc. (now part of Sanofi S.A.) and former Chief Executive Officer of Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now part of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.).

Our commercial team is led by Eric Karas, Chief Commercial Officer, who has more than 25 years of sales, marketing, market access and strategic planning experience across multiple specialty products, including leading commercial initiatives for NARCAN nasal spray at Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. and Adapt Pharma Operations Limited (now part of Emergent BioSolutions, Inc.).

The other key members of the ARS team bring extensive finance, business development and commercial operations experience and include Kathleen Scott, Chief Financial Officer; Justin Chakma, Chief Business Officer; Brian Dorsey, Chief Operating Officer; and Alex Fitzpatrick, Chief Legal Officer.

We have funded our operations to date primarily with proceeds from our equity financing from a syndicate of leading life sciences investors that include, among others, RA Capital, SR One and Deerfield, debt financing with affiliates of RA Capital and OMERS Administration Corporation, licensing and collaboration agreements, product sales, and the reverse merger with Silverback Therapeutics. We have entered into licensing and collaboration agreements for neffy with Alfresa Pharma Corporation (“Alfresa”) for rights in Japan, Pediatrix Therapeutics, Inc. (“Pediatrix”) — founded by F-Prime Capital, Eight Roads and Creacion Ventures — for rights in China, and Seqirus Pty Ltd. (“Seqirus”) for rights in Australia and New Zealand. We have also entered into a licensing and collaboration agreement with ALK for territories outside the U.S. and the territories covered by the Alfresa, Pediatrix and Seqirus agreements; these territories include Canada, the U.K, E.U., and other countries.

Our Strategy

Our mission is to develop innovative, patient-friendly and easy-to-use treatments that empower people with allergies and their caregivers to treat at the first sign of symptoms. Our strategy is focused on commercializing and developing neffy as the first and only approved intranasal treatment for patients diagnosed with severe Type I allergic reactions and are at risk of anaphylaxis and for patients in other allergy indications. Key elements of our strategy include:

Overview of Type I Allergic Reactions and Current Challenges

Overview of Type I Allergic Reactions

The immune system plays an important role in monitoring and protecting the body against microbial threats. However, this system can lead to overstated immune and inflammatory responses that result in adverse outcomes known as hypersensitivity reactions. Type I allergic reactions are potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions that can occur within minutes following exposure to an allergen and need to be treated immediately to relieve troublesome symptoms, mitigate severity and avoid a potentially fatal event. These severe reactions are caused by exposure to a specific allergen, typically stinging and biting insects, allergy injections, food, medicines, exercise or other unknown causes, and are mediated by immunoglobulin E IgE antibodies that bind to mast cells causing the release of histamines. The histamines induce smooth muscle contraction in the airways and a wheal and flare response in the skin producing swelling and inflammation. At the same time, widespread activation of mast cells leads to systemic effects of circulatory shock, hypotension or vascular collapse, and in the most severe cases respiratory arrest and death. The severity of a Type I allergic reaction is a function of the speed of onset and the number of organ systems affected by the reaction. As such, early intervention within minutes is critical in order to provide symptom relief and to prevent severe allergic reactions, known as anaphylaxis.

Table 1: Symptoms of Type I Allergic Reactions including Anaphylaxis

* Reprinted with permission from Dr. Pete Smith (Medical Media Kits) and Mary Johnson

Role of Epinephrine in Treating Type I Allergic Reactions

Epinephrine, either in the form of neffy or injection products for out-of-hospital use, is recommended to be prescribed to all patients who have experienced a severe Type I allergic reaction and have either experienced anaphylaxis or are at risk of anaphylaxis. When properly used, these devices can allow for the early administration of epinephrine to stop or reduce the intensity of the systemic allergic reaction before refractory anaphylaxis develops.

EpiPen epinephrine autoinjector was first approved by the FDA for the emergency treatment of Type I hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis, in December 1987. Other FDA-approved epinephrine intra-muscular injection products include Twinject approved in May 2003, Adrenaclick approved in November 2009, and Auvi-Q approved in August 2012. In June 2017, the FDA approved Symjepi epinephrine injection, which is a pre-filled syringe for the same indication. These injection devices were approved by the FDA without pharmacokinetic (“PK”) data based on an assumption that injections and devices were all effectively the same as the reference listed drug of intra-muscular injection with a needle and syringe. Intra-muscular injection with a needle and syringe is considered the gold standard and is almost exclusively used in non-community use clinical settings. Although there are no known differences in efficacy or time to observed effect in clinical practice between these devices, current data indicates that different devices deliver an intra-muscular dose of epinephrine with a range of PKs. A single dose with either an intra-muscular injection with needle and syringe or an auto-injector device results in resolution of allergic reaction for approximately 90% of cases within 5 to 15 minutes.

Treatment guidelines recommend that epinephrine be administered immediately at the first sign of a severe allergic reaction. Epinephrine is the only medication that can reverse severe allergic reactions and reduce hospitalization and death. Early administration of epinephrine is associated with better outcomes and decreased likelihood of hospitalizations. The sooner epinephrine is administered following allergen exposure, the less severe the systemic allergic reaction may become, and the less likely it will develop into an anaphylaxis event. As shown in the graphic above, delayed treatment is a statistically significant risk factor for multiple negative clinical outcomes for patients. A short delay of even a few minutes in the recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis can lead to more serious symptoms, including potential hypoxia or death. Additionally, accompanying symptoms of even non-life-threatening allergic reactions can adversely impact health-related quality of life and can lead to loss of productivity, negatively impact social life, as well as lead to depression and anxiety and feelings of fear, frustration, worry and lack of control. A second dose of epinephrine is required for adequate treatment in about 10% of cases, irrespective of whether epinephrine was dosed using an auto-injector such as EpiPen or needle and syringe, or the only approved nasal spray, neffy.

While antihistamines such as diphenhydramine, also known as Benadryl (marketed by Johnson & Johnson), can sometimes relieve the dermatological symptoms and pruritus associated with severe Type I allergic reactions, treatment guidelines state that antihistamines should never be administered instead of epinephrine because they do not reverse the cardiovascular symptoms such as hypotension and shock, or respiratory distress. Instead, antihistamines can potentially mask symptoms and allow the disease to continue to progress silently.

In the United States, dosing recommendations for epinephrine use by intra-muscular injection are from 0.1 mg to 0.5 mg depending on the patient’s weight with repeat dosing administered as needed to control a severe allergic reaction. 0.1 mg, 0.15 mg and 0.3 mg are the approved doses for the epinephrine auto-injectors. Approximately 77% of epinephrine auto-injectors prescribed in the U.S. in 2023 for outpatient use were the 0.3 mg dose level for persons greater than 30 kg in weight, approximately 22% contain doses of 0.15 mg for persons between 15 kg to 30 kg and 1% contained 0.1 mg doses for persons less than 15 kg. A low dose of epinephrine is important for safety as overexposure to epinephrine can lead to adverse events.

Limitations of Existing Injectable Epinephrine Products

Epinephrine intra-muscular injectables have been proven to be highly effective if they are administered timely and effectively, but the limitations of these products include painful application, inconvenient size and a complicated mechanism of administration. These limitations discourage patients and caregivers from carrying these devices and administering epinephrine in a timely manner. Both patient adoption and use of intra-muscular injection devices have been limited among eligible patients with severe Type I allergic reactions at risk of anaphylaxis.

In studies published in peer-reviewed journals, only 23% to 48% of patients self-administered with an auto-injector during a severe Type I allergic reaction, likely due to less than half of patients actually carrying their prescribed injection device, and only half administering even if the device was available. Across our market research studies, approximately 40% to 60% of patients reported using an antihistamine first, which is not known to be effective, and if carrying an intra-muscular injectable, waited an average of 8 to 18 minutes to administer the device. The principal device-related reasons for delay were presence of a needle, concern about serious cardiac side effects, and potential pain. Patients, and particularly parents who administer to their child, perceive injection to be traumatic, which leads to a fear and avoidance of administering timely treatment. Further, the potentially life-threatening nature of a severe Type I allergic reaction is often accompanied with psychological stress and panic which can lead to delays or errors in proper intra-muscular injection, which can result in hospitalization or even death. In a meta-analysis of 32 studies evaluating epinephrine injectable administration techniques, 23% to 35% of participants failed to achieve the correct administration technique following training.

Further, there is variability with respect to whether auto-injector devices are able to reliably deliver a sufficient dose of epinephrine. The FDA has reported that EpiPen device failures lead to multiple deaths and dozens of hospitalizations annually.

The injection needle can be painful and dangerous not just due to the risk of skin lacerations and the possibility of the needle hitting a patient’s bone during administration, but also the risk of serious, sudden cardiovascular events resulting from accidental blood vessel injection.

neffy can improve the management of severe Type I allergic reactions by addressing the current limitations of epinephrine intra-muscular injectable devices.

Clinical Development of neffy and our Intranasal Epinephrine Technology

Our intranasal technology, including neffy, is designed to provide injection-like absorption of epinephrine at a 2.0 mg or 1.0 mg dose comparable to 0.3 mg or 0.15 mg injection, in a small, easy-to-carry, easy-to-use, rapidly administered and reliable nasal spray. On August 9, 2024, the FDA approved neffy 2 mg for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in adults and children who weigh 30 kg or greater. As a result, we initiated the commercial launch of neffy 2 mg in the United States, with product becoming available in September 2024. On March 5, 2025, the FDA approved neffy 1 mg for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, in patients who are four years of age and older and weigh 15 kg to less than 30 kg. We initiated commercial launch of neffy 1 mg in the U.S., with product becoming available on May 7, 2025.

Based on our clinical studies completed to date and FDA labeling, we believe neffy’s “no needle, no injection” clinical profile supports differentiation over intra-muscular injections for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

2.0 mg neffy is intended to be the dose that is comparable to approved 0.3 mg epinephrine intra-muscular injection products for persons 30 kg or greater in weight, which represents approximately 80% of the prescriptions in the United States. 1.0 mg neffy is intended to be the dose for persons 15 kg to less than 30 kg in weight.

In our clinical studies in both adults and children, 2.0 mg neffy gave comparable epinephrine exposures that were within the range of approved intra-muscular injection products (needle-in-syringe products and EpiPen) on key PK parameters (Cmax, tmax, early partial AUCs, AUC0-t). An integrated data analysis graph summarizing the key outcomes for registration for both single and repeat doses of neffy is shown below.

Single doses of 2.0 mg neffy compared to single doses of approved 0.3 mg injection products

Repeat doses of 2.0 mg neffy compared to repeat doses of approved 0.3 mg injection products

The hemodynamic response, measured by systolic blood pressure and heart rate, was observed as soon as 1 minute after administration of neffy, and was comparable to some injection products including EpiPen, and was greater than 0.3 mg intra-muscular needle-with-syringe. These hemodynamic responses were within normal physiologic ranges that are typically experienced during exercise or climbing stairs. Across all the clinical trials, a total of more than 700 subjects have been exposed to neffy. All doses of neffy ranging from 0.5 mg to 2.0 mg single doses, as well as repeat doses up to 4 mg within 10 minutes, were well-tolerated by patients. There is no meaningful pain upon administration of neffy with average scores of 5 to 8 as assessed on a 100 mm visual analogue scale, across studies. There was no irritation observed based on formal scoring in all studies. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events, and adverse events reported have generally not resulted in side effects more severe than grade 1, and were comparable to injection products. Since neffy is given without a needle, there was also no needle-related injuries or accidental blood vessel injections.

Furthermore, our registrational self-administration study of 2.0 mg neffy by adults with severe Type I allergies showed no critical dosing errors with neffy as evaluated by human factors professionals. Furthermore, neffy also showed zero dosing errors in two human factor validation studies involving 150 subjects when used by trained adults or trained children across multiple demographic groups, as well as when used by passers-byers with no prior experience or training with an epinephrine device.

Following FDA approval, we collected survey data through our neffy experience program to evaluate the clinical performance of neffy in patients experiencing anaphylaxis symptoms during oral food challenges and allergen immunotherapy. Nearly 90% (88.7%) of 680 patients experiencing anaphylaxis symptoms during oral food challenge and allergen immunotherapy were successfully treated with a single dose of neffy by a healthcare provider. Meta-analyses report a similar proportion of patients, 88.9%, being successfully treated with a single dose of epinephrine intramuscular injection or auto-injector by a healthcare provider for food-induced anaphylaxis. This highly similar treatment success rate supports that the real-world clinical effectiveness of neffy in anaphylaxis is consistent with epinephrine injection.

Key features of neffy demonstrated in our clinical, human factors or stability studies include:

Planned Clinical Trials in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

Epinephrine has been used empirically by physicians and included in treatment guidelines for multiple allergy conditions that do not fall under the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions indication that epinephrine auto-injectors are labelled for. The needle-free, portable, easy-to-use and potentially safer clinical profile of our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates supported by PK and PD data could enable the broader adoption of epinephrine in the outpatient setting for these other indications.

Development in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria

There are approximately 1 million patients in the U.S. diagnosed with chronic spontaneous urticaria and treated with antihistamines or biologic treatments, such as Xolair, that still experience frequent flares, which is an indication for which epinephrine has never been formally developed as a prescription product, despite being used in-hospital to resolve such acute symptoms. Such patients experience multiple episodes each year, and we believe they would likely use multiple doses of our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidate each year to resolve their symptoms. Therefore, the market opportunity for treating flares in chronic spontaneous urticaria patients could be as large as the Type I allergy including anaphylaxis indication. Assuming that one sprayer device is used monthly to treat such flares in chronic spontaneous urticaria, we estimate that the market opportunity in the United States alone is greater than $2 billion in net sales in this indication, assuming a similar price and gross-to-net realizations as neffy, if approved. Although both patients treated with either antihistamines or biologic treatments, such as Xolair, can experience frequent flares that may be suitable for treatment with our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, our development strategy has focused first on patients treated with only antihistamines. Our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates may offer significant pharmacoeconomic value to payors by reducing the likelihood of step-up therapy to a much more expensive biologic treatment.

We reported positive topline results demonstrating statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in treatment-refractory chronic urticaria patients. In the second quarter of 2025, we initiated a Phase 2b randomized, placebo-controlled outpatient clinical trial involving chronic spontaneous urticaria patients, on chronic treatment regimens, who still experience flares or exacerbations. Interim data from this clinical trial is anticipated in the second half of 2026, followed by the potential initiation of a single pivotal efficacy study in mid-2027.

Commercialization Opportunity and Commercialization Plan

Existing U.S. Market Opportunity

We believe neffy could address the needs of the approximately 3.2 million patients in the U.S. who currently fill intra-muscular injectable prescriptions, the approximately 3.3 million people in the U.S. that either refused to fill, or did not renew an intra-muscular injectable device prescription, and the more than 13.5 million eligible Type I allergy patients in the United States who are at risk of severe allergic reactions that are not prescribed an epinephrine product.

Based on the current list price of neffy and our target total gross-to-net yield, we estimate that the initial addressable potential market opportunity of 6.5 million patients who have been prescribed epinephrine during 2020-2022 is approximately $3.5 billion in annual net sales for neffy. We estimate the addressable market opportunity for the 13.5 million patients who have been diagnosed during 2020-2022, but were not prescribing epinephrine, is approximately $7.0 billion in potential annual net sales for neffy.

Key potential growth levers for neffy within the existing epinephrine market for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions, which currently consists of only intra-muscular injectable products include:

U.S. Market Expansion Opportunity

While we believe the existing epinephrine intra-muscular injectables market is a large commercial opportunity for neffy with multiple independent opportunities for further growth, IQVIA claims data indicates that many diagnosed, identifiable eligible patients do not receive prescriptions for intra-muscular injectables.

Ex-U.S. Market Opportunity

Sales and Marketing

We believe that the epinephrine market is a highly consumer driven market. We expect this to be especially true for neffy, given that 99% of the physicians surveyed in our quantitative market research studies indicated that they would prescribe neffy if asked by a patient and approximately 70% of physicians would recommend neffy assuming equal market access conditions as epinephrine autoinjectors. As a result, we believe that driving consumer awareness, so that patients and parents ask their healthcare provider for neffy, while minimizing both access and educational barriers to acceptance is essential.

We have established robust marketing, sales, and distribution capabilities to support the launch of neffy in the U.S. through an experienced national sales force targeting healthcare providers. We believe we can successfully commercialize neffy in the U.S. with a focused sales force targeting high prescribers of epinephrine, particularly allergists and pediatricians. Our strategy is to target approximately 20,000 core high volume prescribers that represent between 50 to 55% of all epinephrine prescriptions. Our current sales force of 106 individuals is comprised of sales reps, area sales managers, and national sales directors, plus we have an additional 10 virtual sales reps and approximately 70 sales reps via our co-promotion partner, ALK U.S. We plan to expand our sales force to approximately 150 individuals beginning in the second quarter of 2026. In the U.S., we sell primarily to pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, which are the principal means of distributing our products to healthcare providers.

Our ongoing neffy experience program also allows healthcare professionals to use neffy firsthand as rescue therapy for anaphylaxis during in-clinic allergen challenge, and obtain direct clinical experience using neffy. neffy market share among participants in the neffy experience program is more than three-fold higher than the typical healthcare provider.

We also market through direct-to-consumer channels, including across streaming platforms, traditional broadcast and cable television, and consumer-facing digital channels including Facebook, Instagram, waiting room TVs in doctors’ offices, and digital banner ads. Since launch, the campaign has reached millions of allergy patients and is driving strong patient awareness, increasing prescription requests, and motivating patients to explore a non-injectable treatment option.

In November 2025, we also launched and began direct-to-consumer advertising of our getneffy.com website, which offers patients the option to obtain a neffy prescription the same day with a free visit with a virtual healthcare provider, eliminating the time-burden of an in-person visit. Patients may receive neffy with a $0 co-pay, if eligible with commercial insurance.

Competition

Our industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid technological changes. Our potential competitors include large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions. Many of our potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, commercial and human resources than we do and significantly more experience in the discovery, development and regulatory approval of product candidates and the commercialization of those products.Many of our potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, commercial and human resources than we do and significantly more experience in the discovery, development and regulatory approval of product candidates and the commercialization of those products. We believe that the key competitive factors that will affect the development and commercial success of neffy, our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates and the other product candidates that we may develop are their efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, convenience in dosing, product labeling, value and price, in addition to whether there are alternative therapies approved for other indications and prescribed for off-label use and the availability of reimbursement from the government and other third parties. Our commercial opportunity could be reduced if our competitors have products which are better in one or more of these categories.

neffy competes with a number of existing products and other product candidates that target Type I allergic reactions, including certain products that are or may become generic products. Additionally, the development of new treatment methods for the diseases we are targeting could render our current or future product candidates non-competitive or obsolete.

neffy competes primarily against epinephrine intra-muscular injectable products, for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions including EpiPen and its generics, which are marketed by Viatris, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., respectively; Adrenaclick, which is marketed by Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Auvi-Q, which is marketed by Kaleo, Inc.; and Symjepi, which is marketed by Sandoz, Inc., a Novartis division.

We are not aware of any other company that has a “no needle, no injection” epinephrine product candidate in clinical development in the United States that has demonstrated a PK/PD profile bracketed by the approved injection products for all PK and PD parameters requested by the FDA across all relevant dosing conditions including single dosing, repeat dosing, self-administration and during allergen challenge.

We are aware of several companies developing higher dose spray candidates including Bryn Pharma, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (previously INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.), Nasus Pharma Ltd., Orexo AB, Insignis Therapeutics, Inc. and Belhaven BioPharma. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. is developing a sublingual candidate based on a prodrug of epinephrine, which recently received a Complete Response Letter (“CRL”) from the FDA due to concerns with their application.

Manufacturing and Supply

We do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of neffy or our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates nor do we have plans to develop our own manufacturing operations for clinical materials or commercial products in the foreseeable future. We currently depend on third-party contract manufacturing organizations (“CMOs”) for all of our required raw materials, drug substance and drug product for our preclinical research and clinical trials.

We currently rely on suppliers for raw materials including drug substance and multiple manufacturers for our product candidates and expect to rely on third-party suppliers and manufacturers for the commercial supply of any approved products. We currently employ internal resources and third-party consultants as needed to manage our CMOs. These CMOs offer a comprehensive range of contract manufacturing and packaging services and have successfully handled the scale up of neffy in connection with its commercialization.

neffy is presented as a nasal spray in aqueous solution with epinephrine as the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) filled into glass vials and closed with a rubber stopper and assembled into the unit dose sprayer device. Over time, epinephrine is oxidized and loses potency resulting in a finite shelf-life, and the neffy solution inside the unit dose sprayer changes to an amber to brown color.

Epinephrine is the API used in neffy. We use Cambrex Profarmco (“Cambrex”) as one of our commercial sources for epinephrine API. Cambrex holds a U.S. drug master file for epinephrine produced at its facility in Italy, and its manufacturing process is fully validated. We have entered into a commercial supply agreement with Cambrex, and while we believe that Cambrex has sufficient capacity to satisfy our long-term requirements, there are several sources of API available.

Dodecyl maltoside or Intravail is purchased through our license agreement with Aegis Therapeutics, LLC (“Aegis”) from two manufacturers, Dr. Reddy Laboratories and Inalco, which are based in India and Italy, respectively.

The unit dose sprayer device used to delivery drug product in neffy is produced by Aptar Pharma (“Aptar”) and Silgan Dispensing Systems (“Silgan”). Aptar produces devices in France and the U.S., while Silgan produces devices in Germany, and both have sufficient capacity to satisfy our long-term requirements. The patent for the Aptar unit dose nasal spray device expired in early 2020.

Manufacturing drug product for neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates is conducted by Renaissance Lakewood, LLC (“Renaissance”), which has been actively involved in supporting the manufacture of neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates. We use its facility in Lakewood, New Jersey as our primary source for drug product manufacturing and final packaging. We have entered into a commercial supply agreement with Renaissance, and believe they have sufficient capacity to satisfy our long-term requirements, although we are evaluating alternative sourcing options.

Our registration stability studies demonstrate that neffy is stable at room temperature for up to 30 months, based on stability data meeting specifications with the 2 mg dose of neffy for 30 months and the 1 mg dose of neffy for 24 months. Epinephrine injectable products have a reported shelf-life range from the date of product manufacture of 18 to 24 months, with a volume-weighted average shelf-life of approximately 22 to 23 months. Our FDA and EC label indicates that neffy 2 mg is stable at room temperature for 30 months at 25oC. We have also conducted studies indicating that neffy is also stable at temperature excursions including 40oC for up to six months, and at 50oC for up to three months, without labeling permitting excursions up to such temperature, or neffy not requiring any special storage conditions.

Manufacturing Agreement with Renaissance

In September 2020, we entered into a manufacturing agreement with Renaissance Lakewood, LLC (“Renaissance”), which was subsequently amended in July 2023, September 2024 and July 2025 (the “Renaissance Agreement”). Pursuant to the agreement, Renaissance agreed to manufacture for, and provide to us, neffy nasal unit dose sprays (“Renaissance Products”). We are obligated to provide Renaissance with certain supplies to manufacture the Renaissance Products and to purchase from Renaissance a mid-double-digit percentage of our annual aggregate Renaissance Product requirements in the EU, and a high-double-digit percentage of our annual aggregate Renaissance Product requirements in the U.S. The agreement contains conventional commercial pharmaceutical manufacturing provisions including certain minimum purchase amounts to be determined in the future based on forecast needs and minimum batch size projections. We may also request Renaissance to perform certain services related to the Renaissance Product, for which we will pay reasonable compensation to Renaissance.

The initial term of the Renaissance Agreement commenced on September 17, 2024 and will terminate on (a) December 31, 2029 for Renaissance Product designated for commercial sale in the U.S. (“U.S. Initial Term”), and (b) December 31, 2030 for Renaissance Product designated for commercial sale in the EU (“EU Initial Term”), in each case unless earlier terminated by one of the parties. The U.S. Initial Term and EU Initial Term automatically renew for successive two-year terms (“Renewal Term”). Either party may elect not to renew the U.S. Renewal Term and/or the EU Renewal Term by providing the requisite prior notice to the other party. Either party may terminate the agreement (1) for uncured material breach of the other party, (2) upon notice for insolvency-related events of the other party that are not discharged within a defined time period, (3) on a product-by-product basis if the manufacture, distribution or sale would materially contravene any applicable law, (4) by providing the requisite notice if (a) the authorization and approval to distribute or sell Renaissance Product in the U.S. is not granted on or before a specified date, (b) the authorization and approval representing more than a certain number of units of Renaissance Product sold in the U.S. during the last calendar year is withdrawn by the FDA, or (c) we decided in our sole discretion to cease commercializing the Renaissance Product in the U.S., (5) in the case of a force majeure event that continues for six months or more, or (6) a violation by the other party of trade control or anti-corruption laws.

Intellectual Property

We strive to protect our intranasal epinephrine product candidates by seeking, maintaining, and defending our patent rights in the U.S. and internationally. Our policy is to pursue, maintain and defend patent rights in strategic areas, whether developed internally or licensed from third parties, and to protect the technology, inventions and improvements that are commercially important to the development of our business. We also rely on trade secrets that may be important to the development of our business.

We own, co-own or exclusively license the patents and patent applications relating to our intranasal epinephrine product candidates. As of December 31, 2025, our patent portfolio consisted of issued patents and pending patent applications that we own, co-own or exclusively license from Aegis in the U.S. and other countries throughout the world. In total, as of that date, our patent portfolio consisted of eight issued U.S. patents, granted patents in each of Australia, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and over thirty member states of the European Patent Organization, including the U.K., directed to neffy and its uses, among other things, three pending U.S. patent applications, one pending international patent application and sixteen pending foreign patent applications, directed to neffy and its uses, among other things, and a pending U.S. provisional patent application directed to intranasal epinephrine formulations and methods of their use, among other things. These issued patents and pending patent applications provide patent protection for neffy and are expected to expire as early as 2038, absent any patent term adjustments.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on trademarks, trade secrets, know how, and other proprietary information to develop and maintain our competitive position. We seek trademark protection in the U.S. and in certain other jurisdictions where available and when we deem appropriate. We currently have registrations and pending applications for our “neffy” mark in the U.S. as well as in certain foreign jurisdictions and for our “EURneffy” mark in the EU, U.K., and other foreign jurisdictions.

Our commercial success will depend in part on obtaining and maintaining patent protection and trade secret protection of our current and future product candidates and the methods used to develop and manufacture them, as well as successfully defending these patents against third-party challenges. Our ability to stop third parties from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing our products depends on the extent to which we have rights under valid and enforceable patents or trade secrets that cover these activities. 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 product candidates and processes. For this and more comprehensive risks related to our intellectual property, please see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

We also seek to protect our intellectual property in part by entering into confidentiality agreements with companies with whom we share proprietary and confidential information in the course of business discussions, and by having confidentiality terms in our agreements with our employees, consultants, scientific advisors, clinical investigators, and other collaborators and contractors and also by requiring our employees, commercial contractors, and certain consultants and investigators, to enter into invention assignment agreements that grant us ownership of any discoveries or inventions made by them while in our employ. However, such confidentiality agreements and invention assignment agreements can be breached, and we may not have adequate remedies for any such breach. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

The patent positions of specialty pharmaceutical companies like ours are generally uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions. Our commercial success will also depend in part on not infringing upon the proprietary rights of third parties. It is uncertain whether the issuance of any third-party patent would require us to alter our development or commercial strategies, or our drugs or processes, obtain licenses or cease certain activities. Our breach of any license agreements or our failure to obtain a license to proprietary rights required to develop or commercialize our future products may have a material adverse impact on us. If third parties prepare and file patent applications in the U.S. that also claim technology to which we have rights, we may have to participate in interference or derivation proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) to determine priority of invention. For more information regarding the risks related to our intellectual property, see “Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property.”

Our Collaboration and Licensing Agreements

License Agreement with Aegis

In June 2018, we entered into a license agreement (the “Aegis Agreement”) with Aegis Therapeutics, LLC (“Aegis”), which was amended in July 2020 and January 2021. Pursuant to the Aegis Agreement, Aegis granted us an exclusive, worldwide, sublicensable license under patents and know-how relating to the Intravail drug delivery technology to research, develop, make (subject to Aegis supplying the Intravail drug delivery technology to us under a supply agreement), use, sell, offer for sale, import, and otherwise commercialize products incorporating epinephrine compounds (“Aegis Licensed Compounds”), including the neffy nasal spray. During the term of the Aegis Agreement, we are required to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain regulatory approval for products containing one or more Aegis Licensed Compounds and using the excipient (including Intravail) (“Aegis Licensed Products”) and to thereafter maximize sales of the Aegis Licensed Products. Aegis may not directly or indirectly exploit an Aegis Licensed Product or Aegis Licensed Compound or derivatives thereof without our consent.

Under the Aegis Agreement, Aegis received an upfront license fee of $50,000 in 2018 and is entitled to receive development milestone payments of up to $3.95 million in the aggregate and commercialization milestone payments up to $16.0 million in the aggregate for each Aegis Licensed Product. We made a $0.5 million milestone payment to Aegis upon the achievement of a regulatory milestone in 2019, a $1.0 million payment to Aegis upon the FDA’s acceptance of our U.S. NDA filing in 2022, a $2.5 million milestone payment to Aegis for achieving FDA approval of neffy 2 mg in September 2024, $5.0 million milestone payment to Aegis for the first commercial sale of neffy 2 mg in October 2024, and a $2.0 million milestone payment to Aegis for achieving a certain annual net sales of neffy 2 mg in September 2025. Additionally, Aegis is entitled to receive a low- to mid-single-digit percentage royalty, subject to reductions under certain conditions including due to generic competition or below threshold levels of profitability in specific countries around the world, on net sales of all Aegis Licensed Products during the applicable royalty term, which commences on the first commercial sale of a Aegis Licensed Product in a country and ends upon the later of the expiration of all licensed patents covering such Aegis Licensed Product in such country or 15 years after the date of the first commercial sale of the Aegis Licensed Product in such country (“Aegis Royalty Term”).

The Aegis Agreement will continue until the expiration of the last-to-expire Aegis Royalty Term, unless sooner terminated. We have the right to terminate the Aegis Agreement at any time after a specified notice period to Aegis. Either party may terminate the Aegis Agreement for uncured material breach of the other party, or upon notice for insolvency-related events of the other party that are not discharged within a defined time period.

Collaboration and License Agreement with Alfresa

In April 2020, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement (the “Alfresa Agreement”) with Alfresa Pharma Corporation (“Alfresa”). Pursuant to the Alfresa Agreement, we granted Alfresa (i) an exclusive, sublicensable license under our patents relating to neffy to develop, use and import epinephrine compositions (“Alfresa Licensed Compositions”) and related products (“Alfresa Licensed Products”) in Japan (the “Alfresa Territory”) and to promote, distribute, offer for sale and sell Alfresa Licensed Products in the Alfresa Territory, and (ii) a non-exclusive, sublicensable license to manufacture and commercialize Alfresa Licensed Products under the license described in clause (i), under our technology to make and have made Alfresa Licensed Compositions and Alfresa Licensed Products in and outside the Alfresa Territory solely for the purpose of exercising the license described in clause (i) in the Alfresa Territory. We expressly reserved all rights to practice and grant licenses under our technology outside the scope of the licenses granted to Alfresa, including the right to manufacture Alfresa Licensed Compositions and Alfresa Licensed Products in the Alfresa Territory. During the term of the Alfresa Agreement, (1) we and Alfresa are obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to develop a Alfresa Licensed Product throughout the Alfresa Territory, and (2) Alfresa is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (A) seek pricing and reimbursement approval, (B) seek and maintain regulatory approval for the Alfresa Licensed Products through the Alfresa Territory, and (C) market, promote and otherwise commercialize Alfresa Licensed Products in the field throughout the Alfresa Territory.

Under the Alfresa Agreement, we received a one-time upfront payment of $2.0 million in 2020, earned $5.0 million upon the achievement of a clinical milestone in 2021, earned $6.0 million upon the completion of a regulatory milestone in Japan in November 2024, and earned $2.0 million upon the achievement of a commercial milestone in Japan in November 2025. We shared the cost of any additional clinical studies required for approval of neffy in Japan.

The Alfresa Agreement will continue until the later of (i) expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of our patents or joint patent with Alfresa covering the composition, method of manufacture or method of use in the field of any Alfresa Licensed Product in the Alfresa Territory, and (ii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of any Alfresa Licensed Product in the Alfresa Territory. Alfresa has the right to terminate the Alfresa Agreement (1) at any time after a specified notice period to us, or (2) upon notice to us if a binding decision is rendered invalidating any of our patents. Either party may terminate the Alfresa Agreement for uncured material breach of the other party, or upon notice for insolvency-related events of the other party that are not discharged within a defined time period.

In December 2025, in connection with the Alfresa Agreement, ARS and Alfresa also entered into a commercial supply agreement (the “Alfresa Supply Agreement”), under which we will supply Alfresa’s requirements (and Alfresa will purchase from ARS its requirements) for a transfer price in the low-double-digit percentage on net sales of neffy in Japan. The Alfresa Supply Agreement is coterminous with our Alfresa Agreement. Pursuant to the Alfresa Agreement, at any time, Alfresa may elect to manufacture its own supply of drug product. In the event Alfresa elects to do so, Alfresa is obligated to pay us a royalty payment on the net sales of drug product in the Alfresa Territory in an amount equal to monetary value we would receive by supplying drug product to Alfresa at the transfer price.

Collaboration and Distribution Agreement with Pediatrix

In March 2021, we entered into a collaboration and distribution agreement (the “Pediatrix Agreement”) with Pediatrix Therapeutics (“Pediatrix”). Pursuant to the Pediatrix Agreement, we granted Pediatrix (i) an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license under our patents relating to neffy to develop, use, register and import epinephrine compositions (“Pediatrix Licensed Compositions”) and related products (“Pediatrix Licensed Products”) in China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan (the “Pediatrix Territory”) and to promote, offer for sale and sell Pediatrix Licensed Products in the Pediatrix Territory; and (ii) an exclusive, royalty-bearing, sublicensable license to manufacture Pediatrix Licensed Compositions and Pediatrix Licensed Products solely for the purpose of exercising the license described in clause (i) in the Pediatrix Territory. We expressly reserved all rights to practice and grant licenses under our technology outside the scope of the licenses granted to Pediatrix. During the term of the Pediatrix Agreement, Pediatrix is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to (1) develop the Pediatrix Licensed Products throughout the Pediatrix Territory, (2) prepare, obtain, maintain and renew all necessary regulatory approvals for the Pediatrix Licensed Products in the Pediatrix Territory, and (3) market, promote and otherwise commercialize the Pediatrix Licensed Products throughout the Pediatrix Territory.

Under the Pediatrix Agreement, we received a one-time upfront payment of $3.0 million in 2021 and earned a regulatory milestone payment of $4.0 million in December 2025, and are eligible to receive net sales milestone payments of up to $80.0 million in the aggregate. We will receive a per unit supply price for any sale of commercial supply to Pediatrix. Additionally, we are eligible to receive a tiered royalty on the net sales of all Pediatrix Licensed Products during the applicable royalty term, which is less than one percent below a minimum annual sales threshold, and increasing to low- to mid-double-digit percentages above the minimum annual sales threshold, subject to reductions under certain conditions including due to generic competition. Pediatrix’s obligation to pay us royalties continues on a Pediatrix Licensed Product-by- Pediatrix Licensed Product and region-by-region basis in the Pediatrix Territory, until the latest of (i) expiration of the last-to-expire valid claim of our patents covering such Licensed Product in such region; (ii) the expiration of all regulatory exclusivities that cover such Licensed Product in such region; or (iii) ten years after the first commercial sale of such Pediatrix Licensed Product in such region (the “Pediatrix Royalty Term”).

The Pediatrix Agreement will continue until the expiration of the last-to-expire Pediatrix Royalty Term. Pediatrix has the right to terminate the Pediatrix Agreement at any time after a specified notice period to us. Either party may terminate the Pediatrix Agreement for uncured material breach of the other party, or upon notice for insolvency-related events of the other party that are not discharged within a defined time period.

Seqirus Agreement

In March 2024, we entered into a license and distribution agreement (the “Seqirus Agreement”) with Seqirus Pty Ltd. (“Seqirus”), which was amended in December 2025, for the exclusive license to commercialize neffy in Australia and New Zealand (the “Seqirus Territory”). Under the Seqirus Agreement, we are responsible for the transfer of know-how, which includes regulatory materials, regulatory data, and commercialization data, and also for the manufacturing of product for commercial supply which is available to Seqirus at a negotiated price. Seqirus is solely responsible for all regulatory and commercialization activities in the Seqirus Territory. Either party may terminate the Seqirus Agreement for certain breaches. Unless terminated earlier by either or both parties, the initial term of the Seqirus Agreement is 15 years from the first commercial sale of neffy in the Seqirus Territory. The Seqirus Agreement will automatically renew for two-year periods unless either party gives a notice to terminate at least 12 months prior to the end of the initial or any renewal term.

Under the Seqirus Agreement, we received an upfront payment of $0.5 million in May 2024, earned a regulatory milestone payment of $1.5 million in August 2024, and earned a regulatory milestone payment of $0.6 million in December 2025. In addition, we are eligible to receive up to $2.3 million of milestone payments upon achievement of certain event milestones. Subject to regulatory approval in Australia and New Zealand, we will also receive a per unit supply price for the sale of commercial supply to Seqirus.

ALK Collaboration Agreement

In November 2024, we entered into a collaboration, license and distribution agreement (the “ALK Collaboration Agreement”) with ALK. Pursuant to the ALK Collaboration Agreement, we granted to ALK a worldwide (other than the United States, Japan, mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Australia and New Zealand) (“ALK Territory”), exclusive license under certain of our patents and know-how to develop, manufacture and commercialize products containing epinephrine administered intranasally, including EURneffy (the tradename for neffy 2 mg in the European Union) (epinephrine nasal spray) (“Products”), for all human uses, including the immediate or emergency treatment of allergic reactions (including Type I) and anaphylaxis and urticaria, and other future indications as agreed by the parties. If we develop any new intranasally administered product that contains epinephrine and files a new drug application in the United States for such product (“New Product”), upon ALK’s request such New Product will be included as a Product under the ALK Collaboration Agreement, subject to ALK bearing the costs of development of such New Product for its licensed territory.

Under the ALK Collaboration Agreement, we are obligated to transfer to ALK the existing marketing authorizations for the Products in the ALK Territory. We are also required to conduct certain development and regulatory activities for Products in support of obtaining further regulatory approval of Products in the ALK Territory, and will transfer such regulatory approvals to ALK. ALK is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain and maintain regulatory approval for Products through the European Commission and within specified countries within the ALK Territory. Following such approval for a Product in each indication within specified countries within the ALK Territory, ALK is obligated to use commercially reasonable efforts to commercialize such Product in such indication in such countries and to achieve first commercial sale of a Product in certain countries in accordance with a timeline specified in the ALK Collaboration Agreement.

Under the ALK Collaboration Agreement, ALK made an upfront payment to us of $145.0 million in November 2024 and earned a commercial milestone payment of $5.0 million for the first commercial sale of neffy in June 2025. We are eligible to receive regulatory and development milestones of up to $15.0 million and commercial sales-based milestones of up to $300.0 million, provided that $55.0 million of such sales-based milestones are contingent upon us obtaining regulatory approval for the Product in Canada by a specified time. We are entitled to receive tiered royalty payments on net sales in the mid- to high-teens, subject to certain standard reductions and offsets. Royalties will be payable, on a Product-by-Product and country-by-country basis, until the latest of the expiration of the licensed patents covering such Product in such country, 15 years from first commercial sale of such Product in such country, or expiration of regulatory exclusivity for such Product in such country.

The contract will expire upon the expiration of the last to expire royalty term for all Products in the ALK Territory, unless terminated earlier. Either we or ALK may terminate the ALK Collaboration Agreement in the case of the other party’s insolvency or in the event of an uncured material breach of the other party, except that we may not terminate the ALK Collaboration Agreement for ALK’s material breach of its commercial diligence obligations. ALK may terminate the ALK Collaboration Agreement for convenience upon prior written notice or for a safety or regulatory concern. We may terminate the ALK Collaboration Agreement in the event ALK makes certain challenges to certain of our patents. Prior to a change of control and outside of a set period of time after which we commence change of control negotiations, we may terminate the ALK Collaboration Agreement with respect to all countries in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) upon prior written notice to ALK and payment of a termination fee that is the higher of an agreed mid-nine digit amount and the fair market value of the Products business in the EEA at the time of such termination. We may also terminate the ALK Collaboration Agreement if ALK commercializes a non-injectable epinephrine product or manufactures such a product in the United States.

ALK Supply Agreement

On November 9, 2024, in connection with the ALK Collaboration Agreement, ARS and ALK also entered into a commercial supply agreement (the “ALK Supply Agreement”), under which ARS will supply ALK’s requirements (and ALK will purchase from ARS its requirements) of Products for five years for a specified supply price, after which ALK may elect to transition to itself or its contract manufacturer the manufacture and supply of Products. Either we or ALK may terminate the ALK Supply Agreement in the event of an uncured material breach of the other party.

ALK Co-Promotion Agreement

In May 2025, we entered into a co-promotion agreement with ALK U.S., which was subsequently amended in October 2025 and March 2026 (as amended, the “ALK Co-Promotion Agreement”), to co-promote neffy to up to 9,000 specified pediatricians and other prescribers in the U.S. Under the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, we granted ALK U.S. a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use the neffy trademarks and copyrights and the ARS house marks in the U.S. solely in connection with promoting neffy pursuant to the terms of the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement.

ALK U.S. commenced its promotion activities in May 2025 and is obligated to meet specified ramp-up milestones and minimum detail requirements using qualified sales representatives. In addition, during the term of the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement and for 180 days thereafter, ALK U.S. will not market, sell or manufacture any injection product containing epinephrine in the U.S.

We record all sales of neffy in the U.S. and, subject to the terms of the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, continue to have sole responsibility for all U.S. commercialization activities, including marketing, medical affairs, market access, production, distribution, pharmacovigilance, quality and safety.

We will pay ALK U.S. a base fee to compensate ALK U.S. for its promotion activities. Payments for the first year of the partnership will be deferred and paid in the second year of the partnership. In addition to the base fee, ALK U.S. will be eligible to receive performance-based bonus payments from us starting in May 2026 equal to 30% of the portion of neffy net sales generated from the ALK U.S.-targeted prescribers in excess of a specified initial market share threshold in year two or a 50% market share threshold during years three and four of the partnership.

The ALK Co-Promotion Agreement expires in May 2029. Either party may terminate the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement in the event of an uncured material breach of the other party or for either party’s change of control. We may terminate the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement in the case of ALK U.S.’s insolvency, if ALK U.S. fails to meet specified ramp-up timelines, or if ALK U.S. markets, sells or commercializes any non-injection product containing epinephrine in the U.S. We may terminate the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement if minimum detail requirements are not met for a consecutive three-month period. After the first year, we may terminate the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement for any reason or no reason for a fee (as described below). After the first year, ALK U.S. may terminate the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement for any reason or no reason, and we may terminate the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement in the event ALK U.S. restructures its sales force.

Upon termination of the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement by us for convenience, so long as ALK U.S. has met specified performance thresholds during the term, we are obligated to pay ALK U.S. a specified mid-to-low double-digit percentage of the portion of neffy net sales generated from the ALK U.S.-targeted prescribers in excess of a specified mid-quartile market share threshold that increases over time up to 50% for a specified period after termination, which period decreases in duration the later that the termination occurs. Upon termination of the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement by us in connection with a change of control of the Company, we are obligated to pay ALK U.S. a one-time mid-seven digit to low eight-digit termination fee in an amount that increases the later that the termination occurs.

Government Regulation and Product Approval

As a pharmaceutical company that operates in the U.S., we are subject to extensive regulation. Government authorities in the United States (at the federal, state and local level) and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacturing, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record-keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug products. Product candidates that we develop must be approved by the FDA, before they may be legally marketed in the U.S. and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries. Generally, our activities in other countries will be subject to regulation that is similar in nature and scope as that imposed in the U.S., although there can be important differences. Additionally, some significant aspects of regulation in Europe are addressed in a centralized way, but country-specific regulation remains essential in many respects.

Regulation of Combination Products in the United States

Our intranasal epinephrine technology, including neffy, is comprised of drug and delivery device components that would normally be subject to different regulatory frameworks by the FDA and frequently regulated by different centers at the FDA. These products are known as combination products. Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the FDA is charged with assigning a center with primary jurisdiction, or a lead center, for review of a combination product. The determination of which center will be the lead center is based on the “primary mode of action” of the combination product.

A combination product with a primary mode of action attributable to the drug component, such as neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, generally would be reviewed and approved pursuant to the drug approval processes set forth in the FDCA. In reviewing the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for such a product, however, FDA reviewers would consult with their counterparts in the device center to ensure that the device component of the combination product – the sprayer - met applicable requirements regarding safety, effectiveness, durability and performance. In addition, under FDA regulations, combination products such as neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates are subject to current Good Manufacturing Practice (“cGMP”) requirements applicable to both drugs and devices, including the Quality Management System Regulations applicable to medical devices.

U.S. Drug Development Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA, and implementing regulations. A new drug must be approved by the FDA through the NDA process before it may be legally marketed in the United States. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant to administrative or judicial sanctions. FDA sanctions could include, among other actions, refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, a clinical hold, warning letters, product recalls or withdrawals from the market, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, restitution, disgorgement or civil or criminal penalties. Any agency or judicial enforcement action could have a material adverse effect on us. The process required by the FDA before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

Before testing any compounds with potential therapeutic value in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluations of product chemistry, toxicity and formulation, as well as animal studies, to assess the potential safety and activity of the product candidate. The conduct of the preclinical tests must comply with federal regulations and requirements including GLP requirements. The sponsor must submit the results of the preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials and places the IND on clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with GCPs, which include the requirement that all research subjects provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent IRB at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical trial until completed. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

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

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

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA and written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected AEs or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an IRB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients. Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides authorization for whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on access to certain data from the trial.

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

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

Assuming successful completion of all required testing in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements, the results of product development, preclinical studies and clinical trials, along with descriptions of the manufacturing process, analytical tests conducted on the chemistry of the drug, proposed labeling and other relevant information are submitted to the FDA as part of an NDA requesting approval to market the product. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA. The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances.

In addition, the Pediatric Research Equity Act (“PREA”) requires a sponsor to conduct pediatric clinical trials for most drugs, for a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration. Under PREA, original NDAs and supplements must contain a pediatric assessment unless the sponsor has received a deferral or waiver. The required assessment must evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the product for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The sponsor or FDA may request a deferral of pediatric clinical trials for some or all of the pediatric subpopulations. A deferral may be granted for several reasons, including a finding that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before pediatric clinical trials are complete or that additional safety or effectiveness data need to be collected before the pediatric clinical trials begin. The FDA must send a non-compliance letter to any sponsor that fails to submit the required assessment, keep a deferral current or fails to submit a request for approval of a pediatric formulation. Unless otherwise required by regulation, the Pediatric Research Equity Act does not apply to any drug for an indication for which orphan designation has been granted. However, if only one indication for a product has orphan designation, a pediatric assessment may still be required for any applications to market that same product for the non-orphan indication(s).

The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information rather than accepting an NDA for filing. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the PDUFA guidelines that are currently in effect, the FDA has a goal of ten months from the date of “filing” of a standard NDA for a new molecular entity to review and act on the submission. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard and priority NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel drug products or drug products which 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 under what conditions. For example, the FDA and other agencies, including the Department of Justice, closely regulate and monitor the post-approval marketing and promotion of products to ensure that they are manufactured, marketed and distributed only for the approved indications and in accordance with the provisions of the approved labeling. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions and typically follows such committee’s recommendations.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA 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 an NDA, the FDA may inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities, it may issue an approval letter or a CRL. An approval letter authorizes commercial marketing of the drug with specific prescribing information for specific indications. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and the application will not be approved in its present form. A CRL usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the NDA identified by the FDA. The CRL may require additional clinical data and/or (an) additional pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, preclinical studies or manufacturing. If a CRL is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information are submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If a product receives regulatory approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling or may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct one or more post-market studies or clinical trials. In some countries, we may be required to conduct a clinical study or other studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates to other available therapies in order to obtain or maintain reimbursement or pricing approval, which is time-consuming and costly. The FDA may also determine that a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (“REMS”) is necessary to assure the safe use of the drug. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the NDA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the NDA without an approved REMS, if required. A REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans, or elements to assure safe use, such as restricted distribution methods, patient registries and other risk minimization tools.

Post-Approval Requirements

Any drug products manufactured or distributed pursuant to FDA approvals are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse experiences with the product, providing the FDA with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with FDA promotion and advertising requirements. After approval, most changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications or other labeling claims, are subject to prior FDA review and approval. There also are continuing, annual program fees for any marketed products.

In addition, quality control and manufacturing procedures must continue to conform to applicable manufacturing requirements after approval to ensure the long-term stability of the drug product. 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. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process are strictly regulated, and depending on the significance of the change, may require prior FDA approval before being implemented. Other types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications and additional labeling claims, are also subject to further FDA review and approval.

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

The FDA also may require post-marketing testing, known as Phase 4 testing, and surveillance to monitor the effects of an approved 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, warning letters from the FDA, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, 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.

The FDA closely regulates the marketing, labeling, advertising and promotion of drug products. A company can make only those claims relating to safety and efficacy, purity and potency that are approved by the FDA and in accordance with the provisions of the approved label. The FDA and other agencies actively enforce the laws and regulations prohibiting the promotion of off label uses. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in, among other things, adverse publicity, warning letters, corrective advertising and potential civil and criminal penalties. Physicians may prescribe, in their independent professional medical judgment, legally available products for uses that are not described in the product’s labeling and that differ from those tested and approved by the FDA. Physicians may believe that such off-label uses are the best treatment for many patients in varied circumstances. The FDA does not regulate the behavior of physicians in their choice of treatments. The FDA does, however, restrict manufacturer’s communications on the subject of off-label use of their products. The federal government has levied large civil and criminal fines against companies for alleged improper promotion of off-label use and has enjoined companies from engaging in off-label promotion. The FDA and other regulatory agencies have also required that companies enter into consent decrees or permanent injunctions under which specified promotional conduct is changed or curtailed. However, companies may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s FDA-approved labelling. However, companies generally may share truthful and not misleading information that is otherwise consistent with a product’s approved labeling.

Hatch-Waxman Act

Section 505 of the FDCA describes three types of marketing applications that may be submitted to the FDA to request marketing authorization for a new drug. A Section 505(b)(1) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy. A 505(b)(2) NDA is an application that contains full reports of investigations of safety and efficacy but where at least some of the information required for approval comes from investigations that were not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference or use from the person by or for whom the investigations were conducted. This regulatory pathway enables the applicant to rely, in part, on the FDA’s prior findings of safety and efficacy for an existing product, or published literature, in support of its application. Section 505(j) establishes an abbreviated approval process for a generic version of approved drug products through the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”). An ANDA provides for marketing of a generic drug product that has the same active ingredients, dosage form, strength, route of administration, labeling, performance characteristics and intended use, among other things, to a previously approved product. ANDAs are termed “abbreviated” because they are generally not required to include preclinical (animal) and clinical (human) data to establish safety and efficacy. Instead, generic applicants must scientifically demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent to, or performs in the same manner as, the innovator drug through in vitro, in vivo, or other testing. The generic version must deliver the same amount of active ingredients into a subject’s bloodstream in the same amount of time as the innovator drug and can often be substituted by pharmacists under prescriptions written for the reference listed drug. In seeking approval for a drug through an NDA, applicants are required to list with the FDA each patent with claims that cover the applicant’s drug or a method of using the drug. Upon approval of a drug, each of the patents listed in the application for the drug is then published in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, commonly known as the Orange Book. Drugs listed in the Orange Book can, in turn, be cited by potential competitors in support of approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA.

Upon submission of an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA, an applicant must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the application has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the drug product for which the application is submitted. Generally, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA cannot be approved until all listed patents have expired, except where the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant challenges a listed patent through the last type of certification, also known as a paragraph IV certification. If the applicant does not challenge the listed patents or indicates that it is not seeking approval of a patented method of use, the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA application will not be approved until all of the listed patents claiming the referenced product have expired. If the ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant has provided a paragraph IV certification to the FDA, the applicant must send notice of the paragraph IV certification to the NDA and patent holders once the application has been accepted for filing by the FDA. The NDA and patent holders may then initiate a patent infringement lawsuit in response to the notice of the paragraph IV certification. If the paragraph IV certification is challenged by an NDA holder or the patent owner(s) asserts a patent challenge to the paragraph IV certification, the FDA may not approve that application until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in the applicant’s favor or settled, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay. In instances where an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applicant files a paragraph IV certification, the NDA holder or patent owner(s) regularly take action to trigger the 30-month stay, recognizing that the related patent litigation may take many months or years to resolve. Thus, approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA could be delayed for a significant period of time depending on the patent certification the applicant makes and the reference drug sponsor’s decision to initiate patent litigation.

The Hatch-Waxman Act establishes periods of regulatory exclusivity for certain approved drug products, during which the FDA cannot approve (or in some cases accept) an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application that relies on the branded reference drug. For example, the holder of an NDA, including a 505(b)(2) NDA, may obtain five years of exclusivity upon approval of a new drug containing new chemical entities that have not been previously approved by the FDA. A drug is a new chemical entity if the FDA has not previously approved any other new drug containing the same active moiety, which is the molecule or ion responsible for the therapeutic activity of the drug substance. During the exclusivity period, the FDA may not accept for review an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) NDA submitted by another company that contains the previously approved active moiety. However, an ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA may be submitted after four years if it contains a certification of patent invalidity or non-infringement. The Hatch-Waxman Act also provides three years of marketing exclusivity to the holder of an NDA (including a 505(b)(2) NDA) for a particular condition of approval, or change to a marketed product, such as a new formulation for a previously approved product, if one or more new clinical studies (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) was essential to the approval of the application and was conducted/sponsored by the applicant. This three-year exclusivity period protects against FDA approval of ANDAs and 505(b)(2) NDAs for the condition of the new drug’s approval. As a general matter, the three year exclusivity does not prohibit the FDA from approving ANDAs or 505(b)(2) NDAs for generic versions of the original, unmodified drug product. Five-year and three-year exclusivity will not delay the submission or approval of a full NDA; however, an applicant submitting a full NDA would be required to conduct or obtain a right of reference to all of the preclinical studies and adequate and well-controlled clinical trials necessary to demonstrate safety and efficacy.

Pediatric exclusivity is another type of non-patent market exclusivity in the United States. Pediatric exclusivity, if granted, adds six months to existing exclusivity periods and patent terms. This six-month exclusivity, which runs from the end of other exclusivity protection or patent term, may be granted based on the voluntary completion of a pediatric trial in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a trial.

Other Healthcare Laws

In the United States, we are subject to a number of federal and state healthcare regulatory laws that restrict business practices in the healthcare industry. These laws include, but are not limited to, federal and state anti-kickback laws, false claims laws, data privacy and security laws, and other healthcare fraud and abuse laws, such as transparency laws regarding payments or other items of value provided to healthcare providers.

The U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, receiving or providing any remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, to induce or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering, or arranging for or recommending the purchase, lease, or order of any good, facility, item or service reimbursable, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other federal healthcare programs. The term “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on the one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other hand. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly and practices that involve remuneration that are 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. Although there are several statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing or recommending 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 healthcare program 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 its facts and circumstances. Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute has been violated. 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 and Education 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 healthcare program anti-kickback statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

The federal false claims, including the civil False Claims Act, prohibit, among other things, any person or entity from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for payment to, or approval by, the federal government, knowingly making, using, or causing to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim to the federal government, or knowingly making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the U.S. federal government. A claim includes “any request or demand” for money or property presented to the U.S. government. Actions under the civil False Claims Act may be brought by the Attorney General or as a qui tam action by a private individual in the name of the government. Moreover, a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal civil False Claims Act.

In addition, the federal civil monetary penalties law, subject to certain exceptions, prohibits, among other things, the offer or transfer of remuneration, including waivers of copayments and deductible amounts (or any part thereof), to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state healthcare program.

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created additional federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other actions, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third party payors, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. Similar to the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation.

In addition, HIPAA, as amended by Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (“HITECH”), imposes certain requirements on covered entities, which include certain healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses, and their business associates and covered subcontractors that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information.

The federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologics and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, with specific exceptions, to report annually to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) information related to payments or other transfers of value made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), other health care professionals (such as physicians assistants and nurse practitioners), and teaching hospitals, as well as information regarding ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members.

Similar state and local laws and regulations may also restrict business practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as state anti-kickback and false claims laws, which may apply to business practices, including but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers, or by patients themselves; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the relevant compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government, or otherwise restrict payments that may be made to healthcare providers and other potential referral sources; state laws and regulations that require drug manufacturers to file reports relating to pricing information and marketing expenditures or which require tracking gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to physicians, other healthcare providers and entities; and state and local laws that require the registration of pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Violations of any of these laws and other applicable healthcare fraud and abuse laws may be punishable by criminal and civil sanctions, including significant fines and civil monetary penalties, the possibility of exclusion from federal healthcare programs (including Medicare and Medicaid), disgorgement and corporate integrity agreements, which impose, among other things, rigorous operational and monitoring requirements on companies. Similar sanctions and penalties, as well as imprisonment, also can be imposed upon executive officers and employees of such companies.

Coverage and Reimbursement

Sales of any pharmaceutical product depend, in part, on the extent to which such product will be covered by third-party payors, such as federal, state and foreign government healthcare programs, commercial insurance and managed healthcare organizations, and the level of reimbursement for such product by third-party payors. In the United States, no uniform policy exists for coverage and reimbursement for pharmaceutical products among third-party payors. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, decisions regarding the extent of coverage and amount of reimbursement to be provided are made on a plan-by-plan basis. The process for determining whether a third-party payor will provide coverage for a product typically is separate from the process for setting the price of such product or for establishing the reimbursement rate that the payor will pay for the product once coverage is approved. There is significant uncertainty related to the insurance coverage and reimbursement of newly approved products. Some third-party payors require pre-approval of coverage for new drugs before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. Generally, third-party payors limit coverage and reimbursement for new medication prior to a formal review by the payors’ pharmacy and therapeutics committees. As such, several third-party payors have indicated that our products may be subject to denial or limited coverage prior to formal review. There may be significant delays in obtaining reimbursement for newly-approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug or therapeutic biologic is approved by the FDA or similar foreign regulatory authorities. There can be no assurance that our product candidates will be considered medically necessary or cost-effective.

Third-party payors may limit coverage to specific products on an approved list, also known as a formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved products for a particular indication, or place products at certain formulary levels that result in lower reimbursement levels and higher cost-sharing obligation imposed on patients. One third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular medical product or service does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the medical product or service and the level of coverage and reimbursement can differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process will often require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of our products to each payor separately and can be a time-consuming process, with no assurance that coverage and adequate reimbursement will be applied consistently or obtained in the first instance. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of neffy to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage will be obtained, or that payment levels will be adequate for neffy or any other products we may market. Additionally, a third-party payor’s decision to provide coverage for a product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Further, coverage policies and third-party reimbursement rates may change at any time. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future.

Moreover, as a condition of participating in, and having products covered under, certain federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, we are subject to federal laws and regulations that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to calculate and report certain price reporting metrics to the government, such as Medicaid Average Manufacturer Price (“AMP”), and Best Price, Medicare Average Sales Price, the 340B Ceiling Price, and Non-Federal AMP reported to the Department of Veteran Affairs, and with respect to Medicaid, pay statutory rebates on utilization of manufacturers’ products by Medicaid beneficiaries. In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven (7) years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize neffy and any product candidates for which we receive approval.

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

Healthcare Reform

In the United States and certain foreign jurisdictions, there have been, and we expect there will continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory changes to the healthcare system. For example, implementation of the ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers in the United States and significantly affected the pharmaceutical industry.

Since its enactment, there have been amendments and judicial, administrative, executive, and Congressional legislative challenges to certain aspects of the ACA.Since its enactment, there have been amendments and judicial, executive and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the ACA. For example, on July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”) was signed into law, which narrowed access to ACA marketplace exchange enrollment and declined to extend the ACA enhanced advanced premium tax credits that expired at the end of 2025, which, among other provisions in the law, are anticipated to reduce the number of Americans with health insurance. The OBBBA also is expected to reduce Medicaid spending and enrollment by implementing work requirements for some beneficiaries, capping state-directed payments, reducing federal funding, and limiting provider taxes used to fund the program. Congress is considering proposed legislation intended to further reduce healthcare costs with alternatives to replace the expired ACA subsidies. It is unclear how such challenges and the healthcare reform measures of the current administration will impact the ACA and our business. It is unclear how any such challenges, and the healthcare reform measures of the second Trump administration will impact the ACA and our business.

Other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted, including aggregate reductions of Medicare payments to providers of 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to two percent per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which went into effect on April 1, 2013, and due to subsequent legislative amendments, will remain in effect until 2032, unless additional Congressional action is taken. Further, there may be additional health reform measures.

Moreover, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny over the manner in which manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which has resulted in several U.S. Presidential executive orders, congressional inquiries, and proposed and enacted legislation designed, among other things, to bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for pharmaceutical products. For example, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2021, effective January 1, 2024, eliminated the statutory cap on rebate amounts owed by drug manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (“MDRP”), previously capped at 100% of the AMP for a covered outpatient drug.

The current administration is pursuing policies to reduce regulations and expenditures across government agencies including at HHS, the FDA, CMS and related agencies. These actions, presently directed by executive orders or memoranda from the Office of Management and Budget, may propose policy changes that create additional uncertainty for our business. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug may be lost to the generic product. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug may be lost to the generic product. For example, the current administration has announced agreements with pharmaceutical companies that require the drug manufacturers to offer, through a direct-to-consumer platform, U.S. patients and Medicaid programs prescription drug Most-Favored Nation pricing equal to or lower than those paid in other developed nations, with additional mandates for direct-to-patient discounts and repatriation of foreign revenues. Other recent actions, for example, include (1) directing agencies to reduce agency workforce and cut programs; (2) directing HHS and other agencies to lower prescription drug costs through a variety of initiatives, including by improving upon the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program and establishing Most-Favored-Nation pricing for pharmaceutical products; (3) imposing tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products; and (4) as part of the Make America Healthy Again Commission’s Strategy Report released in September 2025, working across government agencies to increase enforcement on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. Additionally, the current administration recently called on Congress to enact “The Great Healthcare Plan,” to codify and expand Most-Favored Nation pricing, lower government subsidies to private insurance companies, increase healthcare price transparency, expand pharmaceutical drugs available for over-the-counter purchase, and enact restrictions on pharmacy benefit manager payment methodologies, among other things. These actions and policies may significantly reduce U.S. drug prices, potentially impacting manufacturers’ global pricing strategies and profitability, while increasing their operational costs and compliance risks. In June 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court greatly reduced judicial deference to regulatory agencies, which could increase successful legal challenges to federal regulations affecting our operations. Congress may introduce and ultimately pass health care related legislation that could impact the drug approval process and make changes to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.

Individual states in the United States have also become increasingly active in implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures and, in some cases, mechanisms to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing.At the state level, legislatures have become increasingly aggressive in passing legislation and implementing regulations designed to control pharmaceutical product pricing, including price or patient reimbursement constraints, discounts, restrictions on certain product access and marketing cost disclosure and transparency measures, and, in some cases, designed to encourage importation from other countries and bulk purchasing. Any such approved importation plans, when implemented, may result in lower drug prices for products covered by those programs. In addition, regional healthcare authorities and individual hospitals are increasingly using bidding procedures to determine which drugs and suppliers will be included in their healthcare programs. Furthermore, there has been increased interest by third-party payors and governmental authorities in reference pricing systems and publication of discounts and list prices.

We expect additional state and federal healthcare reform measures to be adopted in the future, any of which could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services.

Data Privacy and Security Laws

Numerous state, local, federal and foreign laws, including consumer protection laws and regulations related to data privacy, security, and protection, govern the collection, dissemination, use, access to, confidentiality, and security of personal information, including health-related information. Such obligations may include, without limitation, HIPAA, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Canada’s Anti-Spam Legislation, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (“EU GDPR”), and the EU GDPR as it forms part of United Kingdom (“UK”) law by virtue of section 3 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“UK GDPR”). HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, imposes obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, on certain covered healthcare providers, health plans, and healthcare clearinghouses and their respective business associates and covered subcontractors that perform services for them that involve the use, or disclosure of, individually identifiable health information with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. As a result, we may fail to generate additional clinical development opportunities for our intranasal epinephrine technology for a number of reasons, including, that our intranasal epinephrine technology may in certain indications, on further study, be shown to have harmful side effects, limited to no efficacy or other characteristics that suggest it is unlikely to receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance in such additional indications. In addition, certain state and non-U.S. laws, such as the CCPA, the CPRA and the GDPR, govern the privacy and security of personal information, including health-related information in certain circumstances, some of which are more stringent than HIPAA and many of which differ from each other in significant ways and may not have the same effect, thus complicating compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to make compliance efforts more challenging, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant penalties and restrictions on data processing.

In addition, Congress and various other states have enacted or are considering new laws and regulations regarding the privacy and security of health and other personal information to which we may become subject. Further, all 50 states have passed laws regulating the actions that a business must take if it experiences a data breach, such as prompt disclosure to affected customers. In addition to data breach notification laws, some states have enacted statutes and rules requiring businesses to reasonably protect certain types of personal information they hold or to otherwise comply with certain specified data security requirements for personal information. Preparing for and complying with these obligations requires us to devote significant resources and may necessitate changes to our information technologies, systems, and practices and to those of any third parties that process personal data or sensitive data on our behalf. We intend to continue to protect all personal information in our control and to comply with all applicable laws regarding the protection of such information.

The CCPA and EU GDPR are examples of the increasingly stringent and evolving regulatory frameworks related to personal data processing that may increase our compliance obligations and exposure for any noncompliance. For example, the CCPA regulates the processing of personal information of California residents and increases the privacy and security obligations of covered companies handling such personal information, including requiring covered companies to provide new disclosures to California residents, and affords such residents new abilities to opt-out of certain sales of personal information. The CCPA provides for civil penalties for violations, as well as a private right of action for certain data breaches that result in the loss of personal information that may increase the likelihood of, and risks associated with, data breach litigation. Moreover, the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, – a consumer privacy ballot initiative that amends and expands the CCPA became effective on January 1, 2023, and expands the CCPA. The CPRA affords California residents significantly more control over their personal information, imposes heightened compliance obligations on covered companies, and establishes a new enforcement agency dedicated to consumer privacy. While aspects of the CCPA and CPRA and its interpretation remain to be determined in practice, they create further uncertainty and may result in additional costs and expenses in an effort to comply.

Foreign data privacy and security laws (including but not limited to the EU GDPR and UK GDPR) impose significant and complex compliance obligations on entities that are subject to those laws. As one example, the EU GDPR applies to any company established in the EEA and to companies established outside the EEA that process personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to data subjects in the EEA or the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects in the EEA. These obligations may include limiting personal data processing to only what is necessary for specified, explicit, and legitimate purposes; requiring a legal basis for personal data processing; requiring the appointment of a data protection officer in certain circumstances; increasing transparency obligations to data subjects; requiring data protection impact assessments in certain circumstances; limiting the collection and retention of personal data; increasing rights for data subjects; formalizing a heightened and codified standard of data subject consents; requiring the implementation and maintenance of technical and organizational safeguards for personal data; mandating notice of certain personal data breaches to the relevant supervisory authority(ies) and affected individuals; and mandating the appointment of representatives in the UK and/or the EU in certain circumstances.

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (“FCPA”) prohibits any U.S. individual or business from paying, offering, or authorizing payment or offering of anything of value, directly or indirectly, to any foreign official, political party or candidate for the purpose of influencing any act or decision of the foreign entity in order to assist the individual or business in obtaining or retaining business. The FCPA also obligates companies whose securities are listed in the United States to comply with accounting provisions requiring the company to maintain books and records that accurately and fairly reflect all transactions of the corporation, including international subsidiaries, and to devise and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls for international operations.

Europe / Rest of World Government Regulation

In addition to regulations in the United States, we will be subject to a variety of regulations in other jurisdictions governing, among other things, clinical trials and any commercial sales and distribution of our products. Whether or not we or our potential collaborators obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical trials or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of an application for a clinical trial authorization (“CTA”) much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical trials. In the EU, for example, a CTA must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an application made to an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements and a favorable ethics committee opinion has been issued, clinical trial development may proceed.

Clinical Trials in the EU

Similarly to the United States, the various phases of non-clinical and clinical research in the EU are subject to significant regulatory controls.

Non-clinical studies are performed to demonstrate the health or environmental safety of new chemical or biological substances. Non-clinical studies must be conducted in compliance with the principles of good laboratory practice, as set forth in EU Directive 2004/10/EC. In particular, non-clinical studies, both in vitro and in vivo, must be planned, performed, monitored, recorded, reported and archived in accordance with the GLP principles, which define a set of rules and criteria for a quality system for the organizational process and the conditions for non-clinical studies. These GLP standards reflect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development requirements. Clinical trials of medicinal products in the EU must be conducted in accordance with EU and national regulations and the International Conference on Harmonization (“ICH”), guidelines on GCPs, as well as the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

At the EU level, clinical trials are governed by the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (“CTR”), which entered into application on January 31, 2022 repealing and replacing the former Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20 (“CTD”). The CTR is intended to harmonize and streamline clinical trial authorizations, simplify adverse-event reporting procedures, improve the supervision of clinical trials and increase transparency. Specifically, the Regulation, which is directly applicable in all EU Member States, introduces a streamlined application procedure through a single-entry point, the “EU portal”, the Clinical Trials Information System (“CTIS”); a single set of documents to be prepared and submitted for the application; as well as simplified reporting procedures for clinical trial sponsors. A harmonized procedure for the assessment of applications for clinical trials has been introduced and is divided into two parts. Part I assessment is led by the competent authorities of a reference Member State selected by the trial sponsor and relates to clinical trial aspects that are considered to be scientifically harmonized across EU Member States. This assessment is then submitted to the competent authorities of all concerned Member States in which the trial is to be conducted for their review. Part II is assessed separately by the competent authorities and Ethics Committees in each concerned EU Member State. Individual EU Member States retain the power to authorize the conduct of clinical trials on their territory. The CTR foresaw a three-year transition period that ended on January 31, 2025. Since this date, all new or ongoing trials are subject to the provisions of the CTR.

In all cases, the clinical trials must be conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

EU Review and approval process

In the EU, medicinal products can only be commercialized after a related marketing authorization (“MA”), has been granted. To obtain an MA for a product in the EU, an applicant must submit a Marketing Authorization Application (“MAA”), either under a centralized procedure administered by the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) or one of the procedures administered by the competent authorities of EU Member States (decentralized procedure, national procedure or mutual recognition procedure). An MA may be granted only to an applicant established in the EU.

The centralized procedure provides for the grant of a single MA by the European Commission that is valid throughout the EEA (which is comprised of the 27 EU Member States plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the centralized procedure is compulsory for specific products, including for (i) medicinal products derived from biotechnological processes, (ii) products designated as orphan medicinal products, (iii) advanced therapy medicinal products, and (iv) products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, auto-immune and other immune dysfunctions and viral diseases. For products with a new active substance indicated for the treatment of other diseases and products that are highly innovative or for which a centralized process is in the interest of patients, authorization through the centralized procedure is optional on related approval.

Under the centralized procedure, the CHMP of the EMA conducts the initial assessment of a product. The CHMP is also responsible for several post-authorization and maintenance activities, such as the assessment of modifications or extensions to an existing MA. The maximum timeframe for the evaluation of an MAA under the centralized procedure is 210 days, excluding clock stops when additional information or written or oral explanation is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions of the CHMP.

Accelerated assessment may be granted by the CHMP in exceptional cases, when a medicinal product targeting an unmet medical need is expected to be of major interest from the point of view of public health and, in particular, from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation. If the CHMP accepts a request for accelerated assessment, the time limit of 210 days will be reduced to 150 days (excluding clock stops). The CHMP can, however, revert to the standard time limit for the centralized procedure if it considers that it is no longer appropriate to conduct an accelerated assessment.

Unlike the centralized authorization procedure, the decentralized MA procedure requires a separate application to, and leads to separate approval by, the competent authorities of each EU Member State in which the product is to be marketed. This application is identical to the application that would be submitted to the EMA for authorization through the centralized procedure. The reference EU Member State prepares a draft assessment and drafts of the related materials within 120 days after receipt of a valid application. The resulting assessment report is submitted to the concerned EU Member States who, within 90 days of receipt, must decide whether to approve the assessment report and related materials. If a concerned EU Member State cannot approve the assessment report and related materials due to concerns relating to a potential serious risk to public health, disputed elements may be referred to the Heads of Medicines Agencies’ Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (“CMDh”), for review. The subsequent decision of the European Commission is binding on all EU Member States.

The mutual recognition procedure allows companies that have a medicinal product already authorized in one EU Member State to apply for this authorization to be recognized by the competent authorities in other EU Member States. Like the decentralized procedure, the mutual recognition procedure is based on the acceptance by the competent authorities of the EU Member States of the MA of a medicinal product by the competent authorities of other EU Member States. The holder of a national MA may submit an application to the competent authority of an EU Member State requesting that this authority recognize the MA delivered by the competent authority of another EU Member State.

An MA has, in principle, an initial validity of five years. The MA may be renewed after five years on the basis of a re-evaluation of the risk-benefit balance by the EMA or by the competent authority of the EU Member State in which the original MA was granted. To support the application, the MA holder must provide the EMA or the competent authority with a consolidated version of the Common Technical Document providing up-to-date data concerning the quality, safety and efficacy of the product, including all variations introduced since the MA was granted, at least nine months before the MA ceases to be valid. The European Commission or the competent authorities of the EU Member States may decide on justified grounds relating to pharmacovigilance, to proceed with one further five year renewal period for the MA. Once subsequently definitively renewed, the MA shall be valid for an unlimited period. Any authorization which is not followed by the actual placing of the medicinal product on the EU market (for a centralized MA) or on the market of the authorizing EU Member State within three years after authorization ceases to be valid (the so-called sunset clause).

Innovative products that target an unmet medical need and are expected to be of major public health interest may be eligible for a number of expedited development and review programs, such as the Priority Medicines, or PRIME, scheme, which provides incentives similar to the breakthrough therapy designation in the U.S. PRIME is a voluntary scheme aimed at enhancing the EMA’s support for the development of medicinal products that target unmet medical needs. Eligible products must target conditions for which there is an unmet medical need (there is no satisfactory method of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in the EU or, if there is, the new medicinal product will bring a major therapeutic advantage) and they must demonstrate the potential to address the unmet medical need by introducing new methods of therapy or improving existing ones. Benefits accrue to sponsors of product candidates with PRIME designation, including but not limited to, early and proactive regulatory dialogue with the EMA, frequent discussions on clinical trial designs and other development program elements, and potentially accelerated MAA assessment once a dossier has been submitted.

In the EU, a “conditional” MA may be granted in cases where all the required safety and efficacy data are not yet available. The European Commission may grant a conditional MA for a medicinal product if it is demonstrated that all of the following criteria are met: (i) the benefit-risk balance of the medicinal product is positive; (ii) it is likely that the applicant will be able to provide comprehensive data post-authorization; (iii) the medicinal product fulfils an unmet medical need; and (iv) the benefit of the immediate availability to patients of the medicinal product is greater than the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required. The conditional MA is subject to conditions to be fulfilled for generating the missing data or ensuring increased safety measures. It is valid for one year and must be renewed annually until all related conditions have been fulfilled. Once any pending studies are provided, the conditional MA can be converted into a traditional MA. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled within the timeframe set by the EMA and approved by the European Commission, the MA will cease to be renewed.

An MA may also be granted “under exceptional circumstances” where the applicant can show that it is unable to provide comprehensive data on efficacy and safety under normal conditions of use even after the product has been authorized and subject to specific procedures being introduced. These circumstances may arise in particular when the intended indications are very rare and, in the state of scientific knowledge at that time, it is not possible to provide comprehensive information, or when generating data may be contrary to generally accepted ethical principles. Like a conditional MA, an MA granted in exceptional circumstances is reserved to medicinal products intended to be authorized for treatment of rare diseases or unmet medical needs for which the applicant does not hold a complete data set that is required for the grant of a standard MA. However, unlike the conditional MA, an applicant for authorization in exceptional circumstances is not subsequently required to provide the missing data. Although the MA “under exceptional circumstances” is granted definitively, the risk-benefit balance of the medicinal product is reviewed annually, and the MA will be withdrawn if the risk-benefit ratio is no longer favorable.

Pediatric Development in the EU

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 provides that all MAAs for new medicinal products have to include the results of trials conducted in the pediatric population, in compliance with a pediatric investigation plan (“PIP”), agreed with the EMA’s Pediatric Committee (“PDCO”). The PIP sets out the timing and measures proposed to generate data to support a pediatric indication of the medicinal product for which MA is being sought. The PDCO can grant a deferral of the obligation to implement some or all of the measures provided in the PIP until there are sufficient data to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the product in adults. Further, the obligation to provide pediatric clinical trial data can be waived by the PDCO when these data are not needed or appropriate because the product is likely to be ineffective or unsafe in children, the disease or condition for which the product is intended occurs only in adult populations, or when the product does not represent a significant therapeutic benefit over existing treatments for pediatric patients. Once the MA is obtained in all EU Member States and study results are included in the product information, even when negative, the product is eligible for a six-month extension to the Supplementary Protection Certificate, or SPC, if any is in effect at the time of authorization or, in the case of orphan medicinal products, a two-year extension of orphan market exclusivity.

Manufacturing Regulation in the EU

In addition to an MA, various other requirements apply to the manufacturing and placing on the EU market of medicinal products. The manufacturing of medicinal products in the EU requires a manufacturing authorization and import of medicinal products into the EU requires a manufacturing authorization allowing for import. The manufacturing authorization holder must comply with various requirements set out in the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidance, including EU cGMP standards. Similarly, the distribution of medicinal products within the EU is subject to compliance with the applicable EU laws, regulations and guidelines, including the requirement to hold appropriate authorizations for distribution granted by the competent authorities of EU Member States. Marketing authorization holders and/or manufacturing and import authorization, or MA holders and/or distribution authorization holders may be subject to civil, criminal or administrative sanctions, including suspension of manufacturing authorization, in case of non-compliance with the EU or EU Member States’ requirements applicable to the manufacturing of medicinal products.

Data and Market Exclusivity

The EU also provides opportunities for market exclusivity. For example, upon receiving an MA, new chemical entities generally receive eight years of data exclusivity and an additional two years of market exclusivity. If granted, data exclusivity prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. During the additional two-year period of market exclusivity, a generic or biosimilar marketing authorization can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced, but no generic or biosimilar product can be marketed until the expiration of the market exclusivity. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those ten years, the MA 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. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity.

Orphan Designation in the EU

In the EU, Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000, as implemented by Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 provides that a medicinal product can be designated as an orphan medicinal product by the European Commission if its sponsor can establish that: (i) the product is intended for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions; (ii) either (a) such conditions affect not more than 5 in 10,000 persons in the EU when the application is made, or (b) the product without the benefits derived from orphan status, would not generate sufficient return in the EU to justify the necessary investment in developing the medicinal product; and (iii) there exists no satisfactory authorized method of diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of the condition that has been authorized in the EU, or even if such method exists, the product will be of significant benefit to those affected by that condition.

Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 sets out further provisions for implementation of the criteria for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product. An application for the designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product must be submitted at any stage of development of the medicinal product but before filing of an MAA. An MA for an orphan medicinal product may only include indications designated as orphan. For non-orphan indications treated with the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, a separate marketing authorization has to be sought.

Orphan medicinal product designation entitles an applicant to incentives such fee reductions or fee waivers, protocol assistance, and access to the centralized marketing authorization procedure. Upon grant of a marketing authorization, orphan medicinal products are entitled to a ten-year period of market exclusivity for the approved therapeutic indication, which means that the EMA cannot accept another marketing authorization application or accept an application to extend for a similar product and the European Commission cannot grant a marketing authorization for the same indication for a period of ten years. The period of market exclusivity is extended by two years for orphan medicinal products that have also complied with an agreed PIP. No extension to any supplementary protection certificate can be granted on the basis of pediatric studies for orphan indications. Orphan medicinal product designation does not convey any advantage in, or shorten the duration of, the regulatory review and approval process.

The period of market exclusivity may, however, be reduced to six years if, at the end of the fifth year, it is established that the product no longer meets the criteria on the basis of which it received orphan medicinal product designation, including where it can be demonstrated on the basis of available evidence that the original orphan medicinal product is sufficiently profitable not to justify maintenance of market exclusivity or where the prevalence of the condition has increased above the threshold. Additionally, an MA may be granted to a similar medicinal product with the same orphan indication during the 10 year period if: (i) if the applicant consents to a second original orphan medicinal product application, (ii) if the manufacturer of the original orphan medicinal product is unable to supply sufficient quantities; or (iii) if the second applicant can establish that its product, although similar, is safer, more effective or otherwise clinically superior to the original orphan medicinal product. A company may voluntarily remove a product from the register of orphan products.

Post-authorization Requirements in the EU

Where an MA is granted in relation to a medicinal product in the EU, the holder of the MA is required to comply with a range of regulatory requirements applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, promotion and sale of medicinal products. Similar to the United States, both MA holders and manufacturers of medicinal products are subject to comprehensive regulatory oversight by the EMA, the European Commission and/or the competent regulatory authorities of the individual EU Member States. The holder of an MA must establish and maintain a pharmacovigilance system and appoint an individual qualified person for pharmacovigilance who is responsible for oversight of that system. Key obligations include expedited reporting of suspected serious adverse reactions and submission of periodic safety update reports, or PSURs.

All new MAAs must include a risk management plan, or RMP, describing the risk management system that the company will put in place and documenting measures to prevent or minimize the risks associated with the product. The regulatory authorities may also impose specific obligations as a condition of the MA. Such risk- minimization measures or post-authorization obligations may include additional safety monitoring, more frequent submission of PSURs, or the conduct of additional clinical trials or post-authorization safety studies.

In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. In the EU, the advertising and promotion of medicinal products are subject to both EU and EU Member States’ laws governing promotion of medicinal products, interactions with physicians and other healthcare professionals, misleading and comparative advertising and unfair commercial practices. General requirements for advertising and promotion of medicinal products, such as direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicinal products are established in EU law. However, the details are governed by regulations in individual EU Member States and can differ from one country to another. For example, applicable laws require that promotional materials and advertising in relation to medicinal products comply with the product’s Summary of Product Characteristics, or SmPC, which may require approval by the competent national authorities in connection with an MA. The SmPC is the document that provides information to physicians and other healthcare professionals concerning the safe and effective use of the product. Promotional activity that does not comply with the SmPC is considered off-label and is prohibited in the EU.

Combination Products in the EU

The EU regulates medical devices and medicinal products separately, and through different legislative instruments. Products that are a combination of a medicinal product and a medical device may be regulated as either a medicinal product, a medical device or, subject to certain requirements, on the basis of both sets of rules. The applicable requirements governing placing a drug-device combination on the EU market will vary depending on the type of drug-device combination product and on which of the components of the combination has the primary mode of action.

Drug-device combination products that form a single integral product that is not reusable and for which the action of the medicinal product is principal to that of the medical device are governed by the regulatory framework applicable to medicinal products. However, the General Safety and Performance Requirements (“GSPRs”), of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on Medical Devices (“MDR”), will be applicable to the safety and performance of the medical device part of the product in the context of its use with the medicinal product. In these circumstances, an MAA must be submitted to the competent authorities responsible for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medicinal products. As part of the MAA, the applicant must also submit, where available, the results of the assessment of the conformity of the medical device part of the product with the MDR contained in the manufacturer's EU Declaration of Conformity of the device or the relevant Certificate of Conformity issued by a Notified Body. If the MAA does not include the results of the conformity assessment, and where the conformity assessment of the device, if used separately, requires the involvement of a Notified Body, the competent authorities must require the applicant to provide a Notified Body Opinion on the conformity of the device with the relevant GSPRs. Based on this approach, the competent authorities responsible for medicinal products will review the specific aspects of the medical devices part of the product which are relevant to the safety and efficacy of the medicinal product and the Notified Body – where applicable – will evaluate the relevant GSPRs of the device.

Drug-device combination products that form a single integral product that is not reusable and for which the action of the medicinal products is ancillary to that of the medical device are governed by the regulatory framework applicable to medical devices in accordance with the MDR. However, the quality, safety and usefulness of the medicinal product must also be verified as part of the device and a scientific opinion from a national competent authority of an EU Member State or from the EMA, depending on its nature and therapeutic intention, must be sought regarding the quality and safety of the medicinal product, including the benefit or risk of its incorporation into the medical device. Even if regulatory approval of a product candidate is granted, the approval may be subject to limitations on the indications or uses for which the product may be marketed or to the conditions of approval, including the requirement in the United States to implement a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy or the inclusion of a Boxed Warning, which highlights a specific life-threatening safety risk, or comparable foreign strategies and requirements. Where a medical device incorporates a medicinal product as an integral part as a single use drug delivery system, which is intended exclusively for use in the given combination and which is not reusable, it is regulated as a medicinal product. In this case, the relevant General Safety and Performance Requirements, or GSPRs of the MDR will apply to the safety and performance of the device element.

By contrast, drug-device combination products which do not form a single integral product will be regulated separately. This may include, for example a drug-device combination product where a medical device and a medicinal product are co-packaged and the medical device is intended solely to be used for the administration of the co-packaged medicinal product. In these circumstances, the medicinal product will be governed by the regulatory framework applicable to medicinal products and the medical device will be governed by the MDR. However, the characteristics of a medical device used for the administration of a medicinal product may impact the quality, safety and efficacy profile of the medicinal product. As a result, as part of the MAA submitted to the competent authorities for the medicinal product, the applicant may need to provide additional information regarding the characteristics of the co-packaged medical device that may impact on the quality, safety and/or efficacy of the medicinal product. Similar requirements may apply where the products are not co-packaged but the medicinal product information makes an explicit reference to a specific medical device.

Medicinal Products in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s (“UK”), withdrawal from the EU on January 31, 2020, commonly referred to as Brexit, has changed the regulatory relationship between the UK and the EU. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (“MHRA”) is now the UK’s standalone regulator for medicinal products and medical devices. The UK is no longer subject to EU regulations (Northern Ireland continues to follow certain limited EU regulatory rules, including in relation to medical devices, but not in relation to medicinal products).

The UK regulatory framework in relation to clinical trials is governed by the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, as amended, which is derived from the EU CTD, as implemented into UK national law through secondary legislation. On January 17, 2022, the UK MHRA, launched an eight-week consultation on reframing the UK legislation for clinical trials. The UK Government published its response to the consultation on March 21, 2023, confirming that it would bring forward changes to the legislation and such changes were laid in parliament on December 12, 2024. These resulting legislative amendments will, if implemented in their current form, bring the UK into closer alignment with the EU CTR. In October 2023, the MHRA announced a new Notification Scheme for clinical trials which enables a more streamlined and risk-proportionate approach to initial clinical trial applications for Phase 4 and low-risk Phase 3 clinical trial applications.

Marketing authorizations in the UK are governed by the Human Medicines Regulations (SI 2012/1916), as amended. Since January 1, 2021, an applicant for the EU centralized procedure marketing authorization can no longer be established in the UK. As a result, since this date, companies established in the UK cannot use the EU centralized procedure and instead must follow one of the UK national authorization procedures or one of the remaining post-Brexit international cooperation procedures to obtain a marketing authorization to market products in the UK. All existing EU marketing authorizations for centrally authorized products were automatically converted or grandfathered into UK marketing authorization, effective in Great Britain only, free of charge on January 1, 2021, unless the marketing authorization holder opted-out of this possibility. Northern Ireland remained within the scope of EU authorizations in relation to centrally authorized medicinal products until January 1, 2025. However, on January 1, 2025, a new arrangement as part of the so-called “Windsor Framework” came into effect and reintegrated Northern Ireland under the regulatory authority of the MHRA with respect to medicinal products. The Windsor Framework removes EU licensing processes and EU labelling and serialization requirements in relation to Northern Ireland and introduces a UK-wide licensing process for medicines.

The MHRA has also introduced changes to national marketing authorization procedures. This includes introduction of procedures to prioritize access to new medicines that will benefit patients, including a 150-day assessment route, a rolling review procedure and the International Recognition Procedures which entered into application on January 1, 2024. Since January 1, 2024, the MHRA may rely on the International Recognition Procedure (“IRP”), when reviewing certain types of marketing authorization applications. This procedure is available for applicants for marketing authorization who have already received an authorization for the same product from a reference regulator. These include the FDA, the EMA, and national competent authorities of individual EEA countries. A positive opinion from the CHMP, or a positive end of procedure outcome from the mutual recognition or decentralized procedures are considered to be authorizations for the purposes of the IRP.

There is no pre-marketing authorization orphan designation for medicinal products in the UK. Instead, the MHRA reviews applications for orphan designation in parallel to the corresponding marketing authorization application. The criteria are essentially the same as those in the EU but have been tailored for the market. This includes the criterion that prevalence of the condition in the UK, rather than the EU, must not be more than five in 10,000. Upon the grant of a marketing authorization with orphan status, the medicinal product will benefit from up to 10 years of market exclusivity from similar products in the approved orphan indication. The start of this market exclusivity period will be set from the date of first approval of the product in the UK.

Drug-device combination products in the UK

Similarly to the EU, the UK regulates medical devices and medicinal products separately and through different legislative instruments. Medical devices are governed by the Medical Device Regulations (UK MDR) 2002, as amended which are based on the (now superseded) EU Medical Devices Directive, as opposed to the EU MDR which does not apply in the UK. Products that are a combination of a medicinal product and a medical device may be regulated as either a medicinal product, a medical device or, subject to certain requirements, on the basis of both sets of rules depending on the type of drug-device combination.

Devices that are used to administer medicinal products that are included separately in a pack with the medicine or that can be refilled with medication contained in the same pack as the device are regulated as medical devices. Devices that are used for administering medicinal products where the device and medicinal product form a single integral product designed to be used exclusively in the given combination and which are not re-usable or refillable are regulated as medicinal products but certain requirements of the UK MDR apply with respect to safety and performance related features of a device. Devices that incorporate, as an integral part, a substance which if used separately, may be considered to be a medicinal product and where the substance is liable to act upon the body with action ancillary to that of the device are regulated are subject to the UK MDR but the body carrying out relevant conformity assessment procedures must consult with the MHRA on the medicinal aspects of the device. The MHRA can provide guidance to a company that is unsure which set of regulatory rules to follow.

Pricing, Coverage and Reimbursement

Reimbursement authorities in Europe may be more restrictive than payors in the United States. In Europe, pricing and reimbursement schemes vary widely from country to country. For example, some countries provide that products may be marketed only after an agreement on reimbursement price has been reached. Such pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of marketing approval for a product. In such countries, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after receipt of regulatory approval for a product. Political, economic and regulatory developments may further complicate pricing negotiations, and pricing negotiations may continue after reimbursement has been obtained. In addition, the European Union provides options for its Member States to restrict the range of products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. The EU provides options for the EU Member States to restrict the range of drug products for which their national health insurance systems provide reimbursement and to control the prices of medicinal products for human use. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product, may adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. EU Member States may approve a specific price for a product or it may instead adopt a system of direct or indirect controls on the profitability of the company placing the product on the market. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for products but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. Other EU Member States allow companies to fix their own prices for drug products, but monitor and control prescription volumes and issue guidance to physicians to limit prescriptions. In addition, some EU Member States may require the completion of additional studies that compare the cost-effectiveness of a particular medicinal product candidate to currently available therapies. This Health Technology Assessment (“HTA”), process is the procedure according to which the assessment of the public health impact, therapeutic impact and the economic and societal impact of use of a given medicinal product in the national healthcare systems of the individual country is conducted. The outcome of HTA regarding specific medicinal products will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. The outcome of an HTA will often influence the pricing and reimbursement status granted to these medicinal products by the competent authorities of individual EU Member States. In December 2021, Regulation No 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment (“HTA Regulation”), was adopted. The HTA Regulation is intended to boost cooperation among EU Member States in assessing health technologies, including new medicinal products, and providing the basis for cooperation at EU level for joint clinical assessments in these areas. The HTA Regulation began to apply on January 12, 2025 through a phased implementation and is intended to harmonize the clinical benefit assessment of HTA across the EU.

In light of the fact that the UK has left the EU, Regulation No 2021/2282 on HTA will not apply in the UK. However, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulation Agency (“MHRA”) is working with UK HTA bodies and other national organizations, such as the Scottish Medicines Consortium (“SMC”), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (“NICE”), and the All-Wales Medicines Strategy Group, to introduce new pathways supporting innovative approaches to the safe, timely and efficient development of medicinal products, including, effective as of 31 March 2025, relaunching the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway with more predicable timelines and closer involvement of the National Health Service.

Ex-Europe

For other countries outside of the EU, such as countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America or Asia, the requirements governing the conduct of clinical trials, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, again, the clinical trials are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

If we or our potential collaborators fail to comply with applicable foreign regulatory requirements, we may be subject to, among other things, fines, suspension, variation or withdrawal of regulatory approvals, product recalls, seizure of products, operating restrictions and criminal prosecution.

Employees

As of December 31, 2025, we had 158 full-time employees and 5 part-time employees. Of these employees, 4 held Ph.D. or M.D. degrees. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Corporate Information

We incorporated in Delaware in January 2016. Our corporate headquarters are located at 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, and our telephone number is (858) 771-9307. Our corporate website address is ars-pharma.com. Information contained on, or accessible through, our website shall not be deemed incorporated into and is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our periodic and current reports are available on our website, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after filing. We have included our website in this Annual Report on Form 10-K solely as an inactive textual reference.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

We operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing environment that involves numerous risks and uncertainties. Certain factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, and you should carefully consider them. Accordingly, in evaluating our business, we encourage you to consider the following discussion of risk factors, in its entirety, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report and our other public filings with the SEC. Other events that we do not currently anticipate or that we currently deem immaterial may also affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Business

We are highly dependent on the successful commercialization of neffy. To the extent neffy and EURneffy are not commercially successful, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected, and the price of our common stock would likely decline. To the extent neffy is not commercially successful, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected, and the price of our common stock would likely decline. To the extent neffy is not commercially successful, our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected, and the price of our common stock would likely decline.

neffy is our only product that has been approved for sale. Currently, neffy has been approved for the emergency treatment of allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) in the United States, EU, United Kingdom, Japan and Australia (in the case of neffy 2 mg and 1 mg) and China (in the case of neffy 2 mg). We are focusing a significant portion of our activities and resources on neffy, and we believe our near-term revenues are highly dependent on, and a meaningful portion of the value of our company relates to, our ability to successfully commercialize neffy in the United States and abroad through our collaboration partners. Successful commercialization of neffy is subject to many risks. Prior to neffy, we have not, as an organization, commercialized any product, and there is no guarantee that we will be able to do so successfully with neffy. There are numerous examples of unsuccessful product launches and failures to meet high expectations of market potential, including by pharmaceutical companies with more experience and resources than we have. The commercial success of neffy depends on the extent to which patients and physicians accept and adopt neffy as a treatment of Type I allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, and we do not know whether our or others’ estimates in this regard will be accurate. For example, if the population of patients who may suffer a Type I allergic reaction is smaller than we estimate or if physicians are unwilling to prescribe or patients are unwilling to use neffy for any reason, the commercial potential of neffy will be limited. It is too soon to tell how physicians, patients and payors will respond to the pricing of neffy. Physicians may not prescribe neffy and patients may be unwilling to use neffy if coverage is not provided or reimbursement is inadequate to cover a significant portion of the cost. Additionally, any negative development for neffy in post-approval trials or potential additional indications, including urticaria, or in regulatory processes in other jurisdictions, may adversely impact the commercial results and potential of neffy. Thus, significant uncertainty remains regarding the commercial potential of neffy. If the commercialization of neffy is unsuccessful or perceived as disappointing, our stock price could decline significantly and the long-term success of the product and our company could be harmed.

If we are unable to fully develop and maintain our sales, marketing and distribution capabilities on our own or through collaborations with marketing partners, we may not be successful in commercializing neffy.

We have built a sales force and entered into the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement to commercialize neffy in the United States. In order to successfully commercialize neffy, we must, among other things, continue to build our sales, marketing, distribution, managerial and other non-technical capabilities. Factors that may hinder our ability to successfully market and commercially distribute our products include:

If we are unable to maintain an effective sales force, including through the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, for neffy, we may not be able to generate significant product revenue in the United States. In addition, until the commencement of our commercial launch in September 2024, no one in our sales force had promoted neffy. We are required to expend significant time and resources to train our sales force, including through the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, to be credible in educating physicians and pharmacists on the benefits of neffy. In addition, we must continually train our sales force, including through the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, to ensure that a consistent and appropriate message about neffy is being delivered to our potential customers. We currently have limited resources compared to some of our competitors, and the continued development of our own commercial organization to market neffy and any additional products we may develop or acquire will be expensive and time-consuming. We also cannot be certain that we will be able to continue to successfully develop this capability.

We have entered into the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement with ALK U.S. for the co-promotion of neffy to up to 9,000 specified pediatricians and other prescribers in the U.S. The commercial success of neffy in the United States, will be influenced in part by the efforts and allocation of resources by ALK U.S. Currently, ALK U.S. has limited experience promoting neffy, and while we will continue to work with ALK U.S. to optimize their commercialization activities, we cannot guarantee that such efforts will be successful. We also depend on ALK U.S. to comply with all applicable laws relative to the promotion of neffy. Because we do not control the individual efforts of ALK U.S., they may take actions or fail to take actions in a manner that is inconsistent with our interests. As a result, we may not realize the full potential benefits from the ALK Co-Promotion Agreement, and such actions or inactions could result in more limited or reduced sales, reputational harm, or regulatory or other adverse legal implications, any of which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We entered into exclusive licensing and collaboration agreements for the development and commercialization of neffy with Alfresa Pharma Corporation in Japan; Pediatrix Therapeutics, Inc. in China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan; Seqirus in Australia and New Zealand; and ALK in all other unpartnered geographies outside the United States. in China, Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan; CSL Seqirus in Australia and New Zealand; and ALK in all other unpartnered geographies outside the United States. If these third parties do not effectively engage or maintain their sales force for neffy if approved in the applicable territories, our ability to recognize milestone payments and royalties from the sales in such territories will be adversely affected.

We will need to continue to expend significant time and resources to train our sales forces to be credible in discussing neffy with the specialists treating the patients indicated under the product’s label. In addition, if we are unable to effectively train our sales force and equip them with effective marketing materials our ability to successfully commercialize neffy could be diminished, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

neffy and our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates may fail to achieve the degree of market acceptance by allergists, pediatricians and other physicians, patients, caregivers, third-party payors and others in the medical community necessary for commercial success, in which case we may not generate significant revenues or profits.

We have never commercialized a product before our U.S. commercial launch of neffy in September 2024, and neffy may fail to gain sufficient market acceptance by allergists, pediatricians and other physicians, patients, caregivers, third-party payors and others in the medical community. Physicians may be reluctant to prescribe neffy or our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates in place of well-established epinephrine intra-muscular injectable devices or other available treatments. Further, patients and caregivers may be reluctant to switch unless their physicians recommend switching products or are required to switch due to lack of coverage and adequate reimbursement. In addition, even though neffy has been determined to be safe and effective by the FDA and the EMA, safety or efficacy concerns in the medical community may hinder market acceptance.

The degree of market acceptance of neffy and any future intranasal epinephrine technology product will depend on a number of factors, including:

The market for neffy and our intranasal epinephrine technology may be smaller than we expect.

We have focused our development of our intranasal epinephrine technology initially for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions. We base our market opportunity estimates on a variety of factors, including our estimates of the number of people who have experienced severe Type I allergic reactions and are at risk of anaphylaxis, the continued growth rate of our patient population, the number of those in our patient population who we expect will fill a prescription for neffy, including those that currently do not fill prescriptions for epinephrine intra-muscular injectable devices or whose prescriptions have lapsed, the estimated increase in per patient device acquisition of neffy as compared to epinephrine intra-muscular injectable devices and the net sales of epinephrine intra-muscular injectable devices. These estimates are based on many assumptions and may prove incorrect, and new studies or market research may reduce our estimated patient population and potential sales. If our market opportunities are smaller than we expect, our future product revenues may be smaller than anticipated, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we are unable to achieve and maintain adequate levels of third-party payor coverage and reimbursement for neffy on reasonable pricing terms, its commercial success may be severely hindered.

Successful sales of any approved products, including neffy, depend on the availability of adequate coverage and reimbursement from third-party payors. Patients who are prescribed medicine for the treatment of their conditions generally rely on third-party payors to reimburse all or part of the costs associated with their prescription drugs. Coverage and adequate reimbursement from governmental healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and commercial payors is critical to new product acceptance. Coverage decisions may depend upon clinical and economic standards that disfavor new drug products when more established or lower cost therapeutic alternatives are already available or subsequently become available. Even with coverage for neffy, the resulting reimbursement payment rates might not be adequate or may require co-payments that patients find unacceptably high. Patients may not use neffy if coverage is not provided or reimbursement is inadequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of those products.

Payors may require documented proof that patients meet certain eligibility criteria in order to be reimbursed for neffy. Payors may even require that pre-approval, or prior-authorization, be obtained from the payor for reimbursement of neffy. Patients are unlikely to use neffy unless coverage is provided and reimbursement is adequate to cover a significant portion of the cost of neffy.

In addition, the market for neffy may depend significantly on access to third-party payors’ medical policies, drug formularies, or lists of medications for which third-party payors provide coverage and reimbursement. The industry competition to be included in such formularies often leads to downward pricing pressures on pharmaceutical companies, and we will be required to offer discounted rates to state Medicaid programs to ensure Medicaid coverage of our drugs. Also, third-party payors may refuse to include a particular branded drug in their formularies or otherwise restrict patient access to a branded drug when a less costly generic equivalent or other alternative is available, even if not approved for the indication(s) for which neffy is approved.

Third-party payors, whether foreign or domestic, or governmental or commercial, are developing increasingly sophisticated methods of controlling healthcare costs. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) imposes rebates on many Medicare Part B and Medicare Part D products to penalize price increases that outpace inflation on an annual basis. In addition, HHS has been empowered to negotiate the price of certain single-source drugs that have been on the market for at least seven (7) years covered under Medicare as part of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Each year up to twenty (20) products will be selected by HHS for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. Products subject to the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program are expected to experience a significant reduction in reimbursement from the Medicare program on a per unit basis. If coverage and adequate reimbursement are not available, or are available only to limited levels, we may not be able to successfully commercialize neffy and any product candidates for which we receive approval, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition. The current environment is putting pressure on companies to price products below what they may feel is appropriate. Selling neffy at less than an optimized price could impact our revenues and overall success as a company. In addition, in the United States, no uniform policy of coverage and reimbursement for drug products exists among third-party payors. Therefore, coverage and reimbursement for neffy may differ significantly from payor to payor. As a result, the coverage determination process is often a time-consuming and costly process that will require us to provide scientific and clinical support for the use of neffy to each payor separately, with no assurance that coverage will be obtained, or that payment levels will be adequate for neffy or any other products we may market. Further, coverage policies and third-party payor reimbursement rates may change at any time. Therefore, even if favorable coverage and reimbursement status is attained for neffy or more products for which we receive marketing approval, less favorable coverage policies and reimbursement rates may be implemented in the future. In addition, physicians may limit how much or under what circumstances they will prescribe or administer neffy, or any other products we may market, and patients may decline to purchase them. This in turn could affect our ability to successfully commercialize neffy, or any other products we may market, and thereby adversely impact our profitability, results of operations, financial condition and future success.

neffy has only been studied in a limited number of patients. neffy is now available to a much larger number of patients, and we do not know whether the results of neffy’s use in such larger number of patients will be consistent with the results from our clinical studies.

Prior to commercialization, neffy had been administered only to a limited number of patients in clinical studies. While the FDA and European Commission granted approval of neffy based on the data included in the NDA and marketing authorization application (“MAA”), respectively, we do not know whether the results when a large number of patients are exposed to neffy, including results related to safety and efficacy, will be consistent with the results from earlier clinical studies of neffy that served as the basis for the approval of neffy. New data relating to neffy may result in changes to the product label and may adversely affect sales, or result in withdrawal of neffy from the market. The FDA and regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions may also consider the new data in reviewing neffy’s marketing applications for additional indications and/or in other jurisdictions, or impose post-approval requirements. If any of these actions were to occur, it could result in significant expense and delay or limit our ability to generate sales revenues.

Competitive products may reduce or eliminate the commercial opportunity for neffy or our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates. 54 Competitive products may reduce or eliminate the commercial opportunity for neffy or our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates. If our competitors develop technologies or product candidates more rapidly than us, or their technologies or product candidates are more effective or safer than ours, our ability to develop and successfully commercialize neffy and our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates may be adversely affected.

The clinical and commercial landscape for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions is highly competitive and subject to significant technological change. Existing products have name recognition, are marketed by companies with established commercial infrastructures, and are marketed with greater financial, technical and personnel resources than we have. We also face competition with respect to our current indications for our intranasal epinephrine technology, including neffy, and will face competition with respect to any future indications of our intranasal epinephrine technology or other product candidates that we may seek to develop or commercialize in the future from large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical and generic drug companies, academic institutions, government agencies and research institutions. Based on the initially approved indications for neffy, we anticipate that neffy will compete primarily against epinephrine intra-muscular injectable products, for the emergency treatment of Type I allergic reactions including EpiPen and its generics, which is marketed by Viatris, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Adrenaclick, which is marketed by Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Auvi-Q, which is marketed by Kaleo, Inc.; and Symjepi, which is marketed by Sandoz, Inc., a Novartis division. Several other companies are also clinically developing larger dose intranasal epinephrine product candidates that may compete with neffy, including Bryn Pharma, Nasus Pharma, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (previously INSYS Therapeutics, Inc.), Orexo AB and Belhaven BioPharma. Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a sublingual candidate based on a prodrug of epinephrine (Anaphylm), but received a Complete Response Letter in January 2026 regarding its new drug application for Anaphylm due to concerns with their application. Aquestive Therapeutics is developing a sublingual candidate based on a prodrug of epinephrine. If our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates are approved for other indications, they would also compete with a range of other therapeutic treatments that are well established such as antihistamines or in development.

Many of our potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical, commercial and human resources than we do and significantly more experience in the discovery, development and regulatory approval of product candidates and the commercialization of those products. Accordingly, our competitors may be more successful than we may be in obtaining regulatory approval for therapies and achieving widespread market acceptance. Our competitors’ products may be more effective, safer, or more effectively marketed and sold, than any product candidate we may commercialize and may render neffy or our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates obsolete or non-competitive before we can recover development and commercialization expenses. In addition, our competitors may succeed in developing, acquiring or licensing technologies and drug products that are more effective or less costly than neffy or our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, which could render such products or product candidates obsolete and noncompetitive.

We face competition based on many different factors, including the efficacy, safety and tolerability of neffy and our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, the ease with which neffy and our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates can be administered, the scope of regulatory approval for neffy and our current and future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, the availability and cost of manufacturing, marketing and sales capabilities, price, reimbursement coverage and patent position. Such competitors could also recruit our employees, which could negatively impact our level of expertise and our ability to execute our business plan.

In addition, our competitors may obtain patent protection, regulatory exclusivities or regulatory approval and commercialize products more rapidly than we do, which may impact future approvals or sales of any of our products that receive regulatory approval. We will also be competing with respect to marketing capabilities and manufacturing efficiency for neffy as an early commercial stage product. We expect competition among future products, if any, will be based on product efficacy and safety, the timing and scope of regulatory approvals, availability of supply, marketing and sales capabilities, product price, reimbursement coverage by government and private third-party payors, regulatory exclusivities and patent position. Our profitability and financial position will suffer if our product or future products cannot compete effectively in the marketplace.

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

If the FDA, the European Commission or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic versions of neffy or our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates that receives regulatory approval, or such authorities do not grant our products appropriate periods of non-patent exclusivity before approving generic versions of such products, the sales of such products could be adversely affected. 55 If the FDA, the European Commission or other comparable foreign regulatory authorities approve generic versions of neffy or our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates that receives regulatory approval, or such authorities do not grant our products appropriate periods of non-patent exclusivity before approving generic versions of such products, the sales of such products could be adversely affected.

In the United States, once an NDA is approved, the product covered thereby becomes a “reference listed drug” in the FDA’s publication, “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” or the Orange Book. The FDA may not finally approve an ANDA for a generic product or a Section 505(b)(2) NDA of a competitor until any applicable period of non-patent exclusivity and patent exclusivity for the reference listed drug in the Orange Book has expired. We have not received U.S. non-patent marketing exclusivity for neffy, which was approved by the FDA under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. We have 8 patents with claims covering neffy listed in the Orange Book. Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of neffy or an NDA submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy must make one of the following certifications to the FDA concerning the patents listed in the Orange Book for neffy: (a) the patents that are listed have expired; (b) the date on which such patents will expire; or (c) such patents are invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use or sale of the generic equivalent version of neffy or the drug product submitted under the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway referencing neffy. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification. A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to us for each patent to which the ANDA or 505(b)(2) application refers. Following receipt of a paragraph IV notice, we may bring a lawsuit for patent infringement against the paragraph IV filer, and we may be entitled to a statutory 30-month stay of approval of the proposed product of the paragraph IV filer. We received paragraph IV certification notice letters from Lupin in August 2025 and February 2026, providing notification to us that Lupin submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture, use, or sell a generic version of neffy 2 mg and 1 mg, respectively. In February 2026, we filed a lawsuit against Lupin in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of certain of our patents and seeking a permanent injunction preventing market entry of a generic product from Lupin prior to the expiry of such patents. See Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K for additional discussion. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in our lawsuit against Lupin. Patent litigation is expensive and time consuming, requires significant resources, may absorb significant time of our management and has an unpredictable outcome. If we are unsuccessful in the lawsuit or if a generic competitor is found not to infringe our patents, the resulting generic competition will likely negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In support of an ANDA, a generic manufacturer generally must show that its product has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration, and adequate labeling as the reference listed drug and that the generic version is bioequivalent to the reference listed drug, meaning, in part, that it is absorbed in the body at the same rate and to the same extent. Generic products may be significantly less costly to bring to market than the reference listed drug and companies that produce generic products are generally able to offer them at lower prices. Moreover, third-party insurers require, and many states allow or require, substitution of therapeutically equivalent generic drugs at the pharmacy level even if the branded drug is prescribed. Thus, following the introduction of a generic drug, a significant percentage of the sales of any branded product or reference listed drug may be lost to the generic product.

Upon receiving a marketing authorization in the EU from the European Commission, innovative medicinal products are generally entitled to receive eight years of data exclusivity and 10 years of market exclusivity. Data exclusivity, if granted, prevents regulatory authorities in the EU from referencing the innovator’s data to assess a generic application or biosimilar application for eight years from the date of authorization of the innovative product, after which a generic or biosimilar MAA can be submitted, and the innovator’s data may be referenced. The market exclusivity period prevents a successful generic or biosimilar applicant from commercializing its product in the EU until 10 years have elapsed from the initial MA of the reference product in the EU. The overall ten-year period may, occasionally, be extended for a further year to a maximum of 11 years if, during the first eight years of those 10 years, the MA 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. However, there is no guarantee that a product will be considered by the EU’s regulatory authorities to be a new chemical/biological entity, and products may not qualify for data exclusivity. Comparable regimes to those in the U.S. and EU exist in some other major markets, including the United Kingdom.

Obtaining regulatory approval of neffy or our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates in one jurisdiction does not mean that we will be successful in obtaining regulatory approval in other jurisdictions.

Even though we have obtained regulatory approval of neffy in the United States, the EU, and other foreign jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United Kingdom, China, Japan, and Australia, there is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain these regulatory approvals or obtain or maintain regulatory approval in any other jurisdiction. A failure or delay in obtaining regulatory approval in one jurisdiction may have a negative effect on the regulatory approval process in others. For example, even though the FDA and European Commission have granted marketing approval of neffy, comparable regulatory authorities in other foreign jurisdictions must also approve the manufacturing, marketing and promotion of neffy before it can be marketed in those countries. Approval procedures vary among jurisdictions and can involve requirements and administrative review periods different from, and greater than, those in the United States or the EU including additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, as clinical trials conducted in one jurisdiction may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions outside the United States including certain jurisdictions in the EU, a product candidate must be approved for reimbursement before it can be approved for sale in that jurisdiction. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for our products is also subject to approval.

We have submitted and plan to submit additional or supplemental marketing applications in the United States and in the EU. Regulatory authorities in jurisdictions outside of the United States have requirements for approval of product candidates with which we must comply prior to marketing in those jurisdictions and such regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country. Obtaining other regulatory approvals and compliance with other regulatory requirements could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and could require additional nonclinical studies or clinical trials, which could be costly and time-consuming and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in certain countries. The foreign regulatory approval process involves all of the risks associated with FDA approval. We have one product approved for sale. We have limited experience in obtaining regulatory approval in domestic and international markets. If we or our collaboration partners fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in international markets and/or obtain and maintain applicable marketing approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of neffy will be harmed.

If we are unable to successfully develop our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates, or neffy for additional indications, or experience significant delays in doing so, the commercial potential of our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates or neffy will be more limited.

Successful continued development and ultimate regulatory approval of our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates and neffy for additional indications is important to the future success of our business. The future regulatory and commercial success of our current or future intranasal epinephrine technology product candidates and neffy for additional indications is subject to a number of risks, including the following: