SEC Filing | Zymeworks Inc.

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

☒ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company

Emerging growth company

View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

☒	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

☐	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ___________ to ___________

Commission file number: 001-38068

ZYMEWORKS INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

British Columbia, Canada

47-2569713

(State or other jurisdiction

of incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification Number)

Suite 540—1385 West 8^th Avenue

Vancouver, BC V6H 3V9

(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (604) 678-1388

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


Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Shares, no par value per share		New York Stock Exchange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common shares held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing sale price of the registrant’s common shares on the last business day of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter, as reported on the NYSE was approximately $148.8 million.

The number of outstanding common shares of the registrant, no par value per share, as of March 12, 2018 was 25,461,460

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Not applicable

ZYMEWORKS INC.

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2017

Table of Contents


PART I		1
Item 1.	Business	1
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	47
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	90
Item 2.	Properties	90
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	90
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	90
PART II		90
Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	90
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	97
Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation	98
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk	116
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	117
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	163
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	163
Item 9B.	Other Information	164
PART III		165
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	165
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	171
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters	184
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence	186
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	187
PART IV		189
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	189
Item 16.	Form 10-K Summary	192
SIGNATURES		193

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the U.S Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and “forward-looking information” within the meaning of Canadian securities laws, or collectively, forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements that may relate to our plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events, future revenue or performance, capital expenditures, financing needs and other information that is not historical information. Many of these statements appear, in particular, under the headings “Business,” “Risk Factors,” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”. Forward-looking statements can often be identified by the use of terminology such as “subject to”, “believe,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “project,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “would,” “could,” “can,” the negatives thereof, variations thereon and similar expressions, or by discussions of strategy. In addition, any statements or information that refer to expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, performance or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are forward-looking. In particular, these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to:

•

the size of our addressable markets and our ability to commercialize product candidates;

•

the achievement of advances in and expansion of our therapeutic platforms and antibody engineering expertise;

•

the likelihood of product candidate development and clinical trial progression, initiation or success; and

•

our ability to predict and manage government regulation.

All forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, our examination of historical operating trends, are based upon our current expectations and various assumptions. Certain assumptions made in preparing the forward-looking statements include:

•

our ability to manage our growth effectively;

•

the absence of material adverse changes in our industry or the global economy;

•

trends in our industry and markets;

•

our ability to maintain good business relationships with our strategic partners;

•

our ability to comply with current and future regulatory standards;

•

our ability to protect our intellectual property rights;

•

our continued compliance with third-party license terms and the non-infringement of third-party intellectual property rights;

•

our ability to manage and integrate acquisitions;

•

our ability to retain key personnel; and

•

our ability to raise sufficient debt or equity financing to support our continued growth.

We believe there is a reasonable basis for our expectations and beliefs, but they are inherently uncertain. We may not realize our expectations, and our beliefs may not prove correct. Actual results could differ materially from those described or implied by such forward-looking statements. The following uncertainties and factors, among others (including those set forth under “Risk Factors”), could affect future performance and cause actual results to differ materially from those matters expressed in or implied by forward-looking statements:

•

our ability to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates without significant delays;

•

the predictive value of our current or planned clinical trials;

•

delays with respect to the development and commercialization of our product candidates, which may cause increased costs or delay receipt of product revenue;

•

our ability to enroll subjects in clinical trials and thereby complete trials on a timely basis;

•

the design or our execution of clinical trials may not support regulatory approval;

•

our discretion to discontinue or reprioritize the development of any of our product candidates;

•

the potential for our product candidates to have undesirable side effects;

•

our ability to face significant competition;

•

no regulatory agency has made a determination that any of our product candidates are safe or effective for use by the general public or for any indication;

•

the competitive threat of biosimilar products;

•

the likelihood of broad market acceptance of our product candidates;

•

our ability to obtain Orphan Drug Designation or exclusivity for some or all of our product candidates;

•

our ability to commercialize products outside of the United States;

•

the outcome of reimbursement decisions by third-party payors relating to our products;

•

our expectations with respect to the market opportunities for any product that we or our strategic partners develop;

•

our ability to pursue product candidates that may be profitable or have a high likelihood of success;

•

our ability to use and expand our therapeutic platforms to build a pipeline of product candidates;

•

our ability to meet the requirements of ongoing regulatory review;

•

the threat of product liability lawsuits against us or any of our strategic partners;

•

changes in product candidate manufacturing or formulation that may result in additional costs or delay;

•

the potential disruption of our business and dilution of our shareholdings associated with acquisitions and joint ventures;

•

our ability to maintain existing and future strategic partnerships;

•

our ability to realize the anticipated benefits of our strategic partnerships;

iii

•

our ability to secure future strategic partners;

•

the potential for foreign governments to impose strict price controls;

•

the risk of security breaches or data loss, which could compromise sensitive business or health information;

•

current and future legislation that may increase the difficulty and cost of commercializing our product candidates;

•

economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations;

•

our exposure to legal and reputational penalties as a result of any of our current and future relationships with various third parties;

•

our exposure to potential securities class action litigation;

•

our ability to comply with export control and import laws and regulations;

•

our history of significant losses since inception;

•

our ability to generate revenue from product sales and achieve profitability;

•

our requirement for substantial additional funding;

•

the potential dilution to our shareholders associated with future financings;

•

unstable market and economic conditions;

•

currency fluctuations and changes in foreign currency exchange rates;

•

restrictions on our ability to seek financing, which may be imposed by future debt;

•

our intention to rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our clinical product candidate supplies;

•

our reliance on third parties to oversee clinical trials of our product candidates and, in some cases, maintain regulatory files for those product candidates;

•

our reliance on the performance of independent clinical investigators and contract research organizations (CRO);

•

our reliance on third parties for various operational and administrative aspects of our business including our reliance on third parties’ cloud-based software platforms;

•

our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties;

•

our ability to obtain and enforce patent protection for our product candidates and related technology;

•

our patents could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged;

•

our intellectual property rights may not necessarily provide us with competitive advantages;

•

we may become involved in expensive and time-consuming patent lawsuits;

•

we may be unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information;

•

the risk that the duration of our patents will not adequately protect our competitive position;

•

our ability to obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and similar foreign legislation;

•

our ability to comply with procedural and administrative requirements relating to our patents;

•

the risk of claims challenging the inventorship of our patents and other intellectual property;

•

our intellectual property rights for some of our product candidates are dependent on the abilities of third parties to assert and defend such rights;

•

patent reform legislation and court decisions can diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products;

•

we may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world;

•

we will require FDA approval for any proposed product candidate names and any failure or delay associated with such approval may adversely affect our business;

•

the risk of employee misconduct including noncompliance with regulatory standards and insider trading;

•

our ability to market our products in a manner that does not violate the law and subject us to civil or criminal penalties;

•

if we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected;

•

if securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline;

•

our ability to retain key executives and attract and retain qualified personnel;

•

our ability to manage organizational growth; and

•

additional costs and expenses related to the anticipated change from foreign private issuer to U.S. domestic issuer status and our decision to voluntarily comply with certain U.S. domestic issuer reporting obligations before we are required to do so.

Consequently, forward-looking statements should be regarded solely as our current plans, estimates and beliefs. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. We cannot guarantee future results, events, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We do not undertake and specifically decline any obligation to update, republish or revise forward-looking statements to reflect future events or circumstances or to reflect the occurrences of unanticipated events, except as required by law.

We own or have rights to trademarks, service marks or trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business. In addition, our names, logos and website names and addresses are our service marks or trademarks. Azymetric, Zymeworks, ZymeCAD and the phrase “Building Better Biologics” are our registered trademarks. Additionally, AlbuCORE, EFECT and ZymeLink are subject to our pending trademark applications. The other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks, tradenames and copyrights referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are listed without the ©, ® and TM symbols, but we will assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensors to these trademarks, service marks and tradenames.

We express all amounts in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in U.S. dollars, except where otherwise indicated. References to “$” and “US$” are to U.S. dollars and references to “C$” are to Canadian dollars.

Except as otherwise indicated, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Zymeworks,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Zymeworks Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.

PART I

Item 1.

Business

Overview

Zymeworks is an innovative, clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the discovery, development and commercialization of next-generation multifunctional biotherapeutics. Our suite of complementary therapeutic platforms and our fully integrated drug development engine provide the flexibility and compatibility to precisely engineer and develop highly differentiated product candidates. These capabilities have resulted in multiple wholly owned product candidates with the potential to drive superior outcomes in large underserved and unaddressed patient populations, as further described below.

Our lead product candidate, ZW25, is a novel bispecific (dual-targeting) antibody which targets two distinct domains of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, or HER2. In our adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial, ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-expressing cancers that have progressed after standard of care, including multiple HER2-targeted regimens. Its unique design may enable ZW25 to address patient populations with all levels of HER2 expression, including those with low to intermediate HER2-expressing tumors, who are otherwise limited to chemotherapy or hormone therapy. Approximately 81% of patients with HER2-expressing breast cancer and 57% of patients with HER2-expressing gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer have tumors that express low to intermediate levels of HER2, making them ineligible for treatment with currently approved HER2-targeted therapies, such as Herceptin and Perjeta, which generated combined sales of $9.5 billion in 2017. Our second product candidate, ZW49, capitalizes on the unique design of ZW25 and is a bispecific antibody-drug conjugate, or ADC, based on the same antibody framework as ZW25 but armed with our proprietary ZymeLink-cytotoxic (potent cancer cell-killing) payload. ZW49 is being advanced in lieu of our prior product candidate, ZW33, based on ZW49’s superior therapeutic window (range of doses that are both efficacious and tolerable) and proprietary linker and cytotoxic payload. We designed ZW49 to be a best-in-class HER2-targeting ADC for several indications characterized by HER2 expression, for which we expect to file an Investigational New Drug, or IND, application in 2018. We are also advancing a deep pipeline of preclinical product candidates and discovery-stage programs in immuno-oncology and other therapeutic areas. In addition to our wholly owned pipeline, two of our therapeutic platforms have been further leveraged through multiple revenue-generating strategic partnerships with the following global pharmaceutical companies: Merck Sharp & Dohme Research GmbH (“Merck”), Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), Celgene Corporation and Celgene Alpine Investment Co. LLC (“Celgene”), GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited (“GSK”), Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. (“Daiichi Sankyo”) and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“Janssen”).

•

Azymetric, our bispecific platform, which enables therapeutic antibodies to bind two distinct locations on a target, known as epitopes. This is achieved by tailoring multiple configurations of the antibody’s Fab regions (locations on the antibody to which epitopes bind);

•

ZymeLink, our ADC platform which comprises multiple cytotoxic payloads and the linker technology used to couple these payloads to tumor-targeting antibodies or proteins. This platform can be used in conjunction with our other therapeutic platforms to increase safety and efficacy as compared to existing ADC technologies;

•

EFECT, which enables finely tuned modulation (both up and down) of immune cell recruitment and function; and

•

AlbuCORE, our antibody-alternative platform, which augments the properties of naturally occurring human serum albumin, or HSA, with multivalent (multi-targeted) binding to enable complex mechanisms of action that are not amenable to antibody-based approaches.

Our protein engineering expertise and proprietary structure-guided molecular modeling capabilities enable these therapeutic platforms. Together with our internal antibody discovery and generation technologies, we have established a fully integrated drug development engine and toolkit that is capable of rapidly delivering a steady pipeline of next-generation product candidates in oncology and other therapeutic areas.

Our lead product candidate, ZW25, is an Azymetric bispecific antibody, which simultaneously binds two non-overlapping epitopes of HER2 resulting in dual HER2 signal blockade and increased tumor cell binding, immune cell recruitment and HER2 receptor downregulation as compared to existing HER2-targeted therapies. In our adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial, ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-expressing cancers that have progressed after standard of care treatment, including multiple HER2-targeted regimens. These data were highlighted at several medical conferences in 2017, including the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, or ASCO, the European Society for Medical Oncology, or ESMO, and the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, or SABCS. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, has granted Orphan Drug Designation to ZW25 for the treatment of gastric and ovarian cancer. Our second product candidate, ZW49, is a bispecific anti-HER2 ADC that is based on the same antibody framework as ZW25, but is armed with our proprietary ZymeLink cytotoxic payload. We will continue to focus on advancing multiple well-differentiated product candidates into clinical trials to build our pipeline portfolio as well as exploiting our protein engineering expertise to develop innovative therapeutic platforms.

The mission that unites everyone at Zymeworks is to create biotherapeutics that allow patients to return home to their loved ones, disease free. We intend to advance the development of disruptive therapeutic platforms and impactful biotherapeutics, especially in areas of unmet need. We believe we are well-positioned to deliver on our mission.

Segment Financial Information

The Company currently operates in one operating segment. Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise about which separate discrete information is available for the chief operating decision maker (CODM), or decision-making group, deciding how to allocate resources and assessing performance. The Company operates and manages its business in one segment, which is the discovery, development and commercialization of next-generation biotherapeutics.

Overview of our Proprietary Therapeutic Platforms

Our expertise in protein engineering has enabled the development of our proprietary therapeutic platforms, a complementary suite of highly tailored biologics solutions. Our therapeutic platforms can be used alone, or in combination, with synergistic activity to develop multifunctional fit-for-purpose biotherapeutics with bispecific capabilities (Azymetric), cytotoxic payload delivery (ZymeLink), finely tuned immune function modulation (EFECT) and multivalent targeting (AlbuCORE). The modular design and ease of use of our therapeutic platforms allow for the design and evaluation of multiple candidates with different formats to determine the optimal therapeutic combination early in development. We continue to leverage these therapeutic platforms to expand our pipeline of next-generation biotherapeutics that we believe could represent significant improvements to the standard of care in multiple cancer types.

We believe our in-house biologics design and engineering capabilities confer significant competitive advantages to our therapeutic platforms and are ultimately reflected in our programs. Some of these key advantages are:

•

Highly modular and customizable. Our platforms can be combined in multiple ways and this capability has achieved synergistic results in preclinical studies. For example, our ZymeLink platform enables the attachment of cytotoxic payloads to the candidates in any of our other platforms to create enhanced therapeutics, such as ADCs. These capabilities allow us to finely tune characteristics such as tumor-killing potential, target specificity and immune cell engagement, and expand our ability to engineer superior drugs against multiple cancers.

•

Fit-for-purpose. Our platforms can also be utilized to engineer biotherapeutics that are tailored for the particular target and disease state. For example, Azymetric bispecifics can be developed with multiple antigen binding formats to provide specific engagement geometry for a given target. This allows us to identify the targets and diseases that we wish to exploit and then engineer an optimized biotherapeutic to maximize therapeutic effect. We believe this method of deliberate drug development is a more effective and efficient mechanism for the creation of next-generation biotherapeutics.

•

Consistent with native (Antibody or Albumin) formats. Our antibody platforms are differentiated from our competitors and have been engineered to retain the desirable biophysical characteristics of native antibody (Immunoglobulin, or IgG) formats such as a low risk of provoking an adverse anti-drug immune response, or immunogenicity, superior pharmacokinetics, the ability to beneficially recruit the immune system through effector function, and ease of manufacturing and purification. Likewise, our AlbuCORE platform builds on native HSA, and exploits the natural accumulation of albumin in tumors which we believe may lead to enhanced targeting of the tumor.

•

Readily scalable and transferable. Our in-house biologics design and engineering expertise and infrastructure is positioned to create a steady stream of product candidates that are scalable, efficient to manufacture (by us, a partner or contract manufacturing organization), and naturally endorse favorable characteristics such as high production and purity levels. We believe this is a significant competitive advantage given the historical challenges faced by others in the field who manufacture complex biologics, such as bispecifics and ADCs.

LOGO

Azymetric Bispecific Antibody Platform

The Azymetric platform consists of a library of proprietary amino acid substitutions that enable the transformation of monospecific antibodies into bispecific antibodies, which gives them the ability to simultaneously bind two non-overlapping epitopes. Azymetric bispecific technology enables the development of biotherapeutics with dual-targeting of receptors/ligands and simultaneous blockade of multiple signaling pathways, increasing tumor-specific targeting and efficacy while reducing toxicities and the potential for drug resistance. In preclinical studies, the dual-targeting of Azymetric antibodies has demonstrated synergistic activity relative to the application of an equivalent dose of the corresponding monospecific antibodies. Azymetric bispecifics can also be engineered to enhance internalization of the antibody into the tumor cell and consequently increase the delivery of cytotoxic payloads.

First-generation bispecific platforms significantly alter the structure of monoclonal antibodies or rely upon complex and proprietary manufacturing processes. Azymetric bispecifics, in contrast, retain the desirable drug-like qualities of monoclonal antibodies, including long half-life, stability and low immunogenic potential, which increases their probability of success. Azymetric bispecifics are also compatible with standard manufacturing processes with high production yields and purity, which accelerates manufacturing timelines and reduces costs.

ZymeLink Conjugation Platform and Cytotoxins

The ZymeLink conjugation platform is a suite of novel site-specific protein coupling technologies and customizable cleavable linkers that allow for the delivery of our proprietary cytotoxic payloads, which can be applied to all of our antibody and albumin-based therapeutic platforms. We believe that ZymeLink provides multiple competitive advantages over existing approaches, including optimized activity and tolerability profiles through increased drug delivery to target cells with reduced off-target effects, product homogeneity, preservation of immune cell interaction and stable pharmacokinetics.

EFECT Antibody Effector Function Modulation Platform

The EFECT platform comprises sets of modifications to the crystallizable fragment, or Fc, region of antibodies that enable the selective modulation of recruited cytotoxic immune cells for diverse therapeutic applications. This allows us to rationally tailor the selective enhancement or elimination of immune effector function to optimize product candidates.

AlbuCORE Multispecific Antibody-Alternative Platform

The AlbuCORE platform is a novel and proprietary suite of multivalent scaffolds engineered from the HSA backbone from which therapeutics can be developed. This platform is highly flexible and enables the addition of up to four customized targeting domains, which allows for additional tumor specificity and synergistic activity as well as an increase in the affinity and selectivity for a desired target. The resulting superstructure naturally accumulates in tumor microenvironments or areas of inflammation, and benefits from several attractive attributes of HSA, including superior pharmacokinetics and stability. Additionally, these AlbuCORE constructs possess standard manufacturing and purification protocols compatible with industry-standard conjugation technologies, which accelerate the manufacturing process, while reducing costs.

Product Candidate Pipeline and Advanced Preclinical and Discovery Programs

We currently have one wholly owned product candidate in clinical development and several wholly owned product candidates in preclinical development that leverage our multiple therapeutic platforms to address areas of significant unmet medical need. We define our programs as “lead product candidates” when they initiate IND-enabling studies and as “preclinical stage programs” when lead molecules have been identified and demonstrate activity in biological models. Our lead product candidates, ZW25 and ZW49, utilize our Azymetric bispecific platform to address patient populations with all levels of HER2 expression, including those with low to intermediate HER2-expressing tumors, and are described in detail below. We are also actively advancing a diverse set of preclinical and discovery programs, which leverage one or more of our proprietary therapeutic platforms to create multifunctional biotherapeutics for several solid tumor indications. Our bispecific ADC programs utilize the Azymetric, EFECT and ZymeLink platforms and have demonstrated potent anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies with the potential for an enhanced therapeutic window. Our most advanced T cell-engaging bispecific program leverages the Azymetric and EFECT platforms combined with our proprietary protein engineering expertise, which results in potent anti-tumor activity and reduced toxicity in preclinical studies. We are also developing several checkpoint-modulating bispecifics for immuno-oncology and other therapeutic areas to create a deep pipeline of well-differentiated product candidates. The table below summarizes our current product candidate pipeline.

LOGO

The table below summarizes the therapeutic class of our preclinical and advanced discovery programs.

LOGO

The table below summarizes the stage of each our partners’ most advanced publically disclosed program.

LOGO

•

ZW25 is our lead product candidate currently being evaluated in an adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States, based on our Azymetric platform. It is a bispecific antibody that can simultaneously bind two non-overlapping epitopes, known as biparatopic binding, of HER2 resulting in dual HER2 signal blockade, increased binding and removal of HER2 protein from the cell surface, and enhanced effector function. These combined mechanisms of action have led to significant anti-tumor activity in preclinical models of breast cancer, including trastuzumab (currently branded as Herceptin) resistant high HER2-expressing tumors, as well as in tumors with lower levels of HER2 expression. Approximately 81% of patients with HER2-expressing breast cancer and 57% of patients with HER2-expressing gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer have tumors that express low to intermediate levels of HER2, making them ineligible for treatment with currently approved HER2-targeted therapies, such as Herceptin and Perjeta. In the United States and EU5 (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) alone, approximately 408,000 and 50,000 patients are diagnosed with HER2-expressing breast and gastroesophageal cancer, respectively, every year. In addition, multiple other cancers, including ovarian, bladder, colorectal and non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, also express HER2 at varying levels. Therefore, there is a significant unmet need for HER2-targeted agents that can effectively treat these patients.

We are developing ZW25 as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody intended as a treatment option for patients with any solid tumor that expresses HER2. Our initial focus is on the treatment of patients with breast or gastric cancers that have progressed after treatment with HER2-targeted therapies or that are not eligible for approved HER2-targeted therapies based on low to intermediate levels of HER2 expression. We then intend to develop ZW25 for other HER2-expressing cancers. ZW25 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of both gastric and ovarian cancer by the FDA. In our Phase 1 clinical trial, ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-expressing cancers that have progressed after standard of care treatment, including multiple HER2-targeted regimens.

•

ZW49 is a biparatopic anti-HER2 ADC that is based on the same antibody framework as ZW25 and its predecessor product candidate, ZW33, and takes advantage of high levels of ZW25’s antibody-targeted internalization to deliver our proprietary ZymeLink cytotoxic payload. ZW49 and ZW33 were being developed in parallel; however, we made the strategic decision to advance ZW49 as a lead product candidate in lieu of ZW33 based on ZW49’s superior therapeutic window attributable to its use of our proprietary ZymeLink ADC platform. We are developing ZW49 as a best-in-class HER2-targeting ADC for several indications characterized by HER2 expression, especially for patients whose tumors have progressed or are refractory to HER2-targeted agents and those that express lower levels of HER2 and are ineligible for treatment with HER2-targeted therapies including Kadcyla. We plan on filing an IND application for ZW49 in 2018.

Our Strategy

Our goal is to leverage our next-generation therapeutic platforms and proprietary protein engineering capabilities to become a domain dominator in the discovery, development and commercialization of best-in-class multifunctional biotherapeutics for the treatment of cancer and other diseases with high unmet medical need.

Our key strategies to achieve this goal are to:

•

Aggressively advance our lead product candidate, ZW25, through the clinic in multiple HER2-expressing tumor types. We plan to pursue the most rapid path possible to advance ZW25 through clinical trials and towards commercialization. We believe ZW25 is best positioned to initially treat patients with high HER2-expressing breast or gastric cancers that have progressed after treatment with HER2-targeted therapies, such as Herceptin and Perjeta, or that are not eligible for approved HER2-targeted therapies based on low to intermediate levels of HER2 expression. A first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trial for ZW25 commenced in September 2016 and consists of three segments. We have completed the dose escalation segment (Part 1) and enrollment is underway for Part 2 of the study in which ZW25 will be administered every other week at 20 mg/kg in five expansion cohorts that will span HER2 High breast, HER2 High gastric, HER2 Intermediate breast, HER2 Intermediate gastric and other HER2 gene amplified cancers to evaluate ZW25 as both a monotherapy (Part 2) and in combination with standard of care therapy (Part 3). In our Phase 1 clinical trial, ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with HER2-expressing cancer that have progressed after standard of care, including multiple HER2-targeted regimens.

•

Pursue a rapid and multi-faceted development strategy for our novel and highly differentiated pipeline into clinical trials across many oncology indications with a critically high unmet medical need. Our second product candidate, ZW49, is a bispecific ADC that capitalizes on the unique design of ZW25 and is armed with our proprietary ZymeLink cytoxic payload. We are able to realize significant cost and time savings for ZW49 relative to other bispecifics by leveraging the same antibody manufacturing processes as well as insights related to the safety, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity and anti-tumor activity data generated for ZW25 in both the preclinical and clinical setting since they share an identical bispecific antibody backbone. The planned clinical trials will be designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose in the dose escalation phase before exploring safety and anti-tumor activity in patients whose tumors express all levels of HER2, including those with low to intermediate HER2-expression, that are not eligible for treatment with HER2-targeted therapies. Our subsequent clinical product candidates will be chosen from a diverse set of programs that we are aggressively advancing through preclinical development in several oncology indications with significant unmet need. These product candidates leverage both novel and well-validated targets and take advantage of one or more of our proprietary therapeutic platforms, which we believe results in a deep pipeline of next-generation multifunctional biotherapeutics.

•

Leverage our therapeutic platforms and proprietary protein engineering capabilities to continue to discover and develop additional novel product candidates. We will continue to exploit the advantages of our therapeutic platforms to discover and develop novel product candidates with a focus on leveraging our Azymetric, ZymeLink, EFECT and AlbuCORE platforms for generating bispecific and multifunctional antibody therapeutics, drug conjugates and multispecific antibody alternatives. We are currently evaluating a number of disease targets, therapeutic candidates and cytotoxic payloads with the aim of advancing a steady pipeline of next-generation product candidates from discovery and preclinical research into clinical trials.

•

Leverage our strategic partnerships, while pursuing additional collaborations that can augment the power of our platforms and value of our pipeline. We will continue to work closely with our strategic partners to help advance multiple programs developed using our therapeutic platforms. These strategic partnerships underscore the strengths of our therapeutic platforms, provide non-dilutive funding, broaden the scope of development efforts and have the potential to provide clinical validation. We plan to opportunistically enter into additional or expanded strategic relationships with top-tier biopharmaceutical companies, including retaining key geographic and commercial rights, particularly in disease areas not currently being pursued by us or by our current strategic partners.

•

Continue to develop innovative therapeutic platforms and expand our therapeutic focus into logical areas such as autoimmunity and inflammatory diseases. We plan to advance novel first-in-class product candidates and to continue to develop next-generation therapeutic platforms through our in-house research and development activities.

Background

Immune System and Antibodies

The immune system detects and defends organisms from invading pathogens, and identifies and eliminates aberrant cells. It is comprised of two subsystems: the innate and adaptive immune systems. The innate immune system mounts non-specific responses to conserved pathogen-associated molecular patterns and to alarm signals released by pathogen-infected cells. Key components of the innate immune system include:

•

cytokines and chemokines, which are small signaling proteins that allow immune cells to communicate with one another and regulate cell movement towards a site of inflammation or infection;

•

the complement pathway, which is a system of interacting proteins that coat pathogens, mark them for destruction and induce inflammatory responses;

•

macrophages, which are cells that ingest and destroy foreign materials;

•

neutrophils, which are cells that ingest and destroy microorganisms and are also capable of releasing enzymes that kill microorganisms; and

•

natural killer, or NK, cells, which recognize and lyse pathogenic cells.

In contrast to innate immunity, the adaptive immune system mounts highly specific responses against non-self molecules, or antigens, and can be activated by the innate immune system. Key components of the adaptive immune system include:

•

B cells, which generate unique antibodies targeting intact extracellular antigens;

•

helper T cells, which stimulate B cells to divide, differentiate and secrete antibodies in response to peptide antigens processed from extracellular proteins presented by other immune cells; and

•

cytotoxic T cells, which destroy infected or cancerous cells presenting peptide antigens processed from intracellular proteins.

Oncology Overview and Next-Generation Therapy

Cancer treatment depends on multiple factors, including the type, stage and degree of localization of the cancer. Small, localized tumors can often be effectively treated by surgery and radiation, and supplemental, or adjuvant, drugs are commonly administered in this setting. Patients with primary tumors that cannot be removed or which have metastasized beyond the primary site are typically treated with systemically delivered drugs, such as chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy

Cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents were the first type of systemic drug treatment developed for cancer and many remain in use today. These drugs typically act by disrupting cellular metabolism, division and mobility, which are required for tumor growth, invasion and metastasis. Tumors are more sensitive to chemotherapeutic agents than normal cells by virtue of their accelerated proliferation rates. However, chemotherapy also kills normal cells, particularly those that naturally grow and divide rapidly, such as those in the gastrointestinal tract. Because of this toxicity, these agents are typically administered in a limited range of doses within which tumors can be eliminated while minimizing toxic side effects, resulting in a narrow therapeutic window. As a result, chemotherapeutic agents are not always effective in eradicating cancer cells at doses low enough to avoid potentially fatal toxic damage.

Targeted Therapies

To address the broad toxicity of systemic chemotherapy, researchers have developed targeted therapies that interfere with the specific molecules that drive the rapid growth of cancer cells and lead to metastasis, or which can re-engage the immune system to combat cancer. While each patient’s cancer is characterized by a unique combination of genetic mutations, many of these changes are common across many cancers. These common genetic changes are targeted by newer targeted therapies that discriminate cancerous from normal cells, often leading to superior tolerability and broader therapeutic windows compared to chemotherapy. The three most common classes of targeted therapies are as follows:

Small Molecules

Small molecule therapeutics are chemical compounds that generally interfere with the intracellular signaling of tyrosine kinases. Tyrosine kinase signaling regulates cell growth, proliferation, migration and new blood vessel formation, or angiogenesis, of tumors. Blocking these signals slows the growth of tumors. Small molecule therapeutics, due to their small size and the weaker binding of targets, are generally less specific and more toxic than biologics.

First-Generation Biologics

Most biologics used as cancer therapies are monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor cell surface antigens, though this class of therapeutics also includes vaccines, cytokines and receptor fusion proteins. Due to their high degree of target specificity, monoclonal antibodies also offer the unique ability to target tumor-selective antigens, while minimizing off-target side effects. In oncology, first-generation biologics were generally used for growth-signal neutralization through ligand or receptor blockade or degradation such as Herceptin or Perjeta for the HER2 receptor and Erbitux for the epidermal growth factor receptor, or EGFR.

Second-Generation Biologics

Second-generation biologics were designed to further increase efficacy and reduce toxicity of targeted cancer therapies. In some instances, the domain of a monoclonal antibody was engineered to enhance therapeutic efficacy, or the Fab domains were engineered to improve target antigen affinity and specificity. In addition, small molecules or cytokines could be conjugated to antibodies to precisely deliver toxic payloads specifically to tumors. Antibodies could also be engineered such that they simultaneously engaged multiple different antigens (i.e., bispecific antibodies) and induced biological effects previously unattainable with first-generation monoclonal antibodies. This resulted in biologics often being the preferred treatment option for many cancers given their higher efficacy and safety profile as well as longer serum exposure in comparison to small molecules.

Zymeworks’ Next-Generation Biologics

Small molecule therapeutics and biologics have led to improvements in patient outcomes compared to chemotherapies. However, some patients acquire resistance, become refractory to, or cannot tolerate the increased toxicity of these treatments. Importantly, these treatments often only delay disease progression and do not induce durable cancer remission. As a result, there is a need for new therapies with improved, long-lasting efficacy and reduced toxicity. We believe the future of oncology will be defined by multifunctional therapeutics specifically designed to act through several synergistic mechanisms of action to enhance efficacy, overcome resistance and minimize side effects. Furthermore, we believe our proprietary protein engineering capabilities and our integrated biologics discovery engine uniquely enable us to develop the next generation of biotherapeutics, including bispecific and multifunctional antibodies, immune engagers, ADCs and other proprietary protein formats to help address this treatment gap. Our suite of proprietary therapeutic platforms uniquely allows us to utilize all of the above approaches in our mission to allow patients to return home to their loved ones, disease free.

Zymeworks’ Competitive Advantage: Proprietary Therapeutic Platforms

Our expertise in protein engineering has enabled the development of our next-generation therapeutic platforms, a suite of complementary and highly tailored biologics solutions. Our therapeutic platforms can be used alone or in combination with synergistic activity to develop fit for purpose biotherapeutics with bispecific capabilities (Azymetric), cytotoxic payload delivery (ZymeLink), finely tuned immune cell regulation (EFECT) and multivalent targeting (AlbuCORE). We continue to leverage these therapeutic platforms to expand our deep pipeline of next-generation biotherapeutics that we believe could represent significant improvements to the standard of care in multiple cancer types.

Azymetric Bispecific Antibody Platform

The Azymetric platform consists of a library of proprietary amino acid substitutions in the Fc and Fab regions that transform monospecific antibodies into bispecific antibodies, giving them the ability to simultaneously bind two non-overlapping epitopes. The core technology consists of complementary amino acid substitutions on each of the CH3 domains that we have engineered to facilitate the obligate interaction of two distinct heavy chains. Additional amino acid substitutions are also introduced at the heavy-light chain interfaces to facilitate the correct pairing of the heavy chains with their respective light chains.

We are leveraging the multiple therapeutic mechanisms of action of our Azymetric platform to develop our internal pipeline of wholly owned bispecific product candidates, including ZW25 and ZW49. We have also licensed the Azymetric platform to our strategic partners (Merck, Lilly, Celgene, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo and Janssen) for their own therapeutic development.

We have engineered our Azymetric bispecific antibodies to retain the desirable features of naturally occurring IgG antibodies, including low immunogenicity, long serum half-life, high stability and the ability to mediate effector function. Azymetric antibodies are also manufactured using industry-standard monoclonal antibody processes and maintain high production yields and product purity. This allows for “plug-and-play,” low-cost, high-quality manufacturing for both our proprietary and partnered product candidates. These are significant advantages compared to competing bispecific technologies, which in many cases suffer from poor stability or may require additional complex manufacturing steps. By retaining the properties of an unmodified Fc region, Azymetric antibodies can be stably formulated, dosed on a convenient schedule, and have the ability to kill tumors through multiple mechanisms of action. In addition, Azymetric antibodies are compatible with glyco-engineering and other Fc modifications (for example, our EFECT platform) to enhance therapeutic activity.

Unique Mechanisms of Action of Bispecific Antibodies

Bispecific antibodies can mediate effects through multiple unique mechanisms of action, including: (i) enhanced receptor clustering, which may accelerate internalization and promote sub-cellular sorting to the lysosome for improved cytotoxin delivery; (ii) recruitment of immune cells to tumor cells by simultaneous engagement of receptors on each cell; (iii) increasing tumor cell decoration by engaging two targets on the same receptor, or two different receptors, to enhance Fc-mediated effector cell function; (iv) improved specificity of tumor targeting by requiring engagement of two tumor-associated antigens; (v) dual receptor blockade with a single antibody to suppress signaling through two oncogenic pathways (the same effect can be achieved by dual ligand binding); or (vi) by bridging proteins to replace a missing component of a macromolecular complex. Other unique bispecific mechanisms of action include delivering biologics across the blood brain barrier, enhancing tumor cell death signaling by improved receptor clustering, and increasing cytotoxin delivery by coupling a poorly internalizing tumor-specific receptor to a well-internalizing target.

Unlike many other bispecific platforms, the Azymetric platform is compatible with alternative antigen binding formats (e.g. antigen binding fragments, or Fabs, single chain antibodies, or scFvs, and heavy chain antibodies, or VHHs, see illustration below). This flexibility allows us to explore multiple different structural variants and to select the format that provides optimized engagement geometry for a given target pair to maximize therapeutic effect for the desired biology. We believe that this level of therapeutic customization will be essential to design next-generation biologics that effectively target increasingly complex biological challenges.

LOGO

Azymetric Format Variants. Azymetric antibodies can be formatted with dual Fab antigen-targeting arms, with common light chains, in alternate scFv or VHH formats, hybrid formats, or as ADCs, in order to create highly tailored biotherapeutics that provide optimal engagement geometry for a given target pair to maximize therapeutic effect.

We have designed the Azymetric platform to provide us with the following competitive advantages:

•

dual-targeting of receptors and ligands

•

enables enhanced tumor specificity and synergistic efficacy;

•

simultaneous blockade of multiple signals or parallel pathways

•

enhances efficacy while reducing the potential for drug resistance and relapse;

•

several modular and compatible antibody formats

•

enables fit-for-purpose biotherapeutic development that optimally exploits therapeutic targets in the context of each particular disease state;

•

redirected targeting of immune effector cells to the tumor

•

recruits and activates the patient’s naïve immune cells to attack tumors for increased efficacy;

•

enhanced antibody internalization and sub-cellular sorting

•

delivers more drug to tumors for increased efficacy;

•

IgG-like biophysical and functional properties

•

retains effector function and enhances pharmacokinetics and stability, with resistance to aggregation and reduced immunogenic potential relative to other bispecific formats; and

•

compatible with existing industry-standard manufacturing and purification protocols

•

plug-and-play manufacturing process accelerates development and reduces cost of goods.

ZymeLink Conjugation Platform and Cytotoxins

The ZymeLink conjugation platform represents a suite of novel site-specific protein conjugation technologies and customizable cleavable linkers that enable the delivery of cytotoxic payloads, and can be applied to all of our antibody and albumin-based therapeutic scaffolds. The ZymeLink platform enables the production of homogeneous product candidates that are stable in circulation but enable the efficient release of payload upon internalization by target cells. For antibodies, the ZymeLink platform has been specifically engineered to preserve Fc effector function to facilitate the recruitment and activation of immune cells as well as maintain typical antibody pharmacokinetics.

We have also developed a series of proprietary cytotoxic payloads, spanning multiple classes, which possess highly potent anti-tumor activity against a broad range of cancer cell types. When conjugated to tumor-targeting antibodies, the resulting ZymeLink-cytotoxin conjugates demonstrate exceptional anti-tumor activity and tolerability in vivo in our preclinical studies. In fact, the ZymeLink-cytotoxin conjugates are tolerated by non-human primates at doses six-fold higher than the only currently approved cleavable ADC platform based on monomethyl auristatin E, or MMAE, potentially resulting in an expanded therapeutic window in patients. This key competitive advantage may enable administration of higher ADC doses and delivery of more cytotoxin to the tumor, with reduced toxic side effects, relative to other ADC platforms.

We have designed the ZymeLink platform to provide us with the following competitive advantages:

•

targeted delivery of our proprietary next-generation cytotoxins

•

optimizes efficacy and safety profiles thus broadening the therapeutic window;

•

customized cleavable linkers with optimized loading, stability and release

•

maximizes drug delivery to target cells while minimizing off-target effects;

•

site-specific conjugation technology

•

ensures product homogeneity, preserves Fc effector function for recruitment/activation of immune cells, and maintains pharmacokinetics through FcRn engagement; and

•

compatible with multiple antibody and protein formats including Azymetric, AlbuCORE and our partnered programs

•

maximizes utility across a broad range of applications.

Importantly, the ZymeLink conjugation platform is compatible with our proprietary cytotoxins as well as a variety of additional small molecule therapeutics. Together, they can be combined with traditional monoclonal antibodies and with the Azymetric (bispecific), EFECT and AlbuCORE (multispecific) platforms to enable the development of best-in-class, life-changing therapies for patients.

EFECT Antibody Effector Function Modulation Platform

Immune cells bind to the Fc region of antibodies through proteins called Fc receptors. When bound, some Fc receptors activate immune cell function (FcgRIIa and FcgRIIIa), while other Fc receptors inhibit immune cell function (FcgRIIb). This phenomenon is known as effector function. The EFECT platform is comprised of proprietary sets of amino acid modifications to the Fc region of antibody-based therapeutics, which enable us to selectively modulate their effector function (Effector Function Eliminating, Effector Function Enhancing or Immune Inhibitory) and tailor the activity of recruited immune cells for specific therapeutic applications. As an example, for the development of T cell re-directing bispecific antibodies, using the Effector Function Eliminating modifications prevents binding between the antibody’s Fc region and the Fc receptors of immune cells, which may otherwise lead to inadvertent toxicity. Alternatively, for more traditional anti-cancer therapeutic antibodies, using the Effector Function Enhancing modifications improves binding between the antibody’s Fc region and activating Fc receptors, which may enhance immune cell-mediated anti-cancer activity. The ability to tune-up, tune-down, or eliminate immune cell engagement allows tailoring of the antibody’s effector function to match the desired therapeutic mechanism of action.

The EFECT platform is compatible with traditional monospecific antibodies and with Azymetric bispecific antibodies. We have licensed certain aspects of this therapeutic platform to Merck, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo and Janssen for use in conjunction with the Azymetric platform. We have also entered into a collaboration with GSK for the further development and commercialization of the EFECT platform.

We have designed the EFECT platform to provide the following competitive advantages:

•

selective enhancement of activating FcgR interactions

•

enables precise up-regulation of immune effector function;

•

selective enhancement of inhibitory FcgR interactions

•

enables precise downregulation of B cell or mast cell function and permits antibody crosslinking via immune cell engagement without immune cell activation; and

•

proprietary mutations to eliminate FcgR interactions

•

eliminates the interaction between an antibody and the FcgR of immune cells more completely than alternative approaches while retaining the attractive pharmacokinetics of a full-sized antibody.

AlbuCORE Multispecific Antibody Alternative Platform

The AlbuCORE platform is a novel and proprietary suite of multivalent scaffolds based on HSA. This platform is highly flexible and enables the addition of up to four customizable targeting domains, which allows for additional tumor specificity and synergistic activity as well as increased affinity and selectivity for the desired target. The resulting superstructure naturally accumulates in tumor microenvironments or areas of inflammation and benefits from several attractive attributes of HSA, including superior pharmacokinetics and stability. Additionally, these AlbuCORE constructs possess standard manufacturing and purification protocols compatible with industry-standard conjugation technologies which accelerate development and reduce manufacturing costs.

We evaluated a number of positions where the native HSA amino acid sequence could be split into two polypeptide chains. When the two separate chains are co-expressed, they efficiently and spontaneously associate to reform a native-like HSA structure with four available termini to which antigen-targeting domains can be fused, or other agents chemically conjugated.

Variants created using the AlbuCORE platform retain the attractive features of HSA as a therapeutic scaffold. AlbuCORE variants exploit the natural accumulation of albumin in tumors through enhanced tumor permeability and retention, and the increased demand by tumors for albumin as a source of energy and amino acids. AlbuCORE variants also retain the favorable pharmacokinetic properties of HSA, which have previously been exploited by fusing HSA to peptides, hormones and cytokines to extend the half-life of these otherwise rapidly cleared molecules. Unlike antibodies, AlbuCORE-based biotherapeutics inherently lack effector function; this is a highly desirable trait in certain therapeutic applications. AlbuCORE variants also exhibit ideal manufacturing characteristics: they retain the stability and solubility characteristics exemplified by the frequent use of HSA as an excipient in pharmaceutical product formulations and can be produced in microbial expression systems at reduced cost-of-goods compared to other systems.

AlbuCORE’s multivalent binding capabilities enable us to design biotherapeutics with high avidity binding or multispecific targeting to crosslink multiple disease targets and effector cells. Similar to the Azymetric platform, the AlbuCORE platform also offers the flexibility to test multiple formats with variable inter-termini distances and geometries. This allows us to identify a variant with the optimal targeting geometries needed to induce maximal effect for a particular disease state.

We have designed the AlbuCORE platform to provide the following competitive advantages:

•

multivalent targeting: up to four sites to which peptides or protein domains can be fused

•

enables enhanced tumor specificity and synergistic efficacy;

•

ability to customized geometry of targeting domains and optimized structure-activity relationship

•

increases affinity and selectivity for therapeutic target leading to increased efficacy and decreased toxicity;

•

HSA-like biophysical and functional properties

•

naturally accumulates in the tumor microenvironment and at sites of inflammation

•

increases serum circulation and tissue residence time compared to small molecules and other protein scaffolds

•

enhances stability and pharmacokinetics, and decreases immunogenic potential; and

•

compatible with existing industry-standard manufacturing and purification protocols

•

standard manufacturing process accelerates development and reduces cost of goods.

ZymeCAD Computational Modeling and Engineering Technology

Our therapeutic platforms are enabled by our protein engineering expertise and by leveraging ZymeCAD, our proprietary computational modeling technology. We continue to leverage ZymeCAD to support our strategic partnerships and develop novel therapeutic platforms.

ZymeCAD is a comprehensive approach to predictive protein modeling and structure-guided protein engineering. We utilize this suite of proprietary software modules to develop better therapeutic platforms by increasing our understanding of the structure-function relationships and biophysical characteristics of specific protein changes. These software modules include:

Molecular Modeling

ZymeCAD includes a number of proprietary software tools used to build and refine the quality of high-definition molecular models, incorporating structural data from multiple sources including crystallography, homology and sequence data as well as experimentally derived data. High quality structural models of protein therapeutics and their interactions with targets are a critical component of our approach to protein engineering and the design of next-generation product candidates and therapeutic platforms.

Conformational Dynamics

ZymeCAD incorporates a number of simulation approaches to sample and evaluate changes within molecular systems, including protein backbone, sidechain and interdomain changes. Proprietary simulation methodologies provide us with a comprehensive understanding of the alternate states and functional characteristics of the protein of interest, including target binding and stability.

Hot Spot Determination

ZymeCAD plays a key role in the in silico identification of a specific subset of amino acids in a protein that is critical to determining its functional characteristic and overall stability. These amino acid residues can play a role either independently or as part of a cluster of networked residues, and through proprietary algorithms, ZymeCAD can identify these critical residues, referred to as “hot spots.” These analyses, including the inherent knowledge of the downstream impact of altering specific hot spots, can drive the rational design and engineering of product candidates.

Energy Function and Scoring

ZymeCAD contains proprietary energy and scoring functions that score and rank the stability of proteins and binding energies across protein-target interfaces, and the outward-facing surfaces of the proteins. This empirical ranking methodology was developed, implemented and successfully utilized in the development of our platform technologies and biotherapeutics, and plays a key role in executing on our strategic partnerships relating to the development of new EFECT modalities.

Rigorous commercial software engineering practices, coupled with robust quality assurance standards and a world-class software engineering team have created an extensible, scalable, reliable and secure platform that we believe positions us to remain at the leading edge of the development of next-generation biotherapeutics as we continue to innovate beyond the current state of art in computational protein design.

Next-Generation Biologics Market Opportunity

The expansion of the pharmaceutical market driven by an aging worldwide population and increased standard of living in emerging markets has contributed to growth of the biologics markets over the last several years. Monoclonal antibodies are the most prevalent biologic type, as they are effective, amenable to platform development, well-validated as a therapeutic class and familiar to regulatory agencies. Since the first antibody approval in 1986, approximately 47 products have been approved by the FDA and international regulatory authorities. Notably, the three largest-selling oncology products are monoclonal antibodies, Rituxan, Herceptin and Avastin, which had 2017 worldwide sales of approximately $7.7 billion, $7.2 billion and $6.9 billion, respectively. Currently there are over 300 monoclonal antibodies in various stages of clinical development with combined global sales expected to reach nearly $125 billion.

The overall market for bispecific antibodies has been estimated to reach $5.8 billion in 2024. Notably, these forecasts are conservative and reflect only projections for bispecifics in late-stage development. Challenges with existing bispecific technologies include a short half-life in vivo, low stability, and various manufacturing-related challenges. We believe the true market for bispecifics is significantly larger and we expect it to grow as clinical and regulatory experience with this class of therapeutics increases and stable bispecific antibodies with a longer in vivo half-life and enhanced efficacy are developed.

ADCs are a relatively more mature next-generation biotherapeutic technology comprising of monoclonal antibodies attached to biologically active drugs by chemical linkers with labile bonds. By combining the specific targeting ability of antibodies with cytotoxic drugs, ADCs allow sensitive discrimination between healthy and diseased tissue. Initial data suggests that some ADCs may have additive or synergistic effects with immuno-oncology drugs, notably with checkpoint inhibitors. Despite improvements in second generation ADCs, it is generally accepted that only a small fraction of their payload is delivered to the target, leaving significant room for improvement. Key challenges include production of consistent ADC batches, efficacy of antibody targeting and linkers with delayed payload release and poor stability. Potential solutions include alternative targeting mechanisms such as bispecifics, new linker technologies to improve the pharmacokinetic profile and improved conjugation of the linker to the antibody. Four ADCs are currently approved for use in the United States: Seattle Genetics’ Adcetris, Roche/Genentech’s Kadcyla and Pfizer’s Besponsa and Mylotarg. Adcetris and Kadcyla accounted for $1.55 billion in sales for 2016. With over 50 antibody-drug conjugates in the clinic, including 20 programs in Phase 2 or Phase 3 trials, the market for ADCs has been estimated to be between $10.0 billion and $12.7 billion by the 2020-2025 timeframe.

Product Candidate Pipeline

ZW25: Anti-HER2 Biparatopic Antibody

Overview

ZW25, our lead product candidate currently being evaluated in an adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial in the United States, is based on our Azymetric platform. It is a bispecific antibody that can simultaneously bind two non-overlapping epitopes, known as biparatopic binding, of HER2 resulting in dual HER2 signal blockade, increased binding and removal of HER2 protein from the cell surface, and enhanced effector function. These combined mechanisms of action have led to activity in preclinical models of breast cancer, including trastuzumab-resistant (currently branded as Herceptin) high HER2-expressing tumors, as well as in tumors with lower levels of HER2 expression. Approximately 81% of patients with HER2-expressing breast cancer and 57% of patients with HER2-expressing gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer have tumors that express low to intermediate levels of HER2, making them ineligible for treatment with currently approved HER2-targeted therapies, such as Herceptin and Perjeta. In addition, multiple other cancers, including ovarian, bladder, colorectal and non-small cell lung cancer express HER2 at varying levels. Therefore, there is a significant unmet need for HER2-targeted agents that can effectively treat these patients. In our Phase 1 clinical trial, ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-expressing cancers that have progressed after standard of care treatment, including multiple HER2-targeted regimens.

We are developing ZW25 as a best-in-class HER2-targeting antibody intended as a treatment option for patients with any solid tumor that expresses HER2. Our initial focus is on the treatment of patients with high HER2-expressing breast or gastric cancers that have progressed after treatment with HER2-targeted therapies, such as Herceptin and Perjeta, or that are not eligible for approved HER2-targeted therapies based on lower levels of HER2 expression. We then intend to develop ZW25 as a therapeutic agent for other HER2-expressing cancers. ZW25 has been granted Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of both gastric and ovarian cancer by the FDA.

HER2 and the Current Treatment of HER2-expressing Breast and Gastric Cancer

HER2 is a member of the human epidermal growth factor receptor, or HER, family of receptors that normally stimulate cell growth in response to ligand binding, receptor activation and downstream molecular signaling cascades. In cancerous cells, the gene encoding HER2 can become amplified. Amplification greatly increases the number of HER2 receptors expressed on the cell surface causing inappropriate and unregulated signaling that accelerates cell growth, reduces apoptosis and enhances cell motility leading to cancer. HER2 expression therefore provides a selective marker on the surface of tumors for therapeutic targeting. The table below illustrates the incidence of high HER2 expression in a variety of different cancer types:

Incidence of HER2 Gene and Protein Expression in Various Cancers


Cancer Type	Incidence of High HER2 Expression
Breast		~20	%
Bladder		5-15	%
Endometrial		8-35	%
Ovarian		6.7	%
Gastroesophageal		4-22	%
Pancreatic		2-29	%
Cervical		1-21	%
Head & Neck		3	%
Colorectal		2-3	%
Lung		1-6	%
Melanoma		0-5	%

Excerpted from Yan et al. HER2 aberrations in cancer: implications for therapy. Cancer Treatment Reviews 2014 40, 770-780.

The level of HER2 expression in tumors is commonly used to guide treatment decisions for patients with breast and gastric cancers. HER2 levels in tumor biopsies are typically screened by immunohistochemistry, or IHC, and assigned a value from 0 (baseline expression levels) to 3+ (extraordinarily high expression levels). Similarly, gene amplification can be determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization, or FISH, and scored as either negative (two copies are normal) or positive (extra copies). The HER2 expression status of cancer can be described as High, Intermediate, Low or Negative according to the classification table below.

Breast and Gastric Cancer Classification According to HER2 Status

LOGO

HER2 expression has been associated with a worse outcome in a number of cancers, particularly HER2 High-expressing breast cancers. Prior to the advent of HER2-targeted therapies, patients with HER2-expressing breast cancer had reduced overall survival and greater likelihood of relapse relative to patients with HER2 Negative breast cancer.

Breast cancer treatment is based on disease stage, grade, hormone and HER2 receptor status. Treatment options include surgery, radiotherapy and drug therapy. Early-stage tumors are typically removed by surgery and patients may be treated with drugs to prevent cancer recurrence, referred to as adjuvant therapy. In cases when the tumor is larger, patients may be administered drug treatments to reduce the tumor size prior to surgery, referred to as neoadjuvant treatment. Breast tumors that cannot be removed surgically because they are locally advanced or metastatic are treated primarily with drugs.

The type of drug prescribed for a particular breast cancer patient depends on the molecular signature of the patient’s tumor. HER2-targeted therapies are only approved for patients whose tumors are classified as HER2 High, representing approximately 20% of all breast cancer patients. Five drugs targeting HER2 have been approved by the FDA for the treatment of early and late-stage breast cancers that overexpress HER2: Herceptin (trastuzumab), Perjeta (pertuzumab), Kadcyla (ado-trastuzumab emtansine) or T-DM1, Tykerb (lapatinib) and Nerlynx (neratinib). Current standard of care for HER2 High breast cancer is built on a backbone of HER2 inhibition throughout all lines of therapy. For metastatic disease, first-line standard of care therapy consists of Herceptin, Perjeta and a taxane resulting in an average overall survival benefit of 56.5 months. Second line standard of care is Kadcyla. For patients who have progressed after treatment with Herceptin, Perjeta and Kadcyla there is no preferred treatment. Options include Herceptin plus chemotherapy, Herceptin plus Tykerb or Tykerb plus Xeloda. While HER2-targeted therapies are effective in many patients with HER2 High breast cancer, some patients fail to respond to these drugs and all patients with metastatic disease ultimately relapse.

In addition to improved options for HER2 High breast cancer, there is also a need for HER2-targeted therapies that can effectively treat cancers with lower levels of HER2 expression (HER2 Low / HER2 Intermediate). Approximately 81% of patients with HER2-expressing breast cancer have tumors that express low to intermediate levels of HER2. Currently approved HER2-targeted therapies, such as Herceptin and Perjeta, are not sufficiently active to provide clinical benefit to patients whose tumors express low to intermediate levels of HER2 and therefore are not approved for these indications. Some of these patients may have tumors that express either or both the estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor and may receive hormone therapies such as tamoxifen, which can result in an average overall survival benefit of 43.3 months. However, tumors that lack expression of the estrogen and progesterone receptors and express HER2 at low to intermediate levels are currently classified as triple negative. These patients receive cytotoxic chemotherapy and fare much more poorly, living just 13.3 months, on average. We believe adding ZW25 to the existing standard of care for these molecular subtypes may lead to improved survival for these patients.

Breast Cancer Classification by Graded HER2 Expression

LOGO

A Significant Number of Breast Cancer Patients Express HER2 at Low and Intermediate Levels. ZW25 may be able to treat breast cancer patients whose tumors are currently classified as triple negative or hormone receptor positive that express HER2 at High, Intermediate and Low levels representing a substantial unmet medical need.

Many gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancers also have high levels of HER2 expression. Herceptin has been approved in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of HER2 High-expressing gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancers whereas other HER2-targeted agents including Kadcyla, Perjeta and Tykerb have failed to demonstrate efficacy in this indication. Patients with advanced gastric cancer whose tumors express high levels of HER2 and receive Herceptin plus chemotherapy live an average of 16 months and nearly all eventually progress. Beyond first-line Herceptin, there are currently no approved first-line HER2-targeted therapies for gastric cancer and the median progression-free survival for the preferred second-line regimen, Cyramza plus a taxane, is just 4.4 months, representing a significant unmet need. Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. For perspective, in the combined U.S., EU5, and major Asian markets of Japan (JP), China (CH) and South Korea (KR), the number of patients diagnosed with HER2 High gastric cancer (110,868) is comparable to HER2 High Breast Cancer (115,214). However, there are far fewer targeted therapies to treat gastric cancer, either approved or in clinical development, representing a significant opportunity for improvement. In our Phase 1 clinical trial, ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated HER2 High gastric cancers that have progressed after standard of care, including Herceptin.

Gastric Cancer Classification by Graded HER2 Expression

LOGO

HER2 High Gastric Cancer has Comparable Incidence to HER2 High Breast Cancer but with Greater Medical Need. HER2 High gastric cancer has comparable incidence in the combined US, EU5, and major Asian markets JP, CH and KR as HER2 High breast cancer with far fewer approved targeted therapies. ZW25 may be able treat gastric cancer patients whose tumors are currently classified as HER2 High as well as those with lower levels of HER2 expression.

A subset of other cancers, including ovarian, bladder, colorectal and NSCLC also express HER2 at varying levels and should be amenable to treatment with next-generation HER2-targeted therapies. Thus, there is a significant unmet need for biotherapeutics that can effectively treat HER2-expressing tumors not currently eligible for HER2-targeted therapies.

Potential Advantages of ZW25

ZW25 is an anti-HER2 biparatopic bispecific antibody. The biparatopic binding mode increases the number of antibodies bound to HER2 receptors at the cell surface relative to monospecific antibodies and promotes receptor clustering and internalization.

ZW25 mediates its therapeutic effect on HER2-expressing tumors through a combination of therapeutic mechanisms including:

•

cross-linked trans HER2 binding and HER2 receptor clustering;

•

enhanced antibody internalization and HER2 downregulation;

•

increased maximum binding density and potent effector function-mediated cytotoxicity; and

•

enhanced blockade of ligand-dependent and ligand-independent tumor growth.

We believe that ZW25 will be an effective therapy for the treatment of HER2-expressing breast cancer patients that are either ineligible for Herceptin or Perjeta based on HER2 expression levels, or who have relapsed or refractory HER2 High breast cancers. We estimate that the annual patient population for our lead indication (first-line Stage III inoperable and Stage IV breast cancer, HER2 2+, non-FISH amplified) in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom will reach 30,400 by 2023.

ZW25 may also be an effective therapy for the neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment of HER2 Low and Intermediate-expressing early-stage breast cancer. Given the large population that could potentially benefit from ZW25 treatment, approval in any of these indications would offer significant upside to the market opportunity for ZW25.

Clinical Development of ZW25

ZW25 is being evaluated in a non-randomized, open-label, adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial conducted pursuant to an IND submitted by us to the FDA that became effective in July 2016. This trial will evaluate ZW25 as a single agent (Part 1, 2) and in combination with standard of care chemotherapy (Part 3) in patients with locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic solid tumors that express HER2, as confirmed by IHC or FISH and as described in the IND for ZW25. The primary objectives of the trial are to characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic profile and maximum tolerated dose of ZW25. Secondary objectives include evaluation of preliminary anti-tumor activity, as well as identification of potential biomarkers of response. We intentionally designed our Phase 1 trial to enable a potentially accelerated path to regulatory approval in patients who have progressed after approved therapies (Part 2), while maintaining the flexibility to include components (Part 3) which could help advance ZW25 into earlier lines of therapy. We have completed the dose escalation segment (Part 1) and enrollment is underway for Part 2 of the study utilizing ZW25 weekly at 10 mg/kg and every other week at 20 mg/kg in five expansion cohorts spanning HER2 High breast, HER2 High gastric, HER2 Intermediate breast, HER Intermediate gastric, and other HER2 gene amplified cancers. The full study is expected to be complete by the end of 2018.

A snapshot of the clinical database from November 16, 2017 for Part 1 of the Phase 1 clinical trial has demonstrated that ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with heavily pre-treated HER2 expressing cancers, including multiple HER2 targeted regimens. A total of 22 patients were enrolled in the study, including 11 with breast cancer, eight with gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal (GE) cancer and three with other HER2 expressing cancers. The first part of this multi-part study was a standard dose escalation in which patients received ZW25 either weekly at 5 mg/kg (n=3), 10 mg/kg (n=6), or 15 mg/kg (n=7) or bi-weekly (once every two weeks) at 20 mg/kg (n=6) in four-week cycles to identify a dose and schedule to take forward for further evaluation. All patients had received multiple prior regimens of systemic therapy for metastatic disease (range 1-10), representing a heavily pretreated population. No dose-limiting toxicities were seen at any dose level or schedule. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, infusion reactions, or nausea, all Grade 1 or 2 in severity. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events, cardiac events or decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction.

In our study, seventy-nine percent of breast and GE cancer patients with measurable disease (11/14) had a decrease in target lesions per RECIST criteria. The best overall response (BOR) in 17 response-evaluable breast and GE cancer patients (defined as having target or non-target lesions and at least one tumor restaging) was six partial responses (PR) (35%), three stable disease (SD) (18%) and eight progressive disease (PD; 47%). Of the eleven breast cancer patients, all were HER2 high and had received a median of six prior HER2 targeted regimens for metastatic disease including trastuzumab (n=11), T-DM1 (n=11), pertuzumab (n=9), and lapatinib (n=7), as well as other investigational agents. The BOR in these heavily pretreated patients was five PR (45%), two SD (18%), and three PD (27%), for an overall disease control rate (Complete Response, PR, or SD) of 64%. At least one PR was observed in every dosing group. Of the eight GE patients, six were evaluable for response, and had received a median of four prior systemic regimens, including trastuzumab in all patients. Three of five patients with measurable disease had a decrease in tumor size, including one patient continuing on treatment with a confirmed PR and 71% decrease in target lesions, as well as a second patient with SD for over six months.

LOGO

Target Lesions Decrease in Majority of Patients with Measurable Disease. Single agent anti-tumor activity in breast or gastric, gastroesophageal junction, or esophageal patients with measurable disease per RECIST 1.1 criteria and at least one tumor re-staging. HER2 status based on central assessment and refers to immunohistochemistry score and gene amplification status. Data cutoff as of November 16, 2017 and presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium December 5, 2017. *Patient best response considered PD due to new lesion.

If we continue to see evidence of anti-tumor activity in indications with high unmet medical need such as HER2-expressing cancer that has progressed after all therapies known to confer clinical benefit, we intend to seek fast track designation for ZW25 from the FDA. Furthermore, we would discuss with the FDA and other regulatory authorities the appropriate trial designs that might support accelerated approval using a surrogate endpoint such as response rate. We would also consider seeking breakthrough designation if the data were considered to be strongly compelling, such as evidence of a response rate or clinical benefit rate well above the expected rate. The FDA and corresponding regulatory authorities will ultimately review our clinical results and determine whether our product candidates are safe and effective and whether accelerated regulatory approval is possible. No regulatory agency has made any such determination that any of our product candidates are safe or effective for use by the general public for any indication nor has any regulatory authority provided any indication that ZW25 will be eligible for accelerated approval.

As ZW25 mediates its therapeutic effect through several mechanisms of action, we believe this antibody has the potential to be a best-in-class therapy providing clinical benefit to patients with any HER2-expressing cancer, including those with low to intermediate levels of HER2 that are not eligible for other HER2-targeted therapies, as well as those patients who have progressed after prior HER2-targeted therapies. The FDA has granted Orphan Drug Designation to ZW25 for the treatment of both gastric and ovarian cancer.

ZW49: Anti-HER2 Biparatopic ADC

Overview

ZW49 is a biparatopic anti-HER2 ADC that is based on the same antibody framework as ZW25 and its predecessor product candidate, ZW33, and takes advantage of high levels of ZW25’s antibody-targeted internalization to deliver our proprietary ZymeLink cytotoxic payload. ZW49 and ZW33 were being developed in parallel; however, we made the strategic decision to advance ZW49 as a lead product candidate in lieu of ZW33 based on ZW49’s superior therapeutic window attributable to its use of our proprietary ZymeLink ADC platform. We are developing ZW49 as a best-in-class HER2-targeting ADC for several indications characterized by HER2 expression, especially for patients whose tumors have progressed or are refractory to HER2-targeted agents and those that express lower levels of HER2 and are ineligible for treatment with HER2-targeted therapies including Kadcyla. We plan on filing an IND application for ZW49 in 2018.

Potential Advantages of ZW49

ZW49 is a combination of an Azymetric biparatopic anti-HER2 antibody conjugated to our proprietary ZymeLink cytotoxic payload via a cleavable linker. Our cytotoxic payload destabilizes tubulin, a protein necessary for cell division, and therefore selectively kills rapidly dividing cancer cells. Compared to existing HER2-targeted therapies, ZW49 mediates a superior therapeutic effect on HER2-expressing tumors through a combination of mechanisms, including:

•

cross-linked trans HER2 binding and HER2 receptor clustering;

•

increased HER2-mediated antibody internalization leading to:

•

enhanced toxin-mediated cytotoxicity and tumor growth inhibition;

•

enhanced HER2 downregulation;

•

increased maximum binding density and potent effector-function mediated cytotoxicity; and

•

enhanced blockade of ligand-dependent and ligand-independent tumor growth.

The development of ZW49 will follow a similar path as we had proposed for ZW49’s predecessor product candidate, ZW33. Initially, we plan to focus on patients with HER2 High-expressing breast and gastric cancer who have progressed on or are refractory to approved HER2-targeted agents, including Herceptin, Perjeta and Kadcyla (or the combination therapy of Herceptin, Perjeta and chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer), as well as additional cancers expressing lower to intermediate levels of HER2. In preclinical studies, ZW49 has demonstrated superior activity compared to the only approved HER2-targeted ADC, Kadcyla. If ZW49 demonstrates superiority in head-to-head clinical trials, we believe it has the potential to replace Kadcyla as the preferred therapy for second line treatment of HER2+ metastatic cancer, for which the estimated annual patient population for this indication in the United States and EU is expected to reach 10,700 by 2023. Ultimately, ZW49 could be used as a follow-on therapy for ZW25, mirroring the development strategy employed for Kadcyla as follow-on therapy for Herceptin. ZW49 also has the potential to be a treatment for other HER2-expressing cancers, which would expand the addressable market. The FDA and corresponding regulatory authorities will ultimately review our clinical results and determine whether our product candidates are effective. No regulatory agency has made any such determination that ZW49 is effective for use by the general public for any indication.

Preclinical Development of ZW49

ZW49 displayed potent in vitro cytotoxicity in several cancer cell lines expressing HER2 and has demonstrated anti-tumor activity in multiple patient-derived xenograft models. In mice bearing HER2 High tumors, two doses of ZW49 at 3 mg/kg administered two weeks apart generated tumor regressions (Figure below left panel). For perspective, in the same xenograft model two doses of ZW33 at 3 mg/kg administered two weeks apart resulted in tumor growth inhibition (Figure below right panel). Furthermore, treatment with ZW49 resulted in anti-tumor activity in patient-derived xenograft models with lower levels of HER2 expression that do not respond to approved HER2-targeted therapies including T-DM1, or to ZW33.

ZW49 Demonstrates Tumor Regression in a HER2 HIGH PDX Model

LOGO

ZW49 Demonstrates Superior Anti-Tumor Activity Compared to ZW33 in a Trastuzumab-Resistant HER2 High Patient-Derived Xenograft Model. In two separate experiments using the same HER2 High PDX model, ZW49 (left panel) or ZW33 (right panel) were administered at 3 mg/kg on days 0 and 14 (indicated by the red arrows; n=7 (ZW49) or n=15 (ZW33) mice/group).

ZW49 was evaluated in a single-dose pharmacokinetic and tolerability study and a repeat-dose toxicology study in non-human primates. In the toxicology study, ZW49 was administered at 9 or 12 mg/kg every two weeks for five weeks. Based on the results of this study, the no observed adverse effect level, or NOAEL, of ZW49 was determined to be 12 mg/kg. For comparison, the NOAEL for ZW33 was determined to be 3 mg/kg when administered weekly for 38 weeks. The combination of improved anti-tumor activity and tolerability suggests that ZW49 has a wider therapeutic window relative to ZW33 and may address the unmet medical need in patients with low to intermediate HER2-expressing tumors. For these reasons, ZW49 is being advanced in lieu of our prior product candidate, ZW33.

Anticipated Clinical Development of ZW49

We plan to evaluate ZW49 as a monotherapy in a non-randomized, open-label Phase 1 clinical trial in patients with HER2 High breast and other HER2-expressing cancers, whose disease has progressed after all standard of care therapies. We intend to file an IND Application for ZW49 in 2018.

The primary objective of the planned Phase 1 clinical trial will be to characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and maximum tolerated dose of ZW49. The secondary objectives for the trial will include evaluation of preliminary anti-tumor activity of ZW49, as well as an exploration of potential biomarkers of response. Based upon the observed safety and activity, subsequent development may focus on patients with HER2 High breast or HER2 High gastric cancer as well as early lines of therapy in patients whose tumors express lower levels of HER2 and are ineligible for treatment with HER2-targeted therapies, such as trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and T-DM1.

Other Azymetric Product Candidates

We maintain ongoing discovery efforts to identify and test new target combinations, product candidates and platform technologies that have the potential to address unmet clinical needs. We have developed multiple undisclosed preclinical product candidates targeting a combination of known and novel tumor antigens based on our platform technologies. All of these candidates remain unpartnered. From this pool of discovery candidates, we plan to identify and advance multiple programs into clinical trials in the future.

Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations

Our Strategic Partnerships

Our unique combination of proprietary protein engineering capabilities and resulting therapeutic platform technologies was initially recognized by Merck and Lilly, with whom we established strategic partnerships focused on our Azymetric and EFECT therapeutic platforms. We subsequently entered into broader strategic partnerships with Celgene and GSK and a collaboration and cross-licensing agreement with Daiichi Sankyo. Following the completion of the initial agreements with Merck, Lilly and GSK, the relationships were subsequently expanded to include either additional licenses or therapeutic platforms. Most recently, we executed a licensing and collaboration agreement with Janssen to develop and commercialize next generation bispecific antibody therapeutics. These relationships provide our strategic partners with access to components of our proprietary Azymetric and EFECT therapeutic platforms for their development of a defined number of protein therapeutics, for which we will not have ownership. These strategic partnerships have provided us with non-dilutive funding as well as access to proprietary therapeutic assets, which increase our ability to rapidly advance our product candidates while maintaining worldwide commercial rights to our wholly owned therapeutic pipeline. To date, we have received over $75.8 million in the form of non-refundable upfront payments and milestone payments and are additionally eligible to receive up to $1.6 billion in preclinical and development milestone payments and $3.7 billion in commercial milestone payments available under our existing collaboration agreements, as well as tiered royalties on potential future product sales. It is possible, however, that our strategic partners’ programs do not advance as currently contemplated, which would negatively affect the amount of development and commercial milestone payments and royalties on potential future product sales we may receive. Importantly, these partnerships include predominantly non-target-exclusive licenses for any of our therapeutic platforms; thus we are free to develop therapeutics to many high-value targets utilizing our platforms.

Merck

In August 2011, we entered into a research and license agreement with Merck, which was amended and restated in December 2014, to develop and commercialize three bispecific antibodies generated through the use of the Azymetric and EFECT platforms. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Merck a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody sequence pair exclusive license to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products. We are eligible to receive up to $190.75 million, including an upfront payment ($1.25 million received in 2011), research milestone payments totaling $3.5 million ($2.0 million and $1.5 million received in 2012 and 2013, respectively), payments for completion of IND-enabling studies of up to $6.0 million, development milestone payments of up to $66.0 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $114.0 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low to mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks patent coverage on products, or (ii) for five years, beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage on products, royalty rates will be reduced.

Under the agreement, we are sharing certain research and development responsibilities with Merck to generate bispecific antibodies with the Azymetric and EFECT platforms. Merck provides funding for a portion of our internal and external research costs in support of the collaboration. After the conclusion of the research program, Merck will be solely responsible for the further research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of the products.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for Merck and us including the right for Merck to terminate the agreement in its sole discretion with advance notice to us. The agreement will terminate on the later of: (a) the expiry of the last patent covering a Merck licensed product excluding methods of making the product; or (b) the expiry of the royalty payment obligations by Merck. During the research term, the agreement will terminate if the antibodies do not achieve all the research milestones or if Merck elects to not further develop the antibodies after the research term.

Lilly (2013)

In December 2013, we entered into a licensing and collaboration agreement with Lilly to research, develop and commercialize one bispecific antibody, with an option for a second antibody, generated through the use of the Azymetric platform. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Lilly a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody target pair-specific exclusive license to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products. We are eligible to receive up to $103.0 million, including an upfront payment ($1.0 million received in 2013) and per product potential milestone payments, comprised of research milestone payments totaling $1.0 million ($1.0 million received in 2015), IND submission milestone payments of $2.0 million, development milestone payments of $8.0 million and commercial milestone payments of $40 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low to mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks platform patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years, beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage on products, royalty rates may be potentially reduced. In 2017 Lilly nominated a bispecific candidate from this agreement for preclinical development.

Under the agreement, we are sharing certain research and development responsibilities with Lilly to generate bispecific antibodies with the Azymetric platform. Lilly provides funding for a portion of our internal and external research costs in support of the collaboration. After the conclusion of the research program, Lilly will be solely responsible for the further research, development, manufacturing, and commercialization of the products.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for Lilly and us including the right for Lilly to terminate the agreement in its sole discretion with advance notice to us. The agreement will terminate on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the latter of the product being no longer covered by certain patents related to the Lilly licensed product, or 10 years after the first commercial sale of the Lilly licensed product in such a country.

Lilly (2014)

In October 2014, we entered into a second licensing and collaboration agreement with Lilly to research, develop and commercialize three bispecific antibodies generated through the use of the Azymetric platform. This agreement did not alter or amend the initial agreement entered in 2013. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Lilly a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody target-pair exclusive (for two bispecific antibodies) and an antibody sequence pair-specific (for one bispecific antibody) license to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products. In 2017 Lilly nominated a bispecific candidate from this agreement for preclinical development and discontinued the development of two other bispecific antibodies due to strategic portfolio realignment in those particular disease areas. We have updated our projections and are currently eligible to receive up to $125.0 million, comprised of research milestone payments of up to $2.0 million ($2.0 million earned in 2016), IND submission milestone payments of up to $8.0 million, development milestone payments of up to $20.0 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $95.0 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low to mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks platform patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years, beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage on products, royalty rates may be potentially reduced. In conjunction with this collaboration agreement, Lilly purchased approximately $24.0 million of our common shares.

Under the agreement, we are sharing certain research and development responsibilities with Lilly to generate bispecific antibodies with the Azymetric platform. We are responsible for our internal and external research costs in support of this collaboration. After the conclusion of the research program, Lilly will be solely responsible for the further research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of the products.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for Lilly and us with advance notice to us, in addition to (i) both Lilly and us have certain rights to terminate on a program by program basis due to scientific failure, (ii) Lilly can terminate the agreement on a target pair by target pair basis in its sole discretion after the payment of the initial license fee for such a target pair, (iii) Lilly can terminate the agreement or specific target pairs due to an incurable material breach by us, and under specific conditions, Lilly shall have certain rights to continue the research, development and commercialization of products with their license payment, milestone and royalty obligations reduced by 50% and (iv) Lilly shall have the right to terminate the agreement or specific target pairs in the event of us undergoing a change of control, while retaining certain rights. If the affected research programs have not completed specific research stages, Lilly’s obligations to the license payments, milestones and royalties shall be reduced in a tiered fashion ranging from 25-75%.

Celgene

In December 2014, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Celgene to research, develop and commercialize up to eight bispecific antibodies generated through the use of the Azymetric platform. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Celgene a right to exercise options to worldwide, royalty-bearing, antibody sequence pair-specific exclusive licenses to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products. We received an upfront payment of $8.0 million, which was accounted for as upfront collaboration consideration received in 2014. Celgene has the right to exercise options on up to eight programs and if Celgene opts in on a program, we are eligible to receive up to $164.0 million per product candidate (up to $1.3 billion for all eight programs), comprised of a commercial license option payment of $7.5 million, development milestone payments of up to $101.5 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $55.0 million. No development or commercial milestone payments or royalties have been received to date.

In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low to mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks platform patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years, beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. Celgene also has the right, prior to the first dosing of a patient in a Phase 3 clinical trial for a product, to buy down the royalty to a flat low-single digit rate with a payment of $10.0 million per percentage point. In addition to this collaboration agreement, the parties also entered into an equity subscription agreement under which Celgene paid $8.6 million for common shares.

Under the agreement, we are collaborating with Celgene to generate and develop a number of bispecific antibodies during the research program, the term of which expires in April 2018 but can be extended by Celgene by 24 months if Celgene makes an additional payment. After the conclusion of the research program, Celgene will be solely responsible for the further research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of the products.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for Celgene and us including the right of Celgene to terminate the agreement in its entirety or on a product-by-product basis in its sole discretion with advance notice to us. The agreement will terminate on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the later of the expiration of the last-expiring patent related to the Celgene licensed product, or 10 years after the first commercial sale of the Celgene licensed product in such a country. If Celgene does not exercise its option for the commercial license, the agreement will terminate on a product-by-product basis for which the option was not exercised.

GSK (2015)

In December 2015, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement with GSK to research, develop and commercialize up to 10 new Fc-engineered monoclonal and bispecific antibodies generated through the use of the EFECT and Azymetric platforms. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted GSK a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody target-exclusive license to new intellectual property generated to the EFECT platform under this collaboration and a non-exclusive license to the Azymetric platform to research, develop and commercialize future licensed products. We are eligible to receive up to $1.1 billion, including research, development and commercial milestone payments of up to $110.0 million for each product. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low-single digits on net sales of products, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks patent coverage on products or certain joint patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage or certain joint patent coverage on products, royalty rates will be reduced. No development or commercial milestone payments or royalties have been received to date. We retained the right to develop up to four products, free of royalties, using the new intellectual property generated in this collaboration, and after a period of time, to grant licenses to such intellectual property for development of additional products by third parties.

Under the collaboration and license agreement, we are sharing certain research and development responsibilities with GSK to generate new Fc-engineered antibodies. Each party will bear its own costs for the responsibilities assigned to it during the research period. After the conclusion of the research period, each party will be solely responsible for the further research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of its own respective products. The research period will terminate when the “research collaboration plan” (as defined in the collaboration and license agreement) is complete or on December 1, 2018, whichever is earlier. During the term of the agreement and solely based on the outcome of the research collaboration, we have granted GSK exclusive rights to develop and commercialize monospecific antibodies against targets nominated by GSK. If GSK develops bispecific antibodies using its own platform approaches, we have granted GSK exclusive rights to develop and commercialize such antibodies comprising of specific antibody sequence pairs.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for GSK and us including the right for GSK to terminate the agreement in its sole discretion with advance notice to us, after the research period has advanced beyond a specified stage, and allowing the parties to terminate the agreement by mutual agreement during the research period. If GSK elects not to advance any product into research and development, the agreement will terminate at the end of the research period. If GSK elects to advance one or more products incorporating intellectual property generated under the research period for further research and development, the agreement will terminate on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis upon the latter of the product being no longer covered by a patent related to the GSK licensed product, or 10 years after the first commercial sale of the GSK licensed product in such a country.

GSK (2016)

In April 2016, we entered into a licensing agreement with GSK to research, develop and commercialize up to six bispecific antibodies generated through the use of the Azymetric platform. This may include bispecific antibodies incorporating new engineered Fc regions generated under the 2015 GSK agreement outlined in the preceding section. Under the terms of this agreement, we granted GSK a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody sequence pair-specific exclusive license to research, develop and commercialize licensed products. We are eligible to receive up to $908.0 million, including an upfront payment as a technology access fee ($6.0 million received in 2016), research milestone payments of up to $30.0 million, development milestone payments of up to $152.0 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $720.0 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low to mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage on products, royalty rates may be potentially reduced. No research, development or commercial milestone payments or royalties have been received to date. GSK has the right, prior to the first dosing of a patient in a Phase 3 clinical trial for a product, to buy down the royalty payable on such product by only 1% with a payment of $10.0 million.

Under the agreement, GSK will bear all responsibility and all costs associated with research, development and commercialization of products generated using the Azymetric platform.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for GSK and us including the right for GSK to terminate the agreement in its sole discretion with advance notice to us. Termination provisions allow for GSK to terminate the agreement or specific antibody sequence pairs due to an incurable material breach by us, and under specific conditions, GSK shall have certain rights to continue the research, development, and commercialization of products with their license payment, milestone, and royalty obligations reduced by 50%.

Daiichi Sankyo

In September 2016, we entered into a collaboration and cross-license agreement with Daiichi Sankyo to research, develop and commercialize one bispecific antibody generated through the use of the Azymetric and EFECT platforms. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Daiichi Sankyo a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody sequence pair-specific exclusive license to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products. We are eligible to receive up to $149.9 million, including an upfront payment as a technology access fee of $2.0 million (received in 2016), research ($1.0 million received in 2017) and development milestone payments and a commercial option payment totaling up to $67.9 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $80.0 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties ranging from the low single digits up to 10% on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks platform patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. No research, development or commercial milestone payments or royalties have been received to date. We also gained non-exclusive rights to develop and commercialize up to three products using Daiichi Sankyo’s proprietary immune-oncology antibodies, with royalties in the low single digits to be paid to Daiichi Sankyo on sales of such products.

Under the agreement, we are sharing certain research and development responsibilities with Daiichi Sankyo to generate bispecific antibodies with the Azymetric platform. Daiichi Sankyo is responsible for our internal and external research costs in support of this collaboration during the research program term. After the research program term, Daiichi Sankyo will be solely responsible for the further research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of the products. Under the non-exclusive immuno-oncology antibody license to Zymeworks, we are solely responsible for all research, development and commercialization of the resulting products.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for Daiichi and us including the right for Daiichi to terminate the rights to our therapeutic platforms in its sole discretion with advance notice to us and for us to terminate our rights to Daiichi’s antibodies with advance notice to Daiichi. The agreement shall terminate, with respect to Daiichi’s license, if Daiichi fails to exercise its option or, on a product-by-product basis, until expiration of Daiichi’s royalty obligations.

Janssen

In November 2017, we entered into a collaboration agreement with Janssen to research, develop and commercialize up to six bispecific antibodies generated through the use of the Azymetric and EFECT platforms. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Janssen a worldwide, royalty-bearing, antibody sequence pair-specific exclusive license to research, develop and commercialize certain products. We are eligible to receive up to $1.45 billion, including an upfront payment of $50.0 million (received in 2017), development milestone payments of up to $282.0 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $1.12 billion. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks platform patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years, beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage on products, royalty rates may be potentially reduced. No development or commercial milestone payments or royalties have been received to date. Janssen has the right, prior to the first dosing of a patient in a Phase 3 clinical trial for a product, to buy down the royalty relating to such product by only 1% with a payment of $10.0 million. Janssen also has the option to develop two additional bispecific antibodies under this agreement subject to a future option payment. Under the agreement, Janssen will be solely responsible for the research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of the products.

The agreement contains customary termination rights for Janssen and us including the right for Janssen to terminate the agreement in its sole discretion with advance notice to us. The agreement will terminate, on a product-by-product basis, on the expiry of the royalty term for the product. Furthermore, if Janssen does not designate an antibody sequence pair during the research program term, the agreement will also terminate.

Intellectual Property

Our business success will depend significantly on our ability to:

•

secure, maintain and enforce patent and other proprietary protection for our core technologies, inventions and know-how;

•

obtain and maintain licenses to key third-party intellectual property owned by such third parties;

•

preserve the confidentiality of our trade secrets; and

•

operate without infringing upon valid, enforceable third-party patents and other rights.

We seek to secure and maintain patent protection for the composition of matter, manufacturing processes and methods of use for our drug candidates and for our underlying protein engineering capabilities and therapeutic platforms including Azymetric, ZymeLink, EFECT, AlbuCORE and ZymeCAD. We also utilize trade secrets, careful monitoring and limited disclosure of our proprietary information where patent protection is not appropriate. We also protect our proprietary information by ensuring that our employees, consultants, contractors and other advisors execute agreements requiring non-disclosure and assignment of inventions prior to their engagement. We will continue to expand our intellectual property holdings by seeking patent protection for new compositions of matter, new features and applications of our core therapeutic platforms, and innovative new therapeutic platforms, in the United States and other jurisdictions. We will also supplement internal innovation through in-licensing of new technologies and compositions of matter as appropriate. We intend to take advantage of any available data exclusivity, market exclusivity, patent term adjustment and patent term extensions.

We routinely monitor the status of existing and emerging intellectual property disclosed by third parties that may impact our business, and to the extent we identify any such disclosures, by evaluating them and taking appropriate courses of action.

As of December 31, 2017, our patent portfolio consists of 51 active patent families. Of these, 21 families relate to our key product candidates and programs including ZW25, ZW49 and our therapeutic platform technology, described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The remaining 30 patent families relate to other earlier stage potential product candidates or platforms that we do not consider material to our business at this time. Three of our patent families are co-owned with VAR2 Pharmaceuticals ApS, and one patent family is co-owned with the National Research Council Canada. None of these co-owned patent families relate to our therapeutic platforms or our lead product candidates, ZW25 and ZW49, and they are not material to our business. We do not have a contract with VAR2 Pharmaceuticals ApS covering the co-owned patents. We have 34 issued patents, 12 of which are U.S. patents, and all of which are owned by us.

Therapeutic Antibody Portfolio

Our therapeutic antibody patent portfolio is directed to specific compositions of matter and methods of treatment for our product candidates, including target-specific interactions and immunomodulatory mechanisms.

•

ZW25 and ZW49: We own the ZW25 and ZW49 patent portfolio, including an international patent application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT, that is now in the national phase with applications pending in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia and the United States. This application relates to the composition of matter, methods of making and uses of biparatopic anti-HER2 bispecific antibodies and ADCs, and if issued, is expected to expire in 2034, absent any adjustments or extensions. An additional PCT application is directed to additional treatment methods using ZW25.

ZW25 and ZW49 are also protected by our two patent families relating to the Azymetric Fc, as described below.

Therapeutic Platform Technology Portfolio

The therapeutic platform technology portfolio includes biological formats and variants thereof, including the Azymetric platform, the ZymeLink platform, the EFECT platform, the AlbuCORE platform and specific applications, manufacturing methods and assays related to the platform constructs and underlying computational chemistry.

•

Azymetric: We own a portfolio of six patent families relating to the Azymetric platform for engineering Fc and Fab constructs for the development of bispecific antibodies.

Azymetric Fc: Two of the patent families relate to engineered antibody Fc region polypeptides having amino acid substitutions that preferentially form heterodimers, with PCT national phase applications pending or issued in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia and the United States. One U.S. patent has issued with 1,102 days of patent term adjustment and is expected to expire on November 10, 2034. A second U.S. patent has issued with 372 days of patent term adjustment and is expected to expire on November 9, 2033. If issued, the remaining patents in these families are expected to expire between 2031 and 2032, absent any adjustments or extensions. An additional issued U.S. patent covers method of expressing antibodies containing heterodimeric Fc regions in cells.

Azymetric Fab: Four patent families (two in the PCT national phase in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia and the United States, one PCT application and one U.S. provisional application) relate to antibodies having amino acid substitutions in Fab-region heavy and light chains for making correctly paired bispecific antibodies. These patent families are directed to compositions, methods of producing and uses of heterodimeric antibodies. If issued, patents in these families are expected to expire between 2031 and 2038, absent any adjustments or extensions.

•

ZymeLink: We own the ZymeLink patent portfolio relating to novel toxin molecules and novel linkers by means of which these toxins can be conjugated to antibodies and other protein scaffolds. Two PCT applications are in the national phase in key jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, South Africa and the United States, and are directed to novel hemiasterlin toxin derivatives, novel linker compositions, hemiasterlin-linker compositions, and antibody-hemiasterlin conjugate compositions, one of which has issued in the United States. An additional PCT application is directed to novel auristatin derivatives, auristatin-linker compositions and antibody-auristatin conjugates and is in the national phase in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Singapore and the United States. We also own a PCT application directed to novel tubulysin derivatives, tubulysin-linker conjugates and antibody-tubulysin conjugates. Any patents that may issue from these families are expected to expire between 2034 and 2037, absent any adjustments or extensions.

•

EFECT: The EFECT platform for engineering Fc constructs with modulated FcgR-binding and Fc effector function is protected by two PCT patent applications, which we own, both of which are in the national stage and are pending in key jurisdictions, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan, Russia and the United States. One patent has issued in the United States. These patent families are directed to compositions of matter and methods of making Fc constructs with altered FcgR-binding and Fc effector function; if issued, they are expected to expire between 2031 and 2034, absent any adjustments or extensions.

•

AlbuCORE: We own two PCT national phase patent applications relating to engineered multivalent human serum albumin AlbuCORE which are pending in Australia, Canada, China, Europe, India, Japan and the U.S. Two patents have issued in the U.S. The patents in these families, if issued, are expected to expire between 2032 and 2033, absent any adjustments or extensions.

•

Computational Chemistry: We own a portfolio of 13 families of computational chemistry patents and patent applications which relate to the computational and algorithmic advances incorporated into the ZymeCAD suite of applications, including advances in general molecular modeling, conformational dynamics, docking, distal mutations, and molecular packing, as well as parallelization and graphical data analysis. Four of these patents have issued in the United States. Any patents that issue from these families are expected to expire between 2027 and 2035, absent any adjustments or extensions.

Technology Licensing and In-Licensed Intellectual Property

We identify and selectively enter into technology licensing agreements and intellectual property in-licensing agreements to support pipeline advancement. Selected agreements include:

•

CDRD Ventures Inc. (CVI; 2016): We entered into an assignment agreement with CVI, as part of our 2016 acquisition of Kairos Therapeutics Inc., or Kairos, to have all of CVI’s interests in the Kairos patents and intellectual property assigned to Zymeworks. We may be required to make future payments to CVI for ZW49 or other product candidates upon the direct achievement of certain clinical development milestones for products incorporating certain Kairos intellectual property, as well as low-single digit royalty payments on the net sales of such products. For out-licensed products and technologies incorporating certain Kairos intellectual property, we may be required to pay CVI a mid-single digit percentage of the future revenue as a result of a revenue sharing agreement. We are not currently required to make any payments to CVI under this agreement.

•

Innovative Targeting Solutions Inc. (ITS; 2016): We entered into a non-exclusive licensing agreement with ITS which grants us the right to use ITS’ HuTARG discovery platform for the generation of therapeutic antibodies and other protein therapeutics. Pursuant to this agreement, ITS granted us a non-exclusive, worldwide, sub-licensable commercial license to its technology for the development of our internal therapeutic programs. This agreement requires us to make licensing payments to ITS of up to $12.0 million over the five years following August 2016.

•

Selexis (2015): We entered into a commercial agreement with Selexis under which we were granted rights to manufacture and commercialize product candidates, including ZW25 and ZW49, using a proprietary Selexis cell line. Licensing terms include an annual license maintenance fee, and clinical, regulatory, and commercial milestones based on sales thresholds.

Manufacturing

We rely on third-party contract manufacturing organizations to provide manufacturing, linker-toxin conjugation, and fill-finish services in order to generate all of the therapeutic antibody supply required for our non-clinical and clinical studies. To retain focus on our expertise in developing new product candidates, we do not currently plan to develop or operate in-house manufacturing capacity. Our bispecific therapeutic antibody candidates require standard manufacturing and chemistry manufacturing and control, or CMC, processes typical of those required for monoclonal antibody manufacturing. We therefore expect to continue to be able to develop product candidates that can be manufactured in a cost-effective fashion by our network of well-validated third-party contract manufacturing organizations.

Through our contract manufacturing organizations, we currently have sufficient supply of our product candidates to carry out ongoing and planned preclinical studies. We also have sufficient cGMP-grade supply of ZW25, together with planned additional manufacturing runs, to complete our Phase 1 clinical trial. cGMP manufacturing of ZW49 is ongoing and anticipated to be completed on time to supply materials for GLP toxicology study and Phase 1 clinical trial. We plan to identify redundant suppliers and manufacturing, toxin conjugation, and fill-finish services for all development products candidates prior to submission to the FDA.

Competition

The biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapidly advancing technologies, intense competition and a strong emphasis on proprietary products. While we believe that our technology, knowledge, experience and scientific resources provide us with competitive advantages, we face potential competition from many different sources, including major pharmaceutical, specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, academic institutions and governmental agencies and public and private research institutions. Any product candidates that we successfully develop and commercialize will compete with existing therapies and new therapies that may become available in the future.

With respect to target discovery activities, competitors and other third parties, including academic and clinical researchers, may be able to access rare families and identify targets before we do.

Many of the companies against which we compete or against which we may compete in the future have significantly greater financial resources and expertise in research and development, manufacturing, preclinical testing, conducting clinical trials, obtaining regulatory approvals and marketing approved products than we do. 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 or early-stage companies may also prove to be significant competitors, particularly through collaboration arrangements with large and established companies. These competitors also compete with us in recruiting and retaining qualified scientific and management personnel, establishing clinical trial sites, recruiting patients for clinical trials, and by acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs.

The key competitive factors affecting the success of all of our product candidates, if approved, are likely to be their efficacy, safety, convenience and price, the effectiveness of alternative products, the level of competition and the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from government and other third-party payors.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products or therapies that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe side effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA, European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for ours, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market. In addition, our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of generic products.

Our product candidates will compete with the therapies and currently marketed drugs discussed below.

•

ZW25: ZW25 is intended to treat patients with solid tumors that express HER2, including breast cancer patients with tumors expressing low to intermediate levels of HER2. Approved HER2-targeted therapies include Roche’s Herceptin, Perjeta, and Kadcyla as well as Novartis’ Tykerb and Puma Biotechnology’s Nerlynx, although none of these drugs are effective in treating tumors expressing low to intermediate levels of HER2. Currently, these patients may receive hormone therapy or cytotoxic chemotherapy including combinations of anthracyclines, taxanes, capecitabine and cyclophosphamide. We believe ZW25 will be a more effective and better tolerated therapy. There are other non-HER2 targeting monoclonal antibodies on the market that may have activity on tumors expressing low to intermediate levels of HER2 including Merck’s Keytruda, Bristol-Myer Squibb’s Opdivo, Roche’s Tecentriq, Merck KGaA’s Bavencio and AstraZeneca’s Imfinzi; however, none of these agents are currently approved in breast or ovarian cancer, and only Keytruda is approved in gastric cancer (albeit as third-line salvage therapy in patients that are PD-L1 positive). Since antibodies blocking PD-1/PD-L1 are relatively well-tolerated and have a different mechanism of action than ZW25, if approved in these indications, we believe PD-1/PD-L1 blockade could potentially be used in combination with ZW25 to achieve even higher response rates.

•

ZW49: ZW49 is intended to treat patients with HER2-expressing breast cancer or other solid tumors that have progressed on, are refractory to, or are not eligible to receive existing HER2-targeted therapies. Roche’s Kadcyla as well as combinations of Herceptin, Tykerb and capecitabine are some of the currently approved treatments. We believe that ZW49 could potentially be a more effective therapy than Kadcyla based on our comparisons in preclinical models.

The FDA and corresponding regulatory authorities will ultimately review our clinical results and determine whether our product candidates are effective. No regulatory agency has made any such determination that any of our product candidates are effective for use by the general public for any indication.

Government 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 products such as those we are developing. Our ADC product candidates are comprised of both a drug product and a biologic product, and will therefore be subject to regulation in the United States as combination products. If marketed individually, each component would be subject to different regulatory pathways and would require approval of independent marketing applications by the FDA. A combination product, however, is assigned to an FDA center that will have primary jurisdiction over its regulation based on a determination of the combination product’s primary mode of action, which is the single mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action. In the case of our ADCs, we believe that the primary mode of action is attributable to the biologic component of the product. We believe our other product candidates will be regulated as therapeutic biologics, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, having primary jurisdiction over premarket development.

Biological products are subject to regulation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or FD&C Act, and the Public Health Service Act, or PHS Act, and other federal, state, local and foreign statutes and regulations. Our product candidates must be approved by the FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States and by the appropriate foreign regulatory agency before they may be legally marketed in foreign countries.

U.S. Biological Products Development Process

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

•

completion of extensive nonclinical, sometimes referred to as preclinical, laboratory tests and preclinical animal trials and applicable requirements for the humane use of laboratory animals and formulation studies in accordance with applicable regulations, including good laboratory practices, or GLPs;

•

submission to the FDA of an IND application, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

•

performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials according to the FDA’s regulations commonly referred to as good clinical practice, or GCP, regulations and any additional requirements for the protection of human research subjects and their health information, to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed biological product for its intended use;

•

submission to the FDA of a Biologics License Application, or BLA, for marketing approval that includes substantive evidence of safety, purity, and potency from results of nonclinical testing and clinical trials;

•

satisfactory completion of an FDA inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities where the biological product is produced to assess compliance with cGMP requirements to assure that the facilities, methods and controls are adequate to preserve the biological product’s identity, strength, quality and purity;

•

potential FDA audit of the nonclinical and clinical study sites that generated the data in support of the BLA; and

•

FDA review and approval, or licensure, of the BLA.

Before testing any biological product candidate in humans, the product candidate enters the preclinical testing stage. Preclinical tests, also referred to as nonclinical studies, 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 GLPs.

The clinical study 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. Some preclinical testing may continue even after the IND is submitted. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA places the clinical study on a 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 study can begin. The FDA may also impose clinical holds on a biological product candidate at any time before or during clinical trials due to safety concerns or non-compliance. If the FDA imposes a clinical hold, trials may not recommence without FDA authorization and then only under terms authorized by the FDA.

Clinical trials involve the administration of the biological product candidate to healthy volunteers or patients under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the study sponsor’s control. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical study, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety, including stopping rules that assure a clinical study will be stopped if certain adverse events should occur. Each protocol and any amendments to the protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Clinical trials must be conducted and monitored in accordance with the FDA’s regulations comprising the GCP requirements, including the requirement that all research subjects provide informed consent. Further, each clinical study must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical study will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of study 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 form and content of the informed consent that must be signed by each clinical study subject or his or her legal representative and must monitor the clinical study until completed.

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

•

Phase 1. The biological product candidate is initially introduced into healthy human volunteers and tested for safety. In the case of some products for severe or life-threatening diseases, especially when the product may be too inherently toxic to ethically administer to healthy volunteers, the initial human testing is often conducted in patients.

•

Phase 2. The biological product candidate is evaluated in a limited patient population to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks, to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy of the product for specific targeted diseases and to determine dosage tolerance, optimal dosage and dosing schedule.

•

Phase 3. Clinical trials are undertaken to further evaluate dosage, clinical efficacy, potency, and safety in an expanded patient population at geographically dispersed clinical study sites. These clinical trials are intended to establish the overall risk/benefit ratio of the product and provide an adequate basis for product labelling.

Post-approval clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These clinical trials are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication, particularly for long-term safety follow-up.

During all phases of clinical development, regulatory agencies require extensive monitoring and auditing of all clinical activities, clinical data, and clinical study investigators. Annual progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted to the FDA. Written IND safety reports must be promptly submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events, any findings from other trials, tests in laboratory animals or in vitro testing that suggest a significant risk for human subjects, or any clinically important increase in the rate of a serious suspected adverse reaction over that listed in the protocol or investigator brochure. The sponsor must submit an IND safety report within 15 calendar days after the sponsor determines that the information qualifies for reporting. The sponsor also must notify the FDA of any unexpected fatal or life-threatening suspected adverse reaction within seven calendar days after the sponsor’s initial receipt of the information.

The FDA or the sponsor or its data safety monitoring board may suspend a clinical study 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 study at its institution if the clinical study is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or if the biological product candidate has been associated with unexpected serious harm to patients.

There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries.

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

Concurrent with clinical trials, companies usually complete additional animal trials and must also develop additional information about the physical characteristics of the biological product candidate as well as finalize a process for manufacturing the product in commercial quantities in accordance with GMP requirements. To help reduce the risk of the introduction of adventitious agents with use of biological products, the PHS Act emphasizes the importance of manufacturing control for products whose attributes cannot be precisely defined. The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the product candidate and, among other things, the sponsor must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality, potency and purity of the final biological product. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the biological product candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

U.S. Review and Approval Processes

After the completion of clinical trials of a biological product candidate, FDA approval of a BLA must be obtained before commercial marketing of the biological product. The BLA must include results of product development, laboratory and animal trials, human trials, information on the manufacture and composition of the product, proposed labeling and other relevant information. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, or PREA, a BLA or supplement to a BLA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the biological product candidate for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, or FDASIA, requires that a sponsor who is planning to submit a marketing application for a drug or biological product that includes a new active ingredient, new indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen or new route of administration submit an initial Pediatric Study Plan, or PSP, within 60 days after an End-of-Phase 2 meeting or as may be agreed between the sponsor and FDA. Unless otherwise required by regulation, PREA does not apply to any biological product for an indication for which Orphan Drug Designation has been granted.

Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, as amended, each BLA must be accompanied by a user fee. The FDA adjusts the PDUFA user fees on an annual basis. Fee waivers or reductions are available in certain circumstances, including a waiver of the application fee for the first application filed by a small business. Additionally, no user fees are assessed on BLAs for products designated as orphan drugs, unless the product also includes a non-orphan indication.

Within 60 days following submission of the application, the FDA reviews a BLA submitted to determine if it is substantially complete before the agency accepts it for filing. The FDA may refuse to file any BLA that it deems incomplete or not properly reviewable at the time of submission and may request additional information. In this event, the BLA must be resubmitted with the additional information. The resubmitted application also is subject to review before the FDA accepts it for filing. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth substantive review of the BLA. The FDA reviews the BLA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and potent, or effective, for its intended use, and has an acceptable purity profile, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP requirements to assure and preserve the product’s identity, safety, strength, quality, potency and purity. The FDA may refer applications for novel biological products or biological products that present difficult questions of safety or efficacy to an advisory committee, typically a panel that includes clinicians and other experts, for review, evaluation and a recommendation as to whether the application should be approved and under what conditions. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions. During the biological product approval process, the FDA also will determine whether a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, is necessary to assure the safe use of the biological product candidate. If the FDA concludes a REMS is needed, the sponsor of the BLA must submit a proposed REMS; the FDA will not approve the BLA without a REMS, if required.

Before approving a BLA, 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 GMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. Additionally, before approving a BLA, the FDA will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure that the clinical trials were conducted in compliance with IND study requirements and GCP requirements.

Notwithstanding the submission of relevant data and information, the FDA may ultimately decide that the BLA does not satisfy its regulatory criteria for approval and deny approval. Data obtained from clinical trials are not always conclusive and the FDA may interpret data differently than the applicant interprets the same data. If the FDA decides not to approve the BLA in its present form, the FDA will issue a complete response letter that usually describes all of the specific deficiencies in the BLA identified by the FDA. The deficiencies identified may be minor, for example, requiring labeling changes, or major, for example, requiring additional clinical trials. Additionally, the complete response letter may include recommended actions that the applicant might take to place the application in a condition for approval. If a complete response letter is issued, the applicant may either resubmit the BLA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application.

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. The FDA may impose restrictions and conditions on product distribution, prescribing, or dispensing in the form of a REMS, or otherwise limit the scope of any approval. In addition, the FDA may require post-marketing clinical trials, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, designed to further assess a biological product’s safety and effectiveness, and testing and surveillance programs to monitor the safety of approved products that have been commercialized.

Orphan Drug Designation

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

In the United States, Orphan Drug Designation entitles a party to financial incentives such as opportunities for grant funding towards clinical trial costs, tax advantages and user-fee waivers. In addition, if a product receives the first FDA approval for the indication for which it has Orphan Drug Designation, the product is entitled to orphan exclusivity, which means the FDA may not approve any other application to market the same product for the same indication for a period of seven years, except in limited circumstances, such as a showing of clinical superiority over the product with orphan exclusivity or where the manufacturer with orphan exclusivity is unable to assure sufficient quantities of the approved orphan designated product. Competitors, however, may receive approval of different products for the indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity or obtain approval for the same product candidates but for a different indication for which the orphan product has exclusivity. Orphan product exclusivity also could block the approval of one of our product candidates for seven years if a competitor obtains approval of the same biological product, as defined by the FDA, or if our product candidate is determined to be contained within the competitor’s product for the same indication or disease. If a drug or biological product designated as an orphan product receives marketing approval for an indication broader than what is designated, it may not be entitled to orphan product exclusivity.

The FDA Reauthorization Act, which was enacted in August 2017, requires, among other things, that certain orphan drugs for cancer be tested for children. The government has also increased focus on the potential misuse of the orphan drug approval process to increase the price of orphan drugs.

Post-Approval Requirements

Maintaining substantial compliance with applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations requires the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources. Rigorous and extensive FDA regulation of biological products continues after approval, particularly with respect to cGMP requirements. We will rely, and expect to continue to rely, on third parties for the production of clinical and commercial quantities of any products that we may commercialize. Manufacturers of our products are required to comply with applicable requirements in the cGMP regulations, including quality control and quality assurance and maintenance of records and documentation.

Other post-approval requirements applicable to biological products include record-keeping requirements, reporting of adverse effects and reporting updated safety and efficacy information.

We also must comply with the FDA’s advertising and promotion requirements, such as those related to direct-to-consumer advertising, the prohibition on promoting products for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the product’s approved labelling (known as “off-label use”), industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet. Discovery of previously unknown problems or the failure to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements may result in restrictions on the marketing of a product or withdrawal of the product from the market as well as possible civil or criminal sanctions. Failure to comply with the applicable U.S. requirements at any time during the product development process, approval process or after approval, may subject an applicant or manufacturer to administrative or judicial civil or criminal sanctions and adverse publicity. FDA sanctions could include refusal to approve pending applications, withdrawal of an approval, clinical hold, warning or untitled letters, product recalls, product seizures, total or partial suspension of production or distribution, injunctions, fines, refusals of government contracts, mandated corrective advertising or communications with doctors, debarment, restitution, disgorgement of profits, or civil or criminal penalties.

Biological product manufacturers and other entities involved in the manufacture and distribution of approved biological products 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 requirements and other laws. Accordingly, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to maintain GMP compliance. In addition, changes to the manufacturing process or facility generally require prior FDA approval before being implemented and 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.

Biosimilars and Exclusivity

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, signed into law on March 23, 2010, includes a subtitle called the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, or BPCIA, which created an abbreviated approval pathway for biological products that are biosimilar to or interchangeable with an FDA-licensed reference biological product. The FDA has issued several guidance documents outlining an approach to review and approval of biosimilars.

Biosimilarity, which requires that there be no clinically meaningful differences between the biological product and the reference product in terms of safety, purity and potency, can be shown through analytical studies, animal studies and a clinical study or studies. Interchangeability requires that a product is biosimilar to the reference product and the product must demonstrate that it can be expected to produce the same clinical results as the reference product in any given patient and, for products that are administered multiple times to an individual, the biologic and the reference biologic may be alternated or switched after one has been previously administered without increasing safety risks or risks of diminished efficacy relative to exclusive use of the reference biologic. However, complexities associated with the larger, and often more complex, structures of biological products, as well as the processes by which such products are manufactured, pose significant hurdles to implementation of the abbreviated approval pathway that are still being worked out by the FDA.

Under the BPCIA, an application for a biosimilar product may not be submitted to the FDA until four years following the date that the reference product was first licensed by the FDA. In addition, the approval of a biosimilar product may not be made effective by the FDA until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was first licensed. During this 12-year period of exclusivity, another company may still market a competing version of the reference product if the FDA approves a full BLA for the competing product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. The BPCIA also created certain exclusivity periods for biosimilars approved as interchangeable products. At this juncture, it is unclear whether products deemed “interchangeable” by the FDA will, in fact, be readily substituted by pharmacies, which are governed by state pharmacy law.

A biological product can also obtain pediatric 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 study in accordance with an FDA-issued “Written Request” for such a study.

The BPCIA is complex and only beginning to be interpreted and implemented by the FDA. In addition, recent government proposals have sought to reduce the 12-year reference product exclusivity period. Other aspects of the BPCIA, some of which may impact the BPCIA exclusivity provisions, have also been the subject of recent litigation. As a result, the ultimate impact, implementation and meaning of the BPCIA are subject to significant uncertainty.

Canadian Review and Approval Process

In Canada, our biologic product candidates and our research and development activities are primarily regulated by the Food and Drugs Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, which are enforced by Health Canada (including its Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate). Health Canada regulates, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, packaging, storage, recordkeeping, labeling, advertising, promotion, distribution, post-approval monitoring, marketing and import and export of pharmaceutical products. Drug approval laws require licensing of manufacturing facilities, carefully controlled research and testing of products, government review and approval of experimental results prior to giving approval to sell drug products including biologic drug products. Regulators also typically require that rigorous and specific standards such as Good Manufacturing Practices, Good Laboratory Practices, or GLP, and Good Clinical Practices, or GCP, are followed in the manufacture, testing and clinical development, respectively, of any drug product. The processes for obtaining regulatory approvals in Canada, along with subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

The principal steps required for drug approval in Canada is as follows:

Preclinical Toxicology Studies

Non-clinical studies are conducted in vitro and in animals to evaluate pharmacokinetics, metabolism and possible toxic effects to provide evidence of the safety of the drug candidate prior to its administration to humans in clinical studies and throughout development. Such studies are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and GLP.

Initiation of Human Testing

In Canada, the process of conducting clinical trials with a new drug cannot begin until we have submitted a Clinical Trial Application, or CTA, and the required number of days has lapsed without objection from Health Canada. Biological drugs carry additional risks, as compared to traditional small molecule drugs, associated with complexity and variability in manufacturing that can contribute to increased lot-to-lot variation of the final product, and with the potential for adventitious agents. Therefore, the content requirements for the quality information for biological drugs to be used in clinical trials are different from those for standard small molecule pharmaceutical drugs (for example, the inclusion of information on manufacturing facilities is required for biological drugs). In addition, it is necessary to have more stringent controls on the release of biologic drug lots used in authorized clinical trials.

Similar regulations apply in Canada to a CTA as to an IND in the United States. Once approved, two key factors influencing the rate of progression of clinical trials are the rate at which patients can be enrolled to participate in the research program and whether effective treatments are currently available for the disease that the drug is intended to treat. Patient enrollment is largely dependent upon the incidence and severity of the disease, the treatments available and the potential side effects of the drug to be tested and any restrictions for enrollment that may be imposed by regulatory agencies.

Clinical Trials

Similar regulations apply in Canada regarding clinical trials as in the United States. In Canada, Research Ethics Boards, or REBs, instead of IRBs, are used to review and approve clinical trial plans. Clinical trials involve the administration of an investigational new drug to human subjects under the supervision of qualified investigators in accordance with current Good Clinical Practices, or cGCP, requirements, which include review and approval by REBs. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the trial, the trial procedures, the parameters to be used in monitoring safety and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated and a statistical analysis plan. Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, as discussed above in the context of government regulation in the United States.

The manufacture of investigational drugs for the conduct of human clinical trials is subject to current Good Manufacturing Practice, or cGMP, requirements. Investigational drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients imported into Canada are also subject to regulation by Health Canada relating to their labeling and distribution. Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to Health Canada and the applicable REBs, and more frequently if serious adverse events occur. Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials may not be completed successfully within any specified period, or at all. Furthermore, in Canada, Health Canada or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk. Similarly, an REB can suspend or terminate approval of a clinical trial at its institution if the clinical trial is not being conducted in accordance with the REB’s requirements or if the drug has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects. 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 regularly reviews accumulated data and advises the study sponsor regarding the continuing safety of trial subjects, potential trial subjects and the continuing validity and scientific merit of the clinical trial. We may also suspend or terminate a clinical trial based on evolving business objectives or competitive climate.

New Drug Application

Upon successful completion of Phase 3 clinical trials, in Canada the company sponsoring a new drug then assembles all the preclinical and clinical data and other testing relating to the product’s pharmacology, chemistry, manufacture, and controls, and submits it to Health Canada as part of a New Drug Submission, or NDS. The NDS is then reviewed by Health Canada for approval to market the drug.

As part of the approval process, Health Canada will inspect the facility or the facilities at which the drug is manufactured. Health Canada will not approve the product unless compliance with cGMP—a quality system regulating manufacturing—is satisfactory and the NDS contains data that provide substantial evidence that the drug is safe and effective in the indication studied. In addition, before approving an NDS, Health Canada will typically inspect one or more clinical sites to assure compliance with GCP.

The testing and approval process for an NDS requires substantial time, effort and financial resources, and may take several years to complete. Biologic drugs, such as our candidates, differ from standard small molecule drugs in that applicants must include more detailed chemistry and manufacturing information. This is necessary to help ensure the purity and quality of the product, for example to help ensure that it is not contaminated by an undesired microorganism. Data obtained from preclinical and clinical testing are not always conclusive and may be susceptible to varying interpretations, which could delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. Health Canada may not grant approval of an NDS on a timely basis, or at all. In Canada, NDSs are subject to user fees and these fees are typically increased annually to reflect inflation.

Even if Health Canada approves a product candidate, the relevant authority may limit the approved indications for use of the product candidate, require that contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, including a black box warning, require that post-approval studies, including Phase 4 clinical trials, be conducted to further assess a drug’s safety after approval, require testing and surveillance programs to monitor the product after commercialization, or impose other conditions, including distribution restrictions or other risk management mechanisms.

Biologic products in particular are monitored post-approval by being placed on a lot release schedule tailored to their potential risk, manufacturing, testing and inspection history to date. With higher risk biologics, each lot is tested before being released for sale in Canada. Moderate risk biologics are periodically tested at the discretion of Health Canada while manufacturers of low risk biologics usually only need to contact Health Canada regarding lots being sold or for providing certification of complete and satisfactory testing. Products are carefully scrutinized before they are placed in any level of the lot release process, and at any time the testing regime for a biologic may be altered.

Health Canada may prevent or limit further marketing of a product based on the results of post-marketing studies or surveillance programs. After approval, some types of changes to the approved product, such as adding new indications, manufacturing changes, and additional labeling claims, are subject to further testing requirements, notification, and regulatory authority review and approval. Further, should new safety information arise, additional testing, product labeling or regulatory notification may be required.

Subsequent Entry Biologics and Exclusivity

The term subsequent entry biologic, or SEB, is used by Health Canada to describe a biologic drug that enters the market subsequent to a version previously authorized in Canada and with demonstrated similarity to a reference biologic drug. Accordingly, a SEB (known internationally as a biosimilar) will in all instances be a subsequent entrant onto the Canadian market.

Based on Health Canada guidance documents, a SEB can rely in part on prior information regarding safety and efficacy that is deemed relevant due to the demonstration of similarity to the reference biologic drug and which influences the amount and type of original data required. Generic drugs are chemically derived products that are pharmaceutically equivalent to innovative drugs, whereas SEBs are products of a biologic nature that are similar to innovative biologics. According to Health Canada, it is not currently possible to demonstrate that two biologic drugs are pharmaceutically equivalent, and therefore the regulatory approval process for generics and SEBs is different: SEBs are approved using the standard NDS pathway with some allowances made for reduced safety and efficacy information set out in guidance documents, while generic drugs are approved using an abbreviated new drug submission pathway set in guidance law. In part because it continues to be set out only in guidance and not law, the pathway for receiving SEB approval is somewhat in flux and subject to some uncertainty.

As discussed above, all SEBs enter the market subsequent to a biologic drug product previously approved in Canada and to which the SEB is considered similar. As such, SEBs are subject to existing laws and regulations outlined in the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations and the Food and Drug Regulations, and related guidance documents.

Similar to the Hatch-Waxman Act in the United States, Canada has the Patented Medicines (NOC) Regulations which require a company that files a drug submission that references a patented product to address any relevant patents listed on the Patent Register prior to being able to receive approval from Health Canada. The Canadian regime is similar to the United States regime, but a number of distinctions do exist.

Like the United States, Canada also has data protection, but again differences exist between the two jurisdictions. For example, Canada’s data protection applies to “innovative drugs” (i.e., a drug that contains a medicinal ingredient not previously approved in a drug by the Minister of Health and that is not a variation of a previously approved medicinal ingredient such as a salt, ester, enantiomer, solvate or polymorph) and, where it exists, lasts for eight years in most (but not all) circumstances. In general biologics can be considered innovative drugs but SEBs are not.

Additional Regulation

In addition to the foregoing, provincial, state and federal U.S. and Canadian laws regarding environmental protection and hazardous substances affect our business. These and other laws govern our use, handling and disposal of various biological, chemical and radioactive substances used in, and wastes generated by, our operations. If our operations result in contamination of the environment or expose individuals to hazardous substances, we could be liable for damages and governmental fines. We believe that we are in material compliance with applicable environmental laws and that continued compliance therewith will not have a material adverse effect on our business. We cannot predict, however, how changes in these laws may affect our future operations.

Government Regulation Outside of the United States

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 studies and any commercial sales and distribution of our products.

Whether or not we obtain FDA approval for a product, we must obtain the requisite approvals from regulatory authorities in foreign countries prior to the commencement of clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. Certain countries outside of the United States have a similar process that requires the submission of a clinical study application much like the IND prior to the commencement of human clinical studies. In the European Union, or EU, for example, a clinical trial application, or CTA, must be submitted to each country’s national health authority and an independent ethics committee, much like the FDA and the IRB, respectively. Once the CTA is approved in accordance with a country’s requirements, clinical study development may proceed.

The requirements and process governing the conduct of clinical studies, product licensing, coverage, pricing and reimbursement vary from country to country. In all cases, the clinical studies are conducted in accordance with GCP and the applicable regulatory requirements and the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Pharmaceutical Coverage, Pricing and Reimbursement

Significant uncertainty exists as to the coverage and reimbursement status of any product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. In the United States and markets in other countries, sales of any products for which we receive regulatory approval for commercial sale will depend, in part, on the availability of coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payors. Third-party payors include government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, managed care plans, private health insurers, and other organizations. These third-party payors may deny coverage or reimbursement for a product or therapy in whole or in part if they determine that the product or therapy was not medically appropriate or necessary. Third-party payors may attempt to control costs by limiting coverage to specific drug products on an approved list, or formulary, which might not include all of the FDA-approved drug products for a particular indication, and by limiting the amount of reimbursement for particular procedures or drug treatments. Additionally, coverage and reimbursement for drug products can differ significantly from payor to payor. The Medicare and Medicaid programs are often used as models by private payors and other governmental payors to develop their coverage and reimbursement policies for drugs and biologics. However, one third-party payor’s decision to cover a particular drug product does not ensure that other payors will also provide coverage for the product, or will provide coverage at an adequate reimbursement rate.

The cost of pharmaceuticals continues to generate substantial governmental and third-party payor interest. We expect that the pharmaceutical industry will experience pricing pressures due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of managed care organizations and additional legislative proposals. Third-party payors are increasingly challenging the price and examining the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of medical products and services, in addition to their safety and efficacy. We may need to conduct expensive pharmacoeconomic studies in order to demonstrate the medical necessity and cost-effectiveness of our products to obtain third-party payor coverage, in addition to the costs required to obtain the FDA approvals. Our product candidates may not be considered medically necessary or cost effective. A payor’s decision to provide coverage for a drug product does not imply that an adequate reimbursement rate will be approved. Adequate third-party reimbursement may not be available to enable us to maintain price levels sufficient to realize an appropriate return on our investment in product development.

Some third-party payors also require pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative drug therapies before they will reimburse healthcare providers who use such therapies. While we cannot predict whether any proposed cost-containment measures will be adopted or otherwise implemented in the future, these requirements or any announcement or adoption of such proposals could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain adequate prices for our product candidates and to operate profitably.

In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. There can be no assurance that our products will be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication, that our products will be considered cost effective by third-party payors, that coverage or an adequate level of reimbursement will be available or that third-party payors’ reimbursement policies will not adversely affect our ability to sell our products profitably.

Healthcare Reform

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change the healthcare system in ways that could affect our ability to sell our future products profitably. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality or expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

In March 2010, the PPACA was enacted, which includes measures that have significantly changed, or will significantly change, the way healthcare is financed by both governmental and private insurers. Among the provisions of the PPACA of importance to the pharmaceutical industry are the following:

•

an annual, non-deductible fee on any entity that manufactures or imports certain branded prescription drugs and biologic agents, apportioned among these entities according to their market share in certain government healthcare programs;

•

an increase in the rebates a manufacturer must pay under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program to 23.1% of the average manufacturer price, or AMP, for branded drugs or the difference between AMP and best price, whichever is greater. For generic drugs the rebate is 13%;

•

Medicare Part D coverage gap discount program, in which manufacturers must agree to offer 50% point-of-sale discounts to negotiated prices of applicable brand drugs to eligible beneficiaries during their coverage gap period;

•

extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

•

expansion of eligibility criteria for Medicaid programs by, among other things, allowing states to offer Medicaid coverage to additional individuals and by adding new mandatory eligibility categories;

•

requirement that applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations report annually to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, information regarding certain payments and other transfers of value given to physicians and teaching hospitals, and any ownership or investment interest physicians, or their immediate family members, have in their company;

•

a requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians;

•

expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance;

•

a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products;

•

a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and

•

establishment of a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at CMS to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA, including recent tax legislation that removed the financial penalties for people who do not carry health insurance. There is still uncertainty whether the PPACA will undergo additional revisions, and we cannot predict the impact of any future modifications, and it is uncertain how any such proposals, if approved, would affect these provisions.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations. Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

We expect that the PPACA, as well as other healthcare reform measures that may be adopted in the future, may result in more rigorous coverage criteria and lower reimbursement, and in additional downward pressure on the price that we receive for any approved product. Any reduction in reimbursement from Medicare or other government-funded programs may result in a similar reduction in payments from private payors. The implementation of cost containment measures or other healthcare reforms may prevent us from being able to generate revenue, attain profitability or commercialize our drugs, once regulatory approval is obtained.

Other Healthcare Laws and Compliance Requirements

In the United States, the research, manufacturing, distribution, sale and promotion of drug products are potentially subject to regulation by various federal, state and local authorities in addition to the FDA, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, other divisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e.g., the Office of Inspector General), the U.S. Department of Justice, state Attorneys General, and other state and local government agencies. For example, sales, marketing and scientific/educational grant programs must comply with fraud and abuse laws such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, as amended, the federal False Claims Act, as amended, and similar state laws. Pricing and rebate programs must comply with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, and the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, as amended. If products are made available to authorized users of the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, additional laws and requirements apply. All of these activities are also potentially subject to federal and state consumer protection and unfair competition laws.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits any person, including a prescription drug manufacturer (or a party acting on its behalf), from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers, and formulary managers on the other. The term “remuneration” is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain business arrangements from prosecution, the exemptions 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 exemption or safe harbor. Our practices may not in all cases meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from federal Anti-Kickback Statute liability. The reach of the Anti-Kickback Statute was broadened by the PPACA, which, among other things, amends the intent requirement of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute such that a person or entity no longer needs to have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the PPACA provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the federal False Claims Act (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. Additionally, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payor, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs in at least some cases, and do not contain safe harbors.

The federal False Claims Act imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program. The qui tam provisions of the federal False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government, and to share in any monetary recovery. In recent years, the number of suits brought by private individuals has increased dramatically. In addition, various states have enacted false claims laws analogous to the federal False Claims Act. Many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payor and not merely a federal healthcare program. There are many potential bases for liability under the federal False Claims Act. Liability arises, primarily, when an entity knowingly submits, or causes another to submit, a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government. The federal False Claims Act has been used to assert liability on the basis of inadequate care, kickbacks and other improper referrals, improperly reported government pricing metrics such as Best Price or Average Manufacturer Price, improper use of Medicare numbers when detailing the provider of services, improper promotion of off-label uses (i.e., uses not expressly approved by FDA in a drug’s label), and allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to the services rendered. Our future activities relating to the reporting of discount and rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third party reimbursement of our products, and the sale and marketing of our products and our service arrangements or data purchases, among other activities, may be subject to scrutiny under these laws. We are unable to predict whether we would be subject to actions under the federal False Claims Act or a similar state law, or the impact of such actions. However, the cost of defending such claims, as well as any sanctions imposed, could adversely affect our financial performance. Also, HIPAA created several additional federal crimes, including healthcare fraud and false statements relating to healthcare matters. The healthcare fraud statute prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors. The false statements statute prohibits 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.

In addition, we may be subject to, or our marketing activities may be limited by, data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. For example, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, and its implementing regulations established uniform federal standards for certain “covered entities” (healthcare providers, health plans and healthcare clearinghouses) governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and protecting the security and privacy of protected health information. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly referred to as the economic stimulus package, included expansion of HIPAA’s privacy and security standards called the Health Information Technology for Economic Clinical Health Act, or HITECH. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s privacy and security standards directly applicable to “business associates”— independent contractors or agents of covered entities that create, receive, maintain, or transmit protected health information in connection with providing a service for or on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also increased the civil and criminal penalties that may be imposed against covered entities, business associates and possibly other persons, and gave state attorneys general new authority to file civil actions for damages or injunctions in federal courts to enforce the federal HIPAA laws and seek attorney’s fees and costs associated with pursuing federal civil actions.

Under the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which was enacted as part of the PPACA, certain drug manufacturers are required to track and annually report to the federal government certain payments and other transfers of value made to physicians and other healthcare professionals and teaching hospitals and ownership or investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. There are also an increasing number of state “sunshine” laws that require manufacturers to make reports to states on pricing and marketing information. Several states have enacted legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to, among other things, establish marketing compliance programs, file periodic reports with the state, make periodic public disclosures on sales, marketing, pricing, clinical trials and other activities, or register their sales representatives, as well as to prohibit pharmacies and other healthcare entities from providing certain physician prescribing data to pharmaceutical companies for use in sales and marketing, and to prohibit certain other sales and marketing practices. These laws may affect our future sales, marketing, and other promotional activities by imposing administrative and compliance burdens on us. If we fail to track and report as required by these laws or otherwise comply with these laws, we could be subject to the penalty provisions of the pertinent state and federal authorities.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of available statutory and regulatory exemptions, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the federal and state laws described above or any other governmental regulations that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including criminal and significant civil monetary penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, injunctions, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, denial or withdrawal of pre-marketing product approvals, private qui tam actions brought by individual whistleblowers in the name of the government or refusal to allow us to enter into supply contracts, including government contracts, and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. We may also be subject to additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement with a governmental entity to resolve allegations that we have violated these laws. To the extent that any of our products are sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-approval requirements, including safety surveillance, anti-fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

Sales and Marketing

As an early-stage biopharmaceutical company, we do not currently possess the commercial infrastructure that will be required to launch and market our product candidates. To date, we have not entered into co-promotion or out-licensing agreements with established pharmaceutical companies for any of our product candidates. To access the sales, marketing and distribution capacity required to market our drug candidates, we plan to selectively establish partnerships with biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies having established commercial capabilities in relevant indications. The timing and nature of such agreements will be determined by market size and complexity, access to pre-commercial and commercial infrastructure and our resource availability for developing a commercial organization. For product candidates targeting patient populations that can be serviced by a small, specialized commercial effort, we may seek out co-development and co-promotion agreements granting commercialization rights to an established commercial partner in some jurisdictions while allowing us to build these capabilities in other jurisdictions.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we had 147 employees, including 145 full-time employees, 95 of whom were primarily engaged in research and development activities and 56 of whom hold an M.D. or Ph.D. degree. 125 of our full-time employees are based in Vancouver, British Columbia and 20 in Seattle, Washington. None of our employees are represented by a labor organization or covered by a collective bargaining arrangement. We consider our relationship with our employees to be excellent.

Corporate Structure

We were incorporated on September 8, 2003 under the Canada Business Corporations Act, or CBCA, under the name “Zymeworks Inc.” On October 22, 2003, we were registered as an extra-provincial company under the Company Act (British Columbia), the predecessor to the Business Corporations Act (British Columbia), or BCBCA. On May 2, 2017, we continued the Company to British Columbia under the BCBCA.

The following reflects our organizational structure. We have one wholly owned subsidiary located in Seattle, Washington named Zymeworks Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Effective as of January 1, 2017, we completed a short-form amalgamation with our other previously wholly owned subsidiary domiciled in British Columbia, Zymeworks Biochemistry Inc.

Corporate Organizational Chart:

LOGO

Our principal and registered office is located at 1385 West 8^th Avenue, Suite 540, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6H 3V9, and our telephone number is (604) 678-1388.

Available Information

This Annual Report on Form 10-K and our future quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to these reports are filed, or will be filed, as appropriate, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA). These reports are available free of charge on our website, www.zymeworks.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such reports with or furnish such reports to the SEC and the Canadian regulatory authorities. Information contained on, or accessible through, our website is not a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the inclusion of our website address in this document is an inactive textual reference.

Additionally, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov and our filings with the CSA may be accessed through the CSA’s System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR) at www.sedar.com. Our reports can also be read and copied by the public at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330.

Item 1A.

Risk Factors

You should consider carefully the following risk factors, as well as the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects could be materially adversely affected. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors, including the risks described below. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” The risks below are not the only risks facing our company. Risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and / or prospects.

Risks Related to Our Business and the Development and Commercialization of Our Product Candidates

We have a limited number of product candidates, all which are still in preclinical or early clinical development. If we do not obtain regulatory approval of one or more of our product candidates, or experience significant delays in doing so, our business will be materially adversely affected.

We currently have no products approved for sale or marketing in any country, and may never be able to obtain regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. As a result, we are not currently permitted to market any of our product candidates in the United States or in any other country until we obtain regulatory approval from the FDA or regulatory authorities outside the United States. Our product candidates are in early stages of development and we have not submitted an application, or received marketing approval, for any of our product candidates. Furthermore, the fact that our core competencies have been recognized through strategic partnerships does not improve our product candidates’ outlook for regulatory approval. We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA. Obtaining regulatory approval of our product candidates will depend on many factors, including, but not limited to, the following:

•

successfully completing formulation and process development activities;

•

completing clinical trials that demonstrate the efficacy and safety of our product candidates;

•

receiving marketing approval from applicable regulatory authorities;

•

establishing commercial manufacturing capabilities; and

•

launching commercial sales, marketing and distribution operations.

Many of these factors are wholly or partially beyond our control, including clinical advancement, the regulatory submission process and changes in the competitive landscape. If we do not achieve one or more of these factors in a timely manner, we could experience significant delays or an inability to develop our product candidates at all.

Clinical trials are very expensive, time consuming and difficult to design and implement and involve uncertain outcomes. Furthermore, the results of previous preclinical studies and clinical trials may not be predictive of future results, and the results of our current and planned clinical trials may not satisfy the requirements of the FDA or non-U.S. regulatory authorities.

Positive or timely results from preclinical or early-stage trials do not ensure positive or timely results in late-stage clinical trials or product approval by the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities. We will be required to demonstrate with substantial evidence through well-controlled clinical trials that our product candidates are safe and effective for use in a diverse population before we can seek regulatory approvals for their commercial sale. Our planned clinical trials may produce negative or inconclusive results, and we or any of our current and future strategic partners may decide, or regulators may require us, to conduct additional clinical or preclinical testing. Success in preclinical studies or early-stage clinical trials does not mean that future clinical trials or registration clinical trials will be successful because product candidates in later-stage clinical trials may fail to demonstrate sufficient safety and efficacy to the satisfaction of the FDA and non-U.S. regulatory authorities, despite having progressed through preclinical studies and initial clinical trials. Product candidates that have shown promising results in early clinical trials may still suffer significant setbacks in subsequent clinical trials or registration clinical trials. For example, a number of companies in the pharmaceutical industry, including those with greater resources and experience than us, have suffered significant setbacks in advanced clinical trials, even after obtaining promising results in earlier clinical trials. Similarly, preclinical interim results of a clinical trial do not necessarily predict final results.

If clinical trials for our product candidates are prolonged, delayed or stopped, we may be unable to obtain regulatory approval and commercialize our product candidates on a timely basis, or at all, which would require us to incur additional costs and delay our receipt of any product revenue.

We are currently enrolling an adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial of ZW25 in patients with recurrent or metastatic HER2-expressing solid tumors, and expect to file an IND application for ZW49 in 2018. We may experience delays in our ongoing or future preclinical studies or clinical trials, and we do not know whether future preclinical studies or clinical trials will begin on time, need to be redesigned, enroll an adequate number of patients on time or be completed on schedule, if at all. The commencement or completion of these planned clinical trials could be substantially delayed or prevented by many factors, including:

•

further discussions with the FDA or other regulatory agencies regarding the scope or design of our clinical trials;

•

the limited number of, and competition for, suitable sites to conduct our clinical trials, many of which may already be engaged in other clinical trial programs, including some that may be for the same indication as our product candidates;

•

any delay or failure to obtain approval or agreement to commence a clinical trial in any of the countries where enrollment is planned;

•

inability to obtain sufficient funds required for a clinical trial;

•

clinical holds on, or other regulatory objections to, a new or ongoing clinical trial;

•

delay or failure to manufacture sufficient supplies of the product candidate for our clinical trials;

•

delay or failure to reach agreement on acceptable clinical trial agreement terms or clinical trial protocols with prospective sites or clinical research organizations, or CROs, the terms of which can be subject to extensive negotiation and may vary significantly among different sites or CROs; and

•

delay or failure to obtain institutional review board, or IRB, approval to conduct a clinical trial at a prospective site;

•

slower than expected rates of patient recruitment and enrollment;

•

failure of patients to complete the clinical trial;

•

the inability to enroll a sufficient number of patients in studies to ensure adequate statistical power to detect statistically significant treatment effects;

•

unforeseen safety issues, including severe or unexpected drug-related adverse effects experienced by patients, including possible deaths;

•

lack of efficacy during clinical trials;

•

termination of our clinical trials by one or more clinical trial sites;

•

inability or unwillingness of patients or clinical investigators to follow our clinical trial protocols;

•

inability to monitor patients adequately during or after treatment by us or our CROs;

•

our CROs or clinical study sites failing to comply with regulatory requirements or meet their contractual obligations to us in a timely manner, or at all, deviating from the protocol or dropping out of a study;

•

the inability to produce or obtain sufficient quantities of a product candidate to complete clinical studies;

•

the inability to address any noncompliance with regulatory requirements or safety concerns that arise during the course of a clinical trial;

•

the need to repeat or terminate clinical trials as a result of inconclusive or negative results or unforeseen complications in testing; and

•

our clinical trials may be suspended or terminated upon a breach or pursuant to the terms of any agreement with, or for any other reason by, current or future strategic partners that have responsibility for the clinical development of any of our product candidates.

Changes in regulatory requirements, policies and guidelines may also occur and we may need to significantly amend clinical trial protocols to reflect these changes with appropriate regulatory authorities. These changes may require us to renegotiate terms with CROs or resubmit clinical trial protocols to IRBs for re-examination, which may impact the costs, timing or successful completion of a clinical trial. Our clinical trials may be suspended or terminated at any time by the FDA, other regulatory authorities, the IRB overseeing the clinical trial at issue, any of our clinical trial sites with respect to that site, or us.

Any failure or significant delay in commencing or completing clinical trials for our product candidates would adversely affect our ability to obtain regulatory approval and our commercial prospects and ability to generate product revenue will be diminished.

If we are unable to enroll patients in clinical trials, we will be unable to complete these trials on a timely basis.

Patient enrollment, a significant factor in the timing of clinical trials, is affected by many factors including the size and nature of the patient population, the proximity of subjects to clinical sites, the eligibility criteria for the trial, the design of the clinical trial, ability to obtain and maintain patient consents, risk that enrolled subjects will drop out before completion, competing clinical trials and clinicians’ and patients’ perceptions as to the potential advantages of the drug being studied in relation to other available therapies, including any new drugs that may be approved for the indications we are investigating. In particular, we are developing certain of our products for the treatment of rare diseases, which have limited pools of patients from which to draw for clinical testing. If we are unable to enroll a sufficient number of patients to complete clinical testing, we will be unable to gain marketing approval for such product candidates and our business will be harmed.

The design or our execution of clinical trials may not support regulatory approval.

The design or execution of a clinical trial can determine whether its results will support regulatory approval and flaws in the design or execution of a clinical trial may not become apparent until the clinical trial is well advanced. In some instances, there can be significant variability in safety or efficacy results between different trials of the same product candidate due to numerous factors, including changes in trial protocols, differences in size and type of the patient populations, adherence to the dosing regimen and other trial protocols and the rate of dropout among clinical trial participants. We do not know whether any Phase 2, Phase 3 or other clinical trials we or any of our strategic partners may conduct will demonstrate consistent or adequate efficacy and safety to obtain regulatory approval to market our product candidates.

Further, the FDA and comparable foreign regulatory authorities have substantial discretion in the approval process and in determining when or whether regulatory approval will be obtained for any of our product candidates. Our product candidates may not be approved even if they achieve their primary endpoints in future Phase 3 clinical trials or registration trials. The FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may disagree with our trial design and our interpretation of data from preclinical studies and clinical trials. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may change requirements for the approval of a product candidate even after reviewing and providing comments or advice on a protocol for a pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial that has the potential to result in FDA or other agencies’ approval. In addition, any of these regulatory authorities may also approve a product candidate for fewer or more limited indications than we request or may grant approval contingent on the performance of costly post-marketing clinical trials. The FDA or other non-U.S. regulatory authorities may not approve the labeling claims that we believe would be necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of our product candidates.

Successful development of our current and future product candidates is uncertain and we may discontinue or reprioritize the development of any of our product candidates at any time, at our discretion.

Before obtaining regulatory approval for the commercial distribution of our product candidates, we must conduct, at our own expense, extensive preclinical tests and clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates in humans. Preclinical and clinical testing is expensive, difficult to design and implement, can take many years to complete and is uncertain as to outcome. Additionally, the results from nonclinical testing or early clinical trials of a product candidate may not predict the results that will be obtained in subsequent subjects or in subsequent human clinical trials of that product candidate or any other product candidate. There is a high failure rate for drugs proceeding through clinical studies. A number of companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have suffered significant setbacks in clinical development even after achieving promising results in earlier studies, and any such setbacks in any future clinical development could have a material adverse effect on our business and operating results. Alternatively, management may elect to discontinue development of certain product candidates to accommodate a shift in corporate strategy, despite positive clinical results. Based on our operating results and business strategy, among other factors, we may discontinue the development of any of our product candidates under development or reprioritize our focus on other product candidates at any time and at our discretion. For example, in February 2018, we elected to discontinue the development of one of our product candidates, ZW33, in favor of pursuing a new product candidate, ZW49.

Our product candidates may have undesirable side effects that may delay or prevent marketing approval or, if approval is received, require them to be taken off the market, require them to include safety warnings or otherwise limit their sales; no regulatory agency has made any such determination that any of our product candidates are safe or effective for use by the general public for any indication.

All of our product candidates are still in preclinical or early clinical development. Additionally, all of our product candidates are required to undergo ongoing safety testing in humans as part of clinical trials. Consequently, not all adverse effects of drugs can be predicted or anticipated. Unforeseen side effects from any of our product candidates could arise either during clinical development or, if approved by regulatory authorities, after the approved product has been marketed. While we believe our lead product candidates have demonstrated a favorable safety profile in animals, ZW25 has recently commenced dosing in an adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial and ZW49 has never been tested in humans. Therefore, the results from clinical trials may not demonstrate a favorable safety profile in humans. The results of future clinical trials may show that ZW25 or our other product candidates cause undesirable or unacceptable side effects, which could interrupt, delay or halt clinical trials, and result in delay of, or failure to obtain, marketing approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities, or result in marketing approval from the FDA and other regulatory authorities with restrictive label warnings, limited patient populations or potential product liability claims. Even if we believe that our Phase 1 clinical trial and preclinical studies demonstrate the safety and efficacy of our product candidates, only the FDA and other comparable regulatory agencies may ultimately make such determination. No regulatory agency has made any such determination that any of our product candidates are safe or effective for use by the general public for any indication.

If any of our product candidates receive marketing approval and we or others later identify undesirable or unacceptable side effects caused by such products:

•

regulatory authorities may require us to take our approved product off the market;

•

regulatory authorities may require the addition of labeling statements, specific warnings, a contraindication or field alerts to physicians and pharmacies;

•

we may be required to change the way the product is administered, conduct additional clinical trials or change the labeling of the product;

•

we may be subject to limitations on how we may promote the product;

•

sales of the product may decrease significantly;

•

we may be subject to litigation or product liability claims; and

•

our reputation may suffer.

Any of these events could prevent us or our current or future strategic partners from achieving or maintaining market acceptance of the affected product or could substantially increase commercialization costs and expenses, which in turn could delay or prevent us from generating revenue from the sale of any future products.

We face significant competition and if our competitors develop and market products that are more effective, safer or less expensive than our product candidates, our commercial opportunities will be negatively impacted.

The life sciences industry is highly competitive and subject to rapid and significant technological change. We are currently developing biotherapeutics that will compete with other drugs and therapies that currently exist or are being developed. Products we may develop in the future are also likely to face competition from other drugs and therapies, some of which we may not currently be aware. We have competitors both in the United States and internationally, including major multinational pharmaceutical companies, established biotechnology companies, specialty pharmaceutical companies, universities and other research institutions. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial, manufacturing, marketing, drug development, technical and human resources than we do. Large pharmaceutical companies, in particular, have extensive experience in clinical testing, obtaining regulatory approvals, recruiting patients and in manufacturing pharmaceutical products. These companies also have significantly greater research and marketing capabilities than we do and may also have products that have been approved or are in late stages of development and collaborative arrangements in our target markets with leading companies and research institutions. Established pharmaceutical companies may also invest heavily to accelerate discovery and development of novel compounds or to in-license novel compounds that could make the product candidates that we develop obsolete. As a result of all of these factors, our competitors may succeed in obtaining patent protection or FDA approval or discovering, developing and commercializing products in our field before we do.

Specifically, there are a large number of companies developing or marketing treatments for cancer and autoimmune disorders, including many major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. These treatments consist both of small molecule drug products, as well as biologics that work by using next-generation antibody therapeutic platforms to address specific cancer targets. In addition, several companies are also developing bispecific antibodies. Other companies are developing new treatments for cancer that enhance the Fc regions of antibodies to create more potent antibodies, including Macrogenics, Inc., XenCor, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG.

Our commercial opportunity could be reduced or eliminated if our competitors develop and commercialize products that are safer, more effective, have fewer or less severe effects, are more convenient or are less expensive than any products that we may develop. Our competitors also may obtain FDA or other regulatory approval for their products more rapidly than we may obtain approval for our product candidates, which could result in our competitors establishing a strong market position before we are able to enter the market.

Smaller and other early-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, establishing clinical trial sites and patient registration for clinical trials, as well as in acquiring technologies complementary to, or necessary for, our programs. In addition, the biopharmaceutical industry is characterized by rapid technological change. If we fail to stay at the forefront of technological change, we may be unable to compete effectively. Technological advances or products developed by our competitors may render our technologies or product candidates obsolete, less competitive or not economical.

Our product candidates, for which we intend to seek approval, may face competition sooner than anticipated.

Our ability to compete may be affected in many cases by insurers or other third-party payors seeking to encourage the use of biosimilar products. Biosimilar products are expected to become available over the coming years. Even if our product candidates achieve marketing approval, they may be priced at a significant premium over competitive biosimilar products, if any have been approved by then. The Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, which is included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, authorized the FDA to approve similar versions of innovative biologics, commonly known as biosimilars. Under the PPACA, a manufacturer may submit an application for licensure of a biologic product that is “biosimilar to” or “interchangeable with” a previously approved biological product or “reference product.” Manufacturers may not submit an application for a biosimilar to the FDA until four years following approval of the reference product, and the FDA may not approve a biosimilar product until 12 years from the date on which the reference product was approved. Even if a product is considered to be a reference product eligible for exclusivity, another company could market a competing version of that product if the FDA approves a full Biologics License Application, or BLA, for such product containing the sponsor’s own preclinical data and data from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the safety, purity and potency of their product. From time to time, there are proposals to repeal or modify the PPACA and it is uncertain how any such proposals, if approved, would affect these provisions.

If any of our product candidates receive regulatory approval, the approved products may not achieve broad market acceptance among physicians, patients, the medical community and third-party payors, in which case revenue generated from their sales would be limited.

The commercial success of our product candidates will depend upon their acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community. The degree of market acceptance of our product candidates will depend on a number of factors, including:

•

limitations or warnings contained in the approved labeling for a product candidate;

•

changes in the standard of care for the targeted indications for any of our product candidates;

•

limitations in the approved clinical indications for our product candidates;

•

demonstrated clinical safety and efficacy compared to other products;

•

lack of significant adverse side effects;

•

sales, marketing and distribution support;

•

availability of coverage and extent of reimbursement from managed care plans and other third-party payors;

•

timing of market introduction and perceived effectiveness of competitive products;

•

the degree of cost-effectiveness of our product candidates;

•

availability of alternative therapies at similar or lower cost, including generic and over-the-counter products;

•

the extent to which the product candidate is approved for inclusion on formularies of hospitals and managed care organizations;

•

whether the product is designated under physician treatment guidelines as a first-line therapy or as a second- or third-line therapy for particular diseases;

•

whether the product can be used effectively with other therapies to achieve higher response rates;

•

adverse publicity about our product candidates or favorable publicity about competitive products;

•

convenience and ease of administration of our products; and

•

potential product liability claims.

If any of our product candidates are approved, but do not achieve an adequate level of acceptance by physicians, patients and the medical community, we may not generate sufficient revenue from these products, and we may not become or remain profitable. In addition, efforts to educate the medical community and third-party payors on the benefits of our product candidates may require significant resources and may never be successful.

We may be unable to obtain orphan drug exclusivity in specific indications for ZW25 or in future product candidates that we may develop. If our competitors are able to obtain orphan product exclusivity for their products in specific indications, we may not be able to have competing products approved in those indications by the applicable regulatory authority for a significant period of time.

Regulatory authorities in some jurisdictions, including the United States and Europe, may designate drugs for relatively small patient populations as orphan drugs. Under the Orphan Drug Act, the FDA may designate a product candidate as an orphan drug if it is a drug intended to treat a rare disease or condition, which is generally defined as a patient population of fewer than 200,000 individuals annually in the United States. The FDA has granted Orphan Drug Designation to ZW25 for the treatment of gastric and ovarian cancer and we may seek Orphan Drug Designation for additional indications in the future. Orphan Drug Designation neither shortens the development time or regulatory review time of a drug nor gives the drug any advantage in the regulatory review or approval process.

Generally, if a product candidate with an Orphan Drug Designation subsequently receives the first marketing approval for the indication for which it has such designation, the product is entitled to a period of marketing exclusivity, which precludes the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, or the FDA from approving another marketing application for the same drug for the same indication for that time period. The applicable period is seven years in the United States and 10 years in Europe. The European exclusivity period can be reduced to six years if a product no longer meets the criteria for Orphan Drug Designation or if the product is sufficiently profitable so that market exclusivity is no longer justified. Orphan drug exclusivity may be lost if the FDA or EMA determines that the request for designation was materially defective or if the manufacturer is unable to assure sufficient quantity of the product to meet the needs of patients with the rare disease or condition.

Even if we obtain orphan drug exclusivity for ZW25, or for any other product candidates that receive an Orphan Drug Designation in the future, that exclusivity may not effectively protect the product from competition because different drugs with different active moieties can be approved for the same condition. Further, in the United States, even after an orphan drug is approved, the FDA can subsequently approve the same drug for the same condition submitted by a competitor if the FDA concludes that the later drug is clinically superior in that it is shown to be safer, more effective or makes a major contribution to patient care. If we fail to maintain our current Orphan Drug Designations for our product candidate, ZW25, or for any other product candidates that receive an Orphan Drug Designation in the future, or if the FDA approves Orphan Drug Designation for similar product candidates of other pharmaceutical companies, our competitive position would be harmed.

Even if we obtain FDA approval of any of our product candidates, we may never obtain approval or commercialize such products outside of the United States, which would limit our ability to realize their full market potential.

In order to market any products outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional product testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approvals could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and may require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials which would be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of our products in those countries. Satisfying these and other regulatory requirements is costly, time consuming, uncertain and subject to unanticipated delays. In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. We do not have any product candidates approved for sale in any jurisdiction, including international markets, and we do not have experience in obtaining regulatory approval in international markets. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of our products will be harmed.

Reimbursement decisions by third-party payors may have an adverse effect on pricing and market acceptance. If there is not sufficient reimbursement for our products, it is less likely that our products will be widely used.

Even if our product candidates are approved for sale by the appropriate regulatory authorities, market acceptance and sales of these products will depend on reimbursement policies and may be affected by future healthcare reform measures. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs they will reimburse and establish payment levels. We cannot be certain that reimbursement will be available for any products that we develop. If reimbursement is not available or is available on a limited basis, we may not be able to successfully commercialize any of our approved products.

In the United States, the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, also called the Medicare Modernization Act, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The legislation established Medicare Part D, which expanded Medicare coverage for outpatient prescription drug purchases by the elderly but provided authority for limiting the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. The MMA also introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for physician-administered drugs. We expect to experience pricing pressures in connection with the sale of any products that we develop, due to the trend toward managed healthcare, the increasing influence of health maintenance organizations and additional legislative proposals.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also be insufficient to cover our and any collaborator’s costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of the drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our or any collaborator’s inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for any approved products that we or our strategic partners develop could have a material adverse effect on our operating results, our ability to raise capital needed to commercialize product candidates and our overall financial condition.

If the market opportunities for any product that we or our strategic partners develop are smaller than we believe they are, our revenue may be adversely affected and our business may suffer.

We intend to initially focus our independent product candidate development on treatments for oncology. Our projections of addressable patient populations that have the potential to benefit from treatment with our product candidates are based on estimates. If any of the foregoing estimates are inaccurate, the market opportunities for any of our product candidates could be significantly diminished and have an adverse material impact on our business.

We may expend our limited resources to pursue a particular product candidate or indication and fail to capitalize on product candidates or indications that may be more profitable or for which there is a greater likelihood of success.

Because we have limited financial and managerial resources, we focus on research programs, therapeutic platforms and product candidates that we identify for specific indications. As a result, we may forego or delay pursuit of opportunities with other therapeutic platforms or product candidates or for other indications that later prove to have greater commercial potential. Our resource allocation decisions may cause us to fail to capitalize on viable commercial products or profitable market opportunities. Our spending on current and future research and development programs, therapeutic platforms and product candidates for specific indications may not yield any commercially viable products. If we do not accurately evaluate the commercial potential or target market for a particular product candidate, we may relinquish valuable rights to that product candidate through collaboration, licensing or other royalty arrangements in cases in which it would have been more advantageous for us to retain sole development and commercialization rights.

We may not be successful in our efforts to use and expand our therapeutic platforms to build a pipeline of product candidates.

A key element of our strategy is to use and expand our therapeutic platforms to build a pipeline of product candidates and progress these product candidates through clinical development for the treatment of a variety of diseases. Although our research and development efforts to date have resulted in a pipeline of product candidates directed at various cancers, we may not be able to develop product candidates that are safe and effective. In addition, although we expect that our therapeutic platforms will allow us to develop a steady stream of product candidates, they may not prove to be successful at doing so. Even if we are successful in continuing to build our pipeline, the potential product candidates that we identify may not be suitable for clinical development, including as a result of being shown to have harmful side effects or other characteristics that indicate that they are unlikely to be products that will receive marketing approval and achieve market acceptance. If we do not continue to successfully develop and begin to commercialize product candidates, we will face difficulty in obtaining product revenue in future periods, which could result in significant harm to our financial position and adversely affect our share price.

Even if we receive regulatory approval to commercialize any of the product candidates that we develop, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and continued regulatory review, which may result in significant additional expense.

Any regulatory approvals that we receive for our product candidates may be subject to limitations on the approved indicated uses for which the product may be marketed or subject to certain conditions of approval, and may contain requirements for potentially costly post-approval trials, including Phase 4 clinical trials, and surveillance to monitor the safety and efficacy of the marketed product.

For any approved product, we will be subject to ongoing regulatory obligations and extensive oversight by regulatory authorities, including with respect to manufacturing processes, labeling, packaging, distribution, adverse event reporting, storage, advertising, promotion and recordkeeping for the product. These requirements include submissions of safety and other post-approval information and reports, as well as continued compliance with current good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, and current good clinical practices, or cGCP, for any clinical trials that we or our strategic partners conduct after approval. Later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product, including adverse events of unanticipated severity or frequency, or with third-party manufacturers or manufacturing processes, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements, may result in, among other things:

•

restrictions on the marketing or manufacturing of the product;

•

withdrawal of the product from the market or voluntary or mandatory product recalls;

•

fines, warning letters or holds on clinical trials;

•

refusal by the FDA, EMA or another applicable regulatory authority to approve pending applications or supplements to approved applications filed by us or our strategic partners, or suspension or revocation of product license approvals;

•

product seizure or detention, or refusal to permit the import or export of products; and

•

injunctions or the imposition of civil or criminal penalties.

Occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material and adverse effect on our business and results of operations. Further, the FDA’s or other ex-U.S. regulators’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory approval of our product candidates. If we are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, we may lose any marketing approval that we may have obtained, which would adversely affect our business, prospects and ability to achieve or sustain profitability.

If any product liability lawsuits are successfully brought against us or any of our strategic partners, we may incur substantial liabilities and may be required to limit commercialization of our product candidates.

We face an inherent risk of product liability lawsuits related to the testing of our product candidates in seriously ill patients, and will face an even greater risk if product candidates are approved by regulatory authorities and introduced commercially. Product liability claims may be brought against us or our strategic partners by participants enrolled in our clinical trials, patients, health care providers or others using, administering or selling any of our future approved products. If we cannot successfully defend ourselves against any such claims, we may incur substantial liabilities. Regardless of their merit or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

•

decreased demand for any future approved products;

•

injury to our reputation;

•

withdrawal of clinical trial participants;

•

termination of clinical trial sites or entire trial programs;

•

increased regulatory scrutiny;

•

significant litigation costs;

•

substantial monetary awards to or costly settlement with patients or other claimants;

•

product recalls or a change in the indications for which they may be used;

•

loss of revenue;

•

diversion of management and scientific resources from our business operations; and

•

the inability to commercialize our product candidates.

If any of our product candidates are approved for commercial sale, we will be highly dependent upon consumer perceptions of us and the safety and quality of our products. We could be adversely affected if we are subject to negative publicity. We could also be adversely affected if any of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies prove to be, or are asserted to be, harmful to patients. Because of our dependence upon consumer perceptions, any adverse publicity associated with illness or other adverse effects resulting from patients’ use or misuse of our products or any similar products distributed by other companies could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

We may need to have in place increased product liability coverage when we begin the commercialization of our product candidates. Insurance coverage is becoming increasingly expensive. As a result, we may be unable to maintain or obtain sufficient insurance at a reasonable cost to protect us against losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business. A successful product liability claim or series of claims brought against us, particularly if judgments exceed any insurance coverage we may have, could decrease our cash resources and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Changes in methods of product candidate manufacturing or formulation may result in additional costs or delay.

As product candidates are developed through preclinical to late-stage clinical trials towards approval and commercialization, it is common that various aspects of the development program, such as manufacturing methods and formulation, are altered along the way in an effort to optimize processes and results. Such changes carry the risk that they will not achieve these intended objectives. Any of these changes could cause our product candidates to perform differently and affect the results of planned clinical trials or other future clinical trials conducted with the altered materials. This could delay completion of clinical trials, require the conduct of bridging clinical trials or the repetition of one or more clinical trials, increase clinical trial costs, delay approval of our product candidates and jeopardize our ability, or our strategic partners’ ability, to commence product sales and generate revenue.

Acquisitions or joint ventures could disrupt our business, cause dilution to our shareholders and otherwise harm our business.

We actively evaluate various strategic transactions on an ongoing basis. We may acquire other businesses, products or technologies as well as pursue strategic alliances, joint ventures or investments in complementary businesses. Any of these transactions could be material to our financial condition and operating results and expose us to many risks, including:

•

disruption in our relationships with existing strategic partners or suppliers as a result of such a transaction;

•

unanticipated liabilities related to acquired companies;

•

difficulties integrating acquired personnel, technologies and operations into our existing business;

•

retention of key employees;

•

diversion of management time and focus from operating our business to management of strategic alliances or joint ventures or acquisition integration challenges;

•

increases in our expenses and reductions in our cash available for operations and other uses; and

•

possible write-offs or impairment charges relating to acquired businesses.

Foreign acquisitions involve unique risks in addition to those mentioned above, including those related to integration of operations across different cultures and languages, currency risks and the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with specific countries.

Also, the anticipated benefit of any strategic alliance, joint venture or acquisition may not materialize or such strategic alliance, joint venture or acquisition may be prohibited. Additionally, future acquisitions or dispositions could result in potentially dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities or amortization expenses or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition. We cannot predict the number, timing or size of future joint ventures or acquisitions, or the effect that any such transactions might have on our operating results.

Foreign governments tend to impose strict price controls, which may adversely affect our future profitability.

In most foreign countries, particularly in those in the European Union, prescription drug pricing and reimbursement is subject to governmental control. In those countries that impose price controls, pricing negotiations with governmental authorities can take considerable time after the receipt of marketing approval for a product. To obtain reimbursement or pricing approval in some countries, we or our strategic partners may be required to conduct a clinical trial that compares the cost-effectiveness of our product candidates to other available therapies.

Some countries require approval of the sale price of a drug before it can be marketed. In many countries, the pricing review period begins after marketing or product licensing approval is granted. In some foreign markets, prescription pharmaceutical pricing remains subject to continuing governmental control even after initial approval is granted. As a result, we or our strategic partners might obtain marketing approval for a product candidate in a particular country, but then be subject to price regulations that delay commercial launch of the product candidate, possibly for lengthy time periods, and negatively impact the revenue that is generated from the sale of the product in that country. If reimbursement of such product candidates is unavailable or limited in scope or amount, or if pricing is set at unsatisfactory levels, or if there is competition from lower priced cross-border sales, our profitability will be negatively affected.

Security breaches, loss of data and other disruptions could compromise sensitive information related to our business or protected health information or prevent us from accessing critical information and expose us to liability, which could adversely affect our business and our reputation.

In the ordinary course of our business, we collect and store petabytes of sensitive data, including legally protected health information, personally identifiable information, intellectual property and proprietary business information owned or controlled by ourselves or our strategic partners. We manage and maintain our applications and data by utilizing a combination of on-site systems, managed data center systems and cloud-based data center systems. These applications and data encompass a wide variety of business-critical information, including research and development information, commercial information and business and financial information. We face four primary risks relative to protecting this critical information, including loss of access risk, inappropriate disclosure risk, inappropriate modification risk and the risk of being unable to adequately monitor our controls over the first three risks.

The secure processing, storage, maintenance and transmission of this critical information are vital to our operations and business strategy, and we devote significant resources to protecting such information. Although we take measures to protect sensitive information from unauthorized access or disclosure, our information technology and infrastructure and that of any third-party billing and collections provider we may utilize, may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or viruses or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach or interruption could compromise our networks and the information stored there could be accessed by unauthorized parties, publicly disclosed, lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, such as HIPAA, and regulatory penalties. Although we have implemented security measures and a formal enterprise security program to prevent unauthorized access to patient data, there is no guarantee that we can continue to protect our systems from breach. Unauthorized access, loss or dissemination could also disrupt our operations (including our ability to conduct our analyses, provide test results, bill payors or providers, process claims and appeals, conduct research and development activities, collect, process and prepare company financial information, provide information about any future products, and manage the administrative aspects of our business) and damage our reputation, any of which could adversely affect our business.

The U.S. Office of Civil Rights may impose penalties on us or our CROs if we, or our CROs, do not fully comply with requirements of HIPAA. Penalties will vary significantly depending on factors such as whether we, or our CROs, knew or should have known of the failure to comply, or whether our failure, or that of our CROs, to comply was due to willful neglect. These penalties include civil monetary penalties of $100 to $50,000 per violation, up to an annual cap of $1,500,000 for identical violations. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 per violation and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 per violation and up to five-years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 per violation and up to 10-years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. The U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for criminal prosecutions under HIPAA. Furthermore, in the event of a breach as defined by HIPAA, we have specific reporting requirements to the Office of Civil Rights under the HIPAA regulations as well as to affected individuals, and we may also have additional reporting requirements to other state and federal regulators, including the Federal Trade Commission, and to the media. Issuing such notifications can be costly, time and resource intensive, and can generate significant negative publicity. Breaches of HIPAA may also constitute contractual violations that could lead to contractual damages or terminations.

In addition, the interpretation and application of consumer, health-related and data protection laws in the United States, the European Union, or EU, and elsewhere are often uncertain, contradictory and in flux. It is possible that these laws may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent with our practices. If so, this could result in government-imposed fines or orders requiring that we change our practices, which could adversely affect our business. In addition, these privacy regulations vary between states, may differ from country to country, and may vary based on whether testing is performed in the United States or in the local country. Complying with these various laws could cause us to incur substantial costs or require us to change our business practices and compliance procedures in a manner adverse to our business.

Furthermore, the loss of clinical trial data from completed or future clinical trials could result in delays in our regulatory approval efforts and significantly increase our costs to recover or reproduce the data. Likewise, we rely on other third parties for the manufacture of our product candidates and to conduct clinical trials, and similar events relating to their computer systems could also have a material adverse effect on our business.

Current and future legislation may increase the difficulty and cost for us to commercialize any products that we or our strategic partners develop and affect the prices we may obtain.

The United States and some foreign jurisdictions are considering or have enacted a number of legislative and regulatory proposals to change healthcare systems in ways that could affect our ability to sell any of our product candidates profitably, if such product candidates are approved for sale. Among policy makers and payors in the United States and elsewhere, there is significant interest in promoting changes in healthcare systems with the stated goals of containing healthcare costs, improving quality and expanding access. In the United States, the pharmaceutical industry has been a particular focus of these efforts and has been significantly affected by major legislative initiatives.

•

extension of manufacturers’ Medicaid rebate liability to covered drugs dispensed to individuals who are enrolled in Medicaid managed care organizations;

•

a requirement to annually report drug samples that manufacturers and distributors provide to physicians;

•

expansion of healthcare fraud and abuse laws, including the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute, new government investigative powers, and enhanced penalties for noncompliance;

•

a licensure framework for follow-on biologic products;

•

a new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to oversee, identify priorities in, and conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research, along with funding for such research; and

•

establishment of a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test innovative payment and service delivery models to lower Medicare and Medicaid spending, potentially including prescription drug spending.

Since its enactment, there have been judicial and Congressional challenges to certain aspects of the PPACA, including recent tax legislation that removed the financial penalties for people who do not carry health insurance. There is still uncertainty as to whether the PPACA will undergo additional revisions, and we cannot predict the impact of any future modifications, and it is uncertain how any such proposals, if approved, would affect these provisions.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the PPACA was enacted. These changes include aggregate reductions to Medicare payments to providers of up to 2% per fiscal year pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, which began in 2013 and will remain in effect through 2025 unless additional Congressional action is taken. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, among other things, further reduced Medicare payments to several providers, including hospitals and cancer treatment centers, and increased the statute of limitations period for the government to recover overpayments to providers from three to five years. These laws may result in additional reductions in Medicare and other healthcare funding, which could have a material adverse effect on customers for our product candidates, if approved, and, accordingly, our financial operations. Also, there has been heightened governmental scrutiny recently over the manner in which drug manufacturers set prices for their marketed products, which have resulted in several Congressional inquiries and proposed bills designed to, among other things, bring more transparency to product pricing, review the relationship between pricing and manufacturer patient programs, and reform government program reimbursement methodologies for drug products.

In the EU similar political, economic and regulatory developments may affect our ability to profitably commercialize our current or any future products. In addition to continuing pressure on prices and cost containment measures, legislative developments at the EU or member state level may result in significant additional requirements or obstacles that may increase our operating costs. In international markets, reimbursement and healthcare payment systems vary significantly by country, and many countries have instituted price ceilings on specific products and therapies. Our future products, if any, might not be considered medically reasonable and necessary for a specific indication or cost-effective by third-party payors, an adequate level of reimbursement might not be available for such products, and third-party payors’ reimbursement policies might adversely affect our or our strategic partners’ ability to sell any future products profitably.

Legislative and regulatory proposals have been made to expand post-approval requirements and restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We cannot be sure whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what the impact of such changes on the marketing approvals of our product candidates, if any, may be. In addition, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process may significantly delay or prevent marketing approval, as well as subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-approval testing and other requirements.

We cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative action, either in the United States or abroad. If we or our strategic partners are slow or unable to adapt to changes in existing requirements or the adoption of new requirements or policies, or if we or our strategic partners are not able to maintain regulatory compliance, our product candidates may lose any marketing approval that may have been obtained and we may not achieve or sustain profitability, which would adversely affect our business.

Our business may become subject to economic, political, regulatory and other risks associated with international operations.

Our business is subject to risks associated with conducting business internationally. Some of our suppliers and collaborative and clinical trial relationships are located outside the United States. Accordingly, our future results could be harmed by a variety of factors, including:

•

economic weakness, including inflation, or political instability in particular foreign economies and markets;

•

differing regulatory requirements for drug approvals in foreign countries;

•

potentially reduced protection for intellectual property rights;

•

difficulties in compliance with non-U.S. laws and regulations;

•

changes in non-U.S. regulations and customs, tariffs and trade barriers;

•

changes in non-U.S. currency exchange rates and currency controls;

•

changes in a specific country’s or region’s political or economic environment;

•

trade protection measures, import or export licensing requirements or other restrictive actions by U.S. or non-U.S. governments;

•

differing reimbursement regimes, including price controls;

•

negative consequences from changes in tax laws;

•

compliance with tax, employment, immigration and labor laws for employees living or traveling abroad;

•

workforce uncertainty in countries where labor unrest is more common than in the United States;

•

difficulties associated with staffing and managing foreign operations, including differing labor relations;

•

production shortages resulting from any events affecting raw material supply or manufacturing capabilities abroad; and

•

business interruptions resulting from geo-political actions, including war and terrorism, or natural disasters including earthquakes, typhoons, floods and fires.

Our business and current and future relationships with customers and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere will be subject, directly or indirectly, to applicable federal and state anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, transparency, health information privacy and security and other healthcare laws and regulations, which could expose us to criminal sanctions, civil penalties, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, and diminished profits and future earnings.

Healthcare providers, physicians and third-party payors in the United States and elsewhere play a primary role in the recommendation and prescription of any product candidates for which we obtain marketing approval.

Our current and future arrangements with healthcare professionals, principal investigators, consultants, customers, and third-party payors and other entities may expose us to broadly applicable fraud and abuse and other healthcare laws and regulations, including, without limitation, the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the federal False Claims Act, that may constrain the business or financial arrangements and relationships through which we conduct clinical research on product candidates and market, sell and distribute any products for which we obtain marketing approval. In addition, we may be subject to transparency laws and patient privacy regulation by the federal government and by the U.S. states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. The applicable federal, state and foreign healthcare laws and regulations that may affect our ability to operate include, but are not limited to, the following:

•

the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits, among other things, persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving or providing remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate), directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, to induce or reward either the referral of an individual for, or the purchase, order or recommendation of, any good or service for which payment may be made under federal and state healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid;

•

federal civil and criminal false claims laws and civil monetary penalty laws, including the federal False Claims Act, which impose criminal and civil penalties, including civil whistleblower or qui tam actions, against individuals or entities for knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, to the federal government, including the Medicare and Medicaid programs, or other third-party payor claims for payment that are false or fraudulent or making a false statement to avoid, decrease or conceal an obligation to pay money to the federal government;

•

the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, which among other things, imposes criminal liability for knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program or to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, regardless of the payor (e.g. public or private) and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up by any trick or device a material fact or making any materially false statements in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services relating to healthcare matters;

•

HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009, or HITECH, and its implementing regulations, which imposes certain obligations, including mandatory contractual terms, with respect to safeguarding the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information without the appropriate authorization by entities subject to the law, such as health plans, healthcare clearinghouses and healthcare providers and their respective business associates;

•

the federal Open Payments program under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, created under Section 6002 of the PPACA and its implementing regulations, 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 certain exceptions) to report annually to HHS information related to “payments or other transfers of value” made to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors) and teaching hospitals, and applicable manufacturers and applicable group purchasing organizations to report annually to HHS ownership and investment interests held by physicians (as defined above) and their immediate family members; and

•

analogous state and foreign laws and regulations, including: state anti-kickback and false claims laws which may apply to our business practices, including, but not limited to, research, distribution, sales and marketing arrangements and claims involving healthcare items or services reimbursed by state governmental and non-governmental third-party payors, including private insurers; state laws that require pharmaceutical companies to comply with the pharmaceutical industry’s voluntary compliance guidelines and the applicable compliance guidance promulgated by the federal government; state laws that require drug manufacturers to track gifts and other remuneration and items of value provided to healthcare professionals and entities and file reports relating to pricing and marketing information; and state and foreign laws that govern the privacy and security of health information in specified circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the statutory exceptions and safe harbors available under the U.S. federal Anti-Kickback Statute and analogous state laws, it is possible that some of our current and future business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties will comply with applicable healthcare laws and regulations may involve substantial costs. It is possible that governmental authorities will conclude that our business practices may not comply with current or future statutes, regulations or case law involving applicable fraud and abuse or other healthcare laws and regulations. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from participation in government healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, additional reporting requirements and oversight if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or similar agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with these laws and the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. If any of the physicians or other providers or entities with whom we expect to do business, including our strategic partners, is found not to be in compliance with applicable laws, it may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in government healthcare programs, which could also materially affect our business.

We are subject to U.S. and certain foreign export and import controls, sanctions, embargoes, anti-corruption laws, and anti-money laundering laws and regulations. Compliance with these legal standards could impair our ability to compete in domestic and international markets. We can face criminal liability and other serious consequences for violations which can harm our business.

We are subject to export control and import laws and regulations, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, U.S. Customs regulations, various economic and trade sanctions regulations administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, the U.S. domestic bribery statute contained in 18 U.S.C. § 201, the U.S. Travel Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and other state and national anti-bribery and anti-money laundering laws in the countries in which we conduct activities. Anti-corruption laws are interpreted broadly and prohibit companies and their employees, agents, contractors, and other partners from authorizing, promising, offering, or providing, directly or indirectly, improper payments or anything else of value to recipients in the public or private sector. We may engage third parties for clinical trials outside of the United States, to sell our products abroad once we enter a commercialization phase, or to obtain necessary permits, licenses, patent registrations, and other regulatory approvals. We may have direct or indirect interactions with officials and employees of government agencies or government-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations. We can be held liable for the corrupt or other illegal activities of our employees, agents, contractors, and other partners, even if we do not explicitly authorize or have actual knowledge of such activities. Any violation of the laws and regulations described above may result in substantial civil and criminal fines and penalties, imprisonment, the loss of export or import privileges, debarment, tax reassessments, breach of contract and fraud litigation, reputational harm, and other consequences.

Risks Related to Our Financial Position and Need for Additional Capital

We have incurred significant losses since inception and anticipate that we will continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future. We have no products approved for commercial sale, and to date we have not generated any revenue or profit from product sales. We may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. We have incurred significant losses since our inception. Our net loss for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017 was $19.2 million, $33.8 million and $10.4 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2017, our accumulated deficit was approximately $108.7 million. We expect to continue to incur losses for the foreseeable future, and we expect these losses to increase as we continue our research and development of, and seek regulatory approvals for, our product candidates, prepare for and begin to commercialize any approved product candidates and add infrastructure and personnel to support our product development efforts and operations as a public company. The net losses and negative cash flows incurred to date, together with expected future losses, have had, and likely will continue to have, an adverse effect on our shareholders’ deficit and working capital. The amount of future net losses will depend, in part, on the rate of future growth of our expenses and our ability to generate revenue.

Because of the numerous risks and uncertainties associated with pharmaceutical product development, we are unable to accurately predict the timing or amount of increased expenses or when, or if, we will be able to achieve profitability. For example, our expenses could increase if we are required by the FDA to perform trials in addition to those that we currently expect to perform, or if there are any delays in completing our currently planned clinical trials or in the development of any of our product candidates.

To become and remain profitable, we must succeed in developing and commercializing product candidates with significant market potential. This will require us to be successful in a range of challenging activities for which we are only in the preliminary stages, including developing product candidates, obtaining regulatory approval for such product candidates, and manufacturing, marketing and selling those product candidates for which we may obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in these activities and may never generate revenue from product sales that is significant enough to achieve profitability. Even if we achieve profitability in the future, we may not be able to sustain profitability in subsequent periods. Our failure to become or remain profitable would depress our market value and could impair our ability to raise capital, expand our business, develop other product candidates, or continue our operations. A decline in the value of our company could also cause our shareholders to lose all or part of their investment.

Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking and involves a substantial degree of uncertainty. We have never generated any revenue from product sales and may never be profitable.

We have devoted substantially all of our financial resources and efforts to developing our proprietary therapeutic platforms, identifying potential product candidates and conducting preclinical studies and a clinical trial. We and our partners are still in the early stages of developing our product candidates, and we have not completed development of any products. Our revenue to date has been primarily revenue from the license of our proprietary therapeutic platforms for the development of product candidates by others or revenue from our strategic partners. Our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability depends in large part on our ability, alone or with our strategic partners, to achieve milestones and to successfully complete the development of, obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for, and commercialize, product candidates. We do not anticipate generating revenue from sales of products for the foreseeable future.

We will require substantial additional funding, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms, or at all, and, if not available, may require us to delay, scale back, or cease our product development programs or operations.

We are currently advancing two of our product candidates through preclinical and clinical development as well as other potential product candidates through discovery. Developing pharmaceutical products, including conducting preclinical studies and clinical trials, is expensive. In order to obtain such regulatory approval, we will be required to conduct clinical trials for each indication for each of our product candidates. We will continue to require additional funding to complete the development and commercialization of our product candidates and to continue to advance the development of our other product candidates, and such funding may not be available on acceptable terms or at all. Furthermore, in August 2016 we entered into a license agreement with Innovative Targeting Solutions Inc., or ITS, which requires licensing payments to ITS totaling $12.0 million over the following five-year period.

Although it is difficult to predict our liquidity requirements, based upon our current operating plan, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents and short term investments will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirement into 2019. We may also be eligible to receive certain research, development and commercial milestone payments in the future, as described under “Business – Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations.” However, because successful development of our product candidates and the achievement of milestones by our strategic partners is uncertain, we are unable to estimate the actual funds we will require to complete research and development and to commercialize our product candidates.

Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including but not limited to:

•

the number and characteristics of other product candidates that we pursue;

•

the scope, progress, timing, cost and results of research, preclinical development, and clinical trials;

•

the costs, timing and outcome of seeking and obtaining FDA and non-U.S. regulatory approvals;

•

the costs associated with manufacturing our product candidates and establishing sales, marketing and distribution capabilities;

•

our ability to maintain, expand and defend the scope of our intellectual property portfolio, including the amount and timing of any payments we may be required to make in connection with the licensing, filing, defense and enforcement of any patents or other intellectual property rights;

•

our need and ability to hire additional management, scientific and medical personnel;

•

the effect of competing products that may limit market penetration of our product candidates;

•

our need to implement additional internal systems and infrastructure, including financial and reporting systems; and

•

the economic and other terms, timing of and success of our existing strategic partnerships, and any collaboration, licensing, or other arrangements into which we may enter in the future, including the timing of receipt of any milestone or royalty payments under these agreements.

Until we can generate a sufficient amount of product revenue to finance our cash requirements, which we may never do, we expect to finance future cash needs primarily through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and grant funding.

If sufficient funds on acceptable terms are not available when needed, or at all, we could be forced to significantly reduce operating expenses and delay, scale back or eliminate one or more of our development programs or our business operations.

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

To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, our shareholders’ ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of these new securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect our shareholders’ rights as common shareholders. Debt financing, if available at all, may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take specific actions such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures, or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through partnerships, collaborations, strategic alliances, or licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, product candidates, or future revenue streams, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. We cannot assure that we will be able to obtain additional funding if and when necessary. If we are unable to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis, we could be required to delay, scale back or eliminate one or more of our development programs or grant rights to develop and market product candidates that we would otherwise prefer to develop and market ourselves.

Unstable market and economic conditions may have serious adverse consequences on our business and financial condition.

Global credit and financial markets experienced extreme disruptions at various points over the last decade, characterized by diminished liquidity and credit availability, declines in consumer confidence, declines in economic growth, increases in unemployment rates and uncertainty about economic stability. If another such disruption in credit and financial markets and deterioration of confidence in economic conditions occurs, our business may be adversely affected. If the equity and credit markets were to deteriorate significantly in the future, it may make any necessary debt or equity financing more difficult to complete, more costly, and more dilutive. Failure to secure any necessary financing in a timely manner and on favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our growth strategy, financial performance and share price and could require us to delay or abandon development or commercialization plans. In addition, there is a risk that one or more of our current strategic partners, service providers, manufacturers and other partners would not survive or be able to meet their commitments to us under such circumstances, which could directly affect our ability to attain our operating goals on schedule and on budget.

We are subject to risks associated with currency fluctuations, and changes in foreign currency exchange rates could impact our results of operations.

Management assesses its functional currency to be the U.S. dollar based on management’s analysis of the primary economic environment in which we operate.

As of December 31, 2017, approximately 7.7% of our cash and cash equivalents was denominated in Canadian dollars. Fluctuations in U.S. dollar and Canadian dollar exchange rates could result in a material increase in reported expenses relative to revenue, and therefore could cause our operating income (expense) to appear to decline materially. Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates also impact the reporting of our receivables and payables in non-Canadian currencies. As a result of such foreign currency fluctuations, it could be more difficult to detect underlying trends in our business and results of operations. In addition, to the extent that fluctuations in currency exchange rates cause our results of operations to differ from our expectations or the expectations of our investors, the trading price of our common shares could be adversely affected.

From time to time, we may engage in exchange rate hedging activities in an effort to mitigate the impact of exchange rate fluctuations. For example, we maintain a natural currency hedge against fluctuations in the U.S./Canadian foreign exchange rate by matching the amount of U.S. dollar and Canadian dollar investments to the expected amount of future U.S. dollar and Canadian dollar obligations, respectively. Any hedging technique we implement may fail to be effective. If our hedging activities are not effective, changes in currency exchange rates may have a more significant impact on the trading price of our common shares.

Risks Related to Our Dependence on Third Parties

Our existing strategic partnerships are important to our business, and future strategic partnerships will likely also be important to us. If we are unable to maintain our strategic partnerships, or if these strategic partnerships are not successful, our business could be adversely affected.

We have limited capabilities for drug development and do not yet have any capability for sales, marketing or distribution. Accordingly, we have entered into strategic partnerships with other companies that we believe can provide such capabilities, including our collaboration and license agreements with Merck, Lilly, Celgene, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo and Janssen. These relationships also have provided us with non-dilutive funding for our wholly owned pipeline and therapeutic platforms and we expect to receive additional funding under these strategic partnerships in the future. Our existing strategic partnerships, and any future strategic partnerships we enter into, may pose a number of risks, including the following:

•

strategic partners have significant discretion in determining the efforts and resources that they will apply to these partnerships;

•

strategic partners may not perform their obligations as expected;

•

strategic partners may not pursue development and commercialization of any product candidates that achieve regulatory approval or may elect not to continue or renew development or commercialization programs based on clinical trial results, changes in the partners’ strategic focus or available funding, or external factors, such as an acquisition, that divert resources or create competing priorities;

•

strategic partners may delay clinical trials, provide insufficient funding for a clinical trial program, stop a clinical trial or abandon a product candidate, repeat or conduct new clinical trials or require a new formulation of a product candidate for clinical testing;

•

strategic partners could independently develop, or develop with third parties, products that compete directly or indirectly with our product candidates if the strategic partners believe that competitive products are more likely to be successfully developed or can be commercialized under terms that are more economically attractive than our product candidates;

•

product candidates discovered in collaboration with us may be viewed by our strategic partners as competitive with their own product candidates or products, which may cause strategic partners to cease to devote resources to the commercialization of our product candidates;

•

a strategic partner with marketing and distribution rights to one or more of our product candidates that achieve regulatory approval may not commit sufficient resources to the marketing and distribution of such product candidates;

•

disagreements with strategic partners, including disagreements over proprietary rights, contract interpretation or the preferred course of development, might cause delays or termination of the research, development or commercialization of product candidates, might lead to additional responsibilities for us with respect to product candidates, or might result in litigation or arbitration, any of which would be time-consuming and expensive;

•

strategic partners may not properly maintain or defend our intellectual property rights or may use our proprietary information in such a way as to invite litigation that could jeopardize or invalidate our intellectual property or proprietary information or expose us to potential litigation;

•

strategic partners may infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, which may expose us to litigation and potential liability; and

•

strategic partnerships may be terminated for the convenience of the partner and, if terminated, we could be required to raise additional capital to pursue further development or commercialization of the applicable product candidates. For example, each of our collaboration and license agreements with Merck, Lilly, Celgene, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo and Janssen may be terminated for convenience upon the completion of a specified notice period.

We may not realize the anticipated benefits of our strategic partnerships.

If our strategic partnerships do not result in the successful development and commercialization of product candidates or if one of our partners terminates its agreement with us, we may not receive any future research funding or milestone or royalty payments under the collaboration. Moreover, our estimates of the potential revenue we are eligible to receive under our strategic partnerships may include potential payments in respect of therapeutic programs for which our partners have discontinued development or may discontinue development in the future. Furthermore, our strategic partners may not keep us informed as to the status of their in-house research activities and they may fail to exercise options embedded within certain agreements. Any discontinuation of product development by our strategic partners could reduce the amounts receivable under our strategic partnerships below the stated amounts we are eligible to receive under those agreements. If we do not receive the funding we expect under these agreements, our development of our therapeutic platforms and product candidates could be delayed and we may need additional resources to develop product candidates and our therapeutic platforms. All of the risks relating to product development, regulatory approval and commercialization described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K also apply to the activities of our program strategic partners. For example, in 2017 Lilly nominated a bispecific candidate from their 2014 agreement with us for preclinical development and discontinued the development of two other bispecific antibodies due to strategic portfolio realignment in those particular disease areas. As a result, we have updated our projections and are currently eligible to receive up to $125.0 million under this agreement, comprised of research milestone payments of up to $2.0 million ($2.0 million earned in 2016), IND submission milestone payments of up to $8.0 million, development milestone payments of up to $20.0 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $95.0 million.

Additionally, subject to its contractual obligations to us, if one of our strategic partners is involved in a business combination, the partner might deemphasize or terminate the development or commercialization of any product candidate licensed to it by us. If one of our strategic partners terminates its agreement with us, we may find it more difficult to attract new partners.

We face significant competition in seeking new strategic partners.

For some of our product candidates, we may in the future determine to collaborate with additional pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies for development and potential commercialization of therapeutic products. Our ability to reach a definitive agreement for a collaboration will depend, among other things, upon our assessment of the strategic partner’s resources and expertise, the terms and conditions of the proposed collaboration and the proposed strategic partner’s evaluation of a number of factors. These factors may include the design or results of clinical trials, the likelihood of approval by the FDA or similar regulatory authorities outside the United States, the potential market for the subject product candidate, the costs and complexities of manufacturing and delivering such product candidate to patients, the potential of competing products, the existence of uncertainty with respect to our ownership of technology, which can exist if there is a challenge to such ownership without regard to the merits of the challenge and industry and market conditions generally. The strategic partner may also consider alternative product candidates or technologies for similar indications that may be available to collaborate on and whether such a collaboration could be more attractive than the one with us for our product candidate.

Strategic partnerships are complex and time-consuming to negotiate and document. In addition, there have been a significant number of recent business combinations among large pharmaceutical companies that have resulted in a reduced number of potential future strategic partners. If we are unable to reach agreements with suitable strategic partners on a timely basis, on acceptable terms, or at all, we may have to curtail the development of a product candidate, reduce or delay one or more of our other development programs, delay its potential commercialization or reduce the scope of any sales or marketing activities, or increase our expenditures and undertake development or commercialization activities at our own expense. If we elect to fund and undertake development or commercialization activities on our own, we may need to obtain additional expertise and additional capital, which may not be available to us on acceptable terms or at all. If we fail to enter into strategic partnerships and do not have sufficient funds or expertise to undertake the necessary development and commercialization activities, we may not be able to further develop our product candidates or bring them to market or continue to develop our therapeutic platforms and our business may be materially and adversely affected.

We rely on third-party manufacturers to produce our clinical product candidates. Any failure by a third-party manufacturer to produce acceptable product candidate for us may delay or impair our ability to initiate or complete our clinical trials or commercialize approved products.

We do not currently own or operate any manufacturing facilities nor do we have any in-house manufacturing experience or personnel. We rely on our strategic partners to manufacture product candidates licensed to them or work with multiple third-party contract manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of materials required for the manufacture of our product candidates for preclinical testing and clinical trials, in compliance with applicable regulatory and quality standards, and intend to do so for the commercial manufacture of our products. If we are unable to arrange for such third-party manufacturing sources, or fail to do so on commercially reasonable terms, we may not be able to successfully produce sufficient supply of product candidate or we may be delayed in doing so. Such failure or substantial delay could materially harm our business.

Reliance on third-party manufacturers entails risks to which we would not be subject if we manufactured product candidates ourselves, including reliance on the third party for regulatory compliance and quality control and assurance, volume production, the possibility of breach of the manufacturing agreement by the third party because of factors beyond our control (including a failure to synthesize and manufacture our product candidates in accordance with our product specifications) and the possibility of termination or nonrenewal of the agreement by the third party at a time that is costly or damaging to us. In addition, the FDA, EMA and other regulatory authorities require that our product candidates be manufactured according to current cGMPs and similar foreign standards.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and their subcontractors are required to register their facilities or products manufactured at the time of submission of the marketing application and then annually thereafter with the FDA and certain state and foreign agencies. They are also subject to periodic unannounced inspections by the FDA, state and other foreign authorities. Any subsequent discovery of problems with a product, or a manufacturing or laboratory facility used by us or our strategic partners, may result in restrictions on the product or on the manufacturing or laboratory facility, including marketed product recall, suspension of manufacturing, product seizure, or a voluntary withdrawal of the drug from the market. We may have little to no control regarding the occurrence of third-party manufacturer incidents. Any failure by our third-party manufacturers to comply with cGMP or failure to scale up manufacturing processes, including any failure to deliver sufficient quantities of product candidates in a timely manner, could lead to a delay in, or failure to obtain, regulatory approval of any of our product candidates.

The manufacture of our product candidates is complex. We and our third-party manufacturers may encounter difficulties in production. If we encounter any such difficulties, our ability to supply our product candidates for clinical trials or, if approved, for commercial sale could be delayed or halted entirely.

The manufacture of biopharmaceutical products is complex and requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. The process of manufacturing our product candidates is extremely susceptible to product loss due to contamination, equipment failure or improper installation or operation of equipment, vendor or operator error, contamination and inconsistency in yields, variability in product characteristics and difficulties in scaling the production process. Even minor deviations from normal manufacturing processes could result in reduced production yields, product defects and other supply disruptions. If microbial, viral or other contaminations are discovered in our product candidates or in the manufacturing facilities in which our product candidates are made, such manufacturing facilities may need to be closed for an extended period of time to investigate and remedy the contamination. All of our engineered antibodies are manufactured by starting cells that are stored in a cell bank. We have one master cell bank for each antibody manufactured in accordance with cGMP and multiple working cell banks. While we believe we would have adequate back up should any cell bank be lost in a catastrophic event, it is possible that we could lose multiple cell banks and have our manufacturing severely impacted by the need to replace the cell banks. Any adverse developments affecting manufacturing operations for our product candidates, if any are approved, may result in shipment delays, inventory shortages, lot failures, product withdrawals or recalls, or other interruptions in the supply of our products. We may also have to take inventory write-offs and incur other charges and expenses for products that fail to meet specifications, undertake costly remediation efforts or seek more costly manufacturing alternatives.

We rely on third parties to monitor, support, conduct and oversee clinical trials of the product candidates that we are developing and, in some cases, to maintain regulatory files for those product candidates. We may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates or commercialize any products that may result from our development efforts, if we are not able to maintain or secure agreements with such third parties on acceptable terms, if these third parties do not perform their services as required, or if these third parties fail to timely transfer any regulatory information held by them to us.

We rely on entities outside of our control, which may include academic institutions, CROs, hospitals, clinics and other third-party strategic partners, to monitor, support, conduct and oversee preclinical studies and clinical trials of our current and future product candidates. We also rely on third parties to perform clinical trials on our current and future product candidates when they reach that stage. As a result, we have less control over the timing and cost of these studies and the ability to recruit trial subjects than if we conducted these trials with our own personnel.

If we are unable to maintain or enter into agreements with these third parties on acceptable terms, or if any such engagement is terminated prematurely, we may be unable to enroll patients on a timely basis or otherwise conduct our trials in the manner we anticipate. In addition, there is no guarantee that these third parties will devote adequate time and resources to our studies or perform as required by our contract or in accordance with regulatory requirements, including maintenance of clinical trial information regarding our product candidates. If these third parties fail to meet expected deadlines, fail to transfer to us any regulatory information in a timely manner, fail to adhere to protocols or fail to act in accordance with regulatory requirements or our agreements with them, or if they otherwise perform in a substandard manner or in a way that compromises the quality or accuracy of their activities or the data they obtain, then clinical trials of our product candidates may be extended or delayed with additional costs incurred, or our data may be rejected by the FDA, EMA or other regulatory agencies.

Ultimately, we are responsible for ensuring that each of our clinical trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties does not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities.

We and our CROs are required to comply with cGCP regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, the competent authorities of the member states of the EU and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these cGCP regulations through periodic inspections of clinical trial sponsors, principal investigators and clinical trial sites. If we or any of our CROs fail to comply with applicable cGCP regulations, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and our submission of marketing applications may be delayed or the FDA may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications. Upon inspection, the FDA could determine that any of our clinical trials fail or have failed to comply with applicable cGCP regulations. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with product produced under the cGMP regulations enforced by the FDA, and our clinical trials may require a large number of test subjects. Our failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory approval process and increase our costs. Moreover, our business may be implicated if any of our CROs violates federal or state fraud and abuse or false claims laws and regulations or healthcare privacy and security laws.

If any of our clinical trial sites terminate for any reason, we may experience the loss of follow-up information on patients enrolled in our ongoing clinical trials unless we are able to transfer the care of those patients to another qualified clinical trial site. Further, if our relationship with any of our CROs is terminated, we may be unable to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.

Switching or adding CROs or other suppliers can involve substantial cost and require extensive management time and focus. In addition, there is a natural transition period when a new CRO or supplier commences work. As a result, delays may occur, which can materially impact our ability to meet our desired clinical development timelines. If we are required to seek alternative supply arrangements, the resulting delays and potential inability to find a suitable replacement could materially and adversely impact our business.

We rely on third parties for various operational and administrative aspects of our business, including for certain cloud-based software platforms, which impact our financial, operational and research activities. If any of these third parties fail to provide timely, accurate and ongoing service or if the cloud-based platforms suffer outages that we are unable to mitigate, our business may be adversely affected.

We currently rely upon third-party consultants and contractors to provide certain operational and administrative services. These services include external tax advice and clinical and research consultation. The failure of any of these third parties to provide accurate and timely service may adversely impact our business operations. In addition, if such third-party service providers were to cease operations, temporarily or permanently, face financial distress or other business disruption, or increase their fees, or if our relationships with these providers deteriorate, we could suffer increased costs until an equivalent provider could be found, if at all, or we could develop internal capabilities, if ever.

In addition, if we are unsuccessful in choosing or finding high-quality partners, if we fail to negotiate cost-effective relationships with them, or if we ineffectively manage these relationships, it could have an adverse impact on our business and financial performance.

Further, our operations depend on the continuing and efficient operation of our information technology and communications systems and infrastructure, and specifically on the “cloud-based” platforms. These platforms are vulnerable to damage or interruption from earthquakes, vandalism, sabotage, terrorist attacks, floods, fires, power outages, telecommunications failures, and computer viruses or other deliberate attempts to harm the systems. The occurrence of a natural or intentional disaster, any decision to close a facility we are using without adequate notice, or particularly an unanticipated problem at our cloud-based virtual server facility, could result in harmful interruptions in our service, resulting in adverse effects to our business.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

Our commercial success depends significantly on our ability to operate without infringing the patents and other proprietary rights of third parties.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of third parties. Other entities may have or obtain patents or proprietary rights that could limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our future approved products or impair our competitive position. For example, certain patents and patent applications held by third parties cover Fab and Fc region engineering methods for bispecific antibodies, and antibodies having mutations in Fab heavy and light chain regions and Fc regions to generate correctly paired bispecific antibodies. If our products or our strategic partners’ products incorporate any Fab or Fc region mutations covered by any claims of these patents or patents that may issue from these applications and we are unable to invalidate those patents, or if licenses for them are not available on commercially reasonable terms or at all, our business could be materially harmed.

We are also aware of third-party patents and patent applications containing claims directed to compositions and methods for treating various forms of cancer with antibodies targeting HER2, alone or in combination with other anti-cancer agents, as well as compositions and methods for making and using anti-HER2 antibody conjugates comprising certain toxins, which patents and applications could potentially be construed to cover our product candidates and the use thereof to treat cancer. If our products or our strategic partners’ products were to be found to infringe any such patents, and we were unable to invalidate those patents, or if licenses for them are not available on commercially reasonable terms, or at all, our business could be materially harmed. These patents may not expire before we receive marketing authorization for our product candidates, and could delay the commercial launch or one or more future products. There is also no assurance that there are not third-party patents or patent applications of which we are aware, but which we do not believe are relevant to our business, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to limit our ability to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import our future approved products or impair our competitive position.

Patents that we may ultimately be found to infringe could be issued to third parties. Third parties may have or obtain valid and enforceable patents or proprietary rights that could block us from developing product candidates using our technology. Our failure to obtain a license to any technology that we require may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, our failure to maintain a license to any technology that we require may also materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, we would be exposed to a threat of litigation.

In the pharmaceutical industry, significant litigation and other proceedings regarding patents, patent applications, trademarks and other intellectual property rights have become commonplace. The types of situations in which we may become a party to such litigation or proceedings include:

•

we or our strategic partners may initiate litigation or other proceedings against third parties seeking to invalidate the patents held by those third parties, to obtain a judgment that our products or processes do not infringe those third parties’ patents or to obtain a judgement that those parties’ patents are unenforceable;

•

if our competitors file patent applications that claim technology also claimed by us or our licensors, we or our licensors may be required to participate in interference, derivation or opposition proceedings to determine the priority of invention, which could jeopardize our patent rights and potentially provide a third party with a dominant patent position;

•

if third parties initiate litigation claiming that our processes or products infringe their patent or other intellectual property rights or initiating other proceedings, including post-grant proceedings and inter partes reviews, we and our strategic partners will need to defend against such proceedings; and

•

if a license to necessary technology is terminated, the licensor may initiate litigation claiming that our processes or products infringe or misappropriate their patent or other intellectual property rights and/or that we breached our obligations under the license agreement, and we and our strategic partners would need to defend against such proceedings.

These lawsuits would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our management and scientific personnel. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the cost of such litigation and proceedings more effectively than we can because of their substantially greater resources. There is a risk that a court would decide that we or our strategic partners are infringing the third party’s patents and would order us or our strategic partners to stop the activities covered by the patents. In that event, we or our strategic partners may not have a viable alternative to the technology protected by the patent and may need to halt work on the affected product candidate or cease commercialization of an approved product. In addition, there is a risk that a court will order us or our strategic partners to pay third-party damages or some other monetary award, depending upon the jurisdiction. An adverse outcome in any litigation or other proceeding could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, potentially including treble damages and attorneys’ fees if we are found to have willfully infringed, and we may be required to cease using the technology that is at issue or to license the technology from third parties. We may not be able to obtain any required licenses on commercially acceptable terms or at all. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we are unable to obtain, maintain and enforce patent and trade secret protection for our product candidates and related technology, our business could be materially harmed.

Our strategy depends on our ability to identify and seek patent protection for our discoveries. This process is expensive and time consuming, and we may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner or in all jurisdictions where protection may be commercially advantageous. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. Moreover, in some circumstances, we may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the patents, covering technology that we have licensed from third parties. Therefore, our owned or in-licensed patents and patent applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business. Our patent applications cannot be enforced against third parties practicing the technology claimed in such applications unless, and until, patents issue from such applications, and then only to the extent the issued claims cover the technology. The patent applications that we own or in-license may fail to result in issued patents with claims that cover our current and future product candidates in the United States or in other foreign countries.

Moreover, the patent position of biopharmaceutical companies generally is highly uncertain, involves complex legal and factual questions and has in recent years been the subject of much litigation. The issuance of a patent does not ensure that it is valid or enforceable. Third parties may challenge the validity, enforceability or scope of our issued patents, and such patents may be narrowed, invalidated, circumvented, or deemed unenforceable. In addition, changes in law may introduce uncertainty in the enforceability or scope of patents owned by biotechnology companies. If our patents are narrowed, invalidated or held unenforceable, third parties may be able to commercialize our technology or products and compete directly with us without payment to us. There is no assurance that all potentially relevant prior art relating to our patents and patent applications has been found, and such prior art could potentially invalidate one or more of our patents or prevent a patent from issuing from one or more of our pending patent applications. There is also no assurance that there is not prior art of which we are aware, but which we do not believe affects the validity or enforceability of a claim in our patents and patent applications, which may, nonetheless, ultimately be found to affect the validity or enforceability of a claim. Furthermore, even if our patents are unchallenged, they may not adequately protect our intellectual property, provide exclusivity for our product candidates, prevent others from designing around our claims or provide us with a competitive advantage. The legal systems of certain countries do not favor the aggressive enforcement of patents, and the laws of foreign countries may not allow us to protect our inventions with patents to the same extent as the laws of the United States. Because patent applications in the United States and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publications of discoveries in scientific literature lag behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain that we were the first to make the inventions claimed in our issued patents or pending patent applications, or that we were the first to file for protection of the inventions set forth in our patents or patent applications. As a result, we may not be able to obtain or maintain protection for certain inventions. Therefore, the issuance, validity, enforceability, scope and commercial value of our patents in the United States and in foreign countries cannot be predicted with certainty and, as a result, any patents that we own or license may not provide sufficient protection against competitors. We may not be able to obtain or maintain patent protection from our pending patent applications, from those we may file in the future, or from those we may license from third parties. Moreover, even if we are able to obtain patent protection, such patent protection may be of insufficient scope to achieve our business objectives. In addition, the issuance of a patent does not give us the right to practice the patented invention. Third parties may have blocking patents that could prevent us from marketing our own patented product and practicing our own patented technology.

Our patents covering one or more of our products or product candidates could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.

Any of our intellectual property rights could be challenged or invalidated despite measures we take to obtain patent and other intellectual property protection with respect to our product candidates and proprietary technology. For example, if we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering one of our product candidates, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States and in some other jurisdictions, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity and/or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements, for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld material information from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, or the applicable foreign counterpart, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. A litigant or the USPTO itself could challenge our patents on this basis even if we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith. The outcome following such a challenge is unpredictable.

With respect to challenges to the validity of our patents, for example, there might be invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on a product candidate. Even if a defendant does not prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, our patent claims may be construed in a manner that would limit our ability to enforce such claims against the defendant and others. The cost of defending such a challenge, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and any resulting loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on one or more of our product candidates and our business.

Enforcing our intellectual property rights against third parties may also cause such third parties to file other counterclaims against us, which could be costly to defend, particularly in a foreign jurisdiction, and could require us to pay substantial damages, cease the sale of certain products or enter into a license agreement and pay royalties (which may not be possible on commercially reasonable terms or at all). Any efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights are also likely to be costly and may divert the efforts of our scientific and management personnel.

Our intellectual property rights will not necessarily provide us with competitive advantages.

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

•

others may be able to make compounds that are similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of the patents that we or our strategic partners own or have exclusively licensed;

•

others may independently develop similar or alternative technologies without infringing our intellectual property rights;

•

issued patents that we own or have exclusively licensed may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be held invalid or unenforceable, as a result of legal challenges by our competitors;

•

we may obtain patents for certain compounds many years before we obtain marketing approval for products containing such compounds, and because patents have a limited life, which may begin to run prior to the commercial sale of the related product, the commercial value of our patents may be limited;

•

our competitors might conduct research and development activities in countries where we do not have patent rights and then use the information learned from such activities to develop competitive products for sale in our major commercial markets;

•

we may fail to develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable;

•

the laws of certain foreign countries may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, or we may fail to apply for or obtain adequate intellectual property protection in all the jurisdictions in which we operate; and

•

the patents of others may have an adverse effect on our business, for example by preventing us from marketing one or more of our product candidates for one or more indications.

Any of the aforementioned threats to our competitive advantage could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents and trade secrets, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

Third parties may seek to market biosimilar versions of any approved products. Alternatively, third parties may seek approval to market their own products similar to or otherwise competitive with our product candidates. In these circumstances, we may need to defend or assert our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability is unpredictable. In any of these types of proceedings, a court or agency with jurisdiction may find our patents invalid or unenforceable. Even if we have valid and enforceable patents, these patents still may not provide protection against competing products or processes sufficient to achieve our business objectives.

Even after they have issued, our patents and any patents that we license may be challenged, narrowed, invalidated or circumvented. If our patents are invalidated or otherwise limited or will expire prior to the commercialization of our product candidates, other companies may be better able to develop products that compete with ours, which could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize current or future product candidates.

The following are examples of litigation and other adversarial proceedings or disputes that we could become a party to involving our patents or patents licensed to us:

•

we or our strategic partners may initiate litigation or other proceedings against third parties to enforce our patent and trade secret rights;

•

third parties may initiate litigation or other proceedings seeking to invalidate patents owned by or licensed to us or to obtain a declaratory judgment that their product or technology does not infringe our patents or patents licensed to us;

•

third parties may initiate opposition or reexamination proceedings challenging the validity or scope of our patent rights, requiring us or our strategic partners and/or licensors to participate in such proceedings to defend the validity and scope of our patents;

•

there may be a challenge or dispute regarding inventorship or ownership of patents or trade secrets currently identified as being owned by or licensed to us;

•

the USPTO may initiate an interference between patents or patent applications owned by or licensed to us and those of our competitors, requiring us or our strategic partners and/or licensors to participate in an interference proceeding to determine the priority of invention, which could jeopardize our patent rights; or

•

third parties may seek approval to market biosimilar versions of our future approved products prior to expiration of relevant patents owned by or licensed to us, requiring us to defend our patents, including by filing lawsuits alleging patent infringement.

These lawsuits and proceedings would be costly and could affect our results of operations and divert the attention of our managerial and scientific personnel. Adversaries in these proceedings may have the ability to dedicate substantially greater resources to prosecuting these legal actions than we or our licensors can. There is a risk that a court or administrative body would decide that our patents are invalid or not infringed or trade secrets not misappropriated by a third party’s activities, or that the scope of certain issued claims must be further limited. An adverse outcome in a litigation or proceeding involving our own patents or trade secrets could limit our ability to assert our patents or trade secrets against these or other competitors, affect our ability to receive royalties or other licensing consideration from our licensees, and may curtail or preclude our ability to exclude third parties from making, using and selling similar or competitive products. Any of these occurrences could adversely affect our competitive business position, business prospects and financial condition.

We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, infringement or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Any litigation or other proceedings to enforce our intellectual property rights may fail, and even if successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees.

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

The degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain because legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep our competitive advantage. For example:

•

others may be able to develop a platform that is similar to, or better than, ours in a way that is not covered by the claims of our patents;

•

others may be able to make compounds that are similar to our product candidates but that are not covered by the claims of our patents;

•

we might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by patents or pending patent applications;

•

we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions;

•

any patents that we obtain may not provide us with any competitive advantages or may ultimately be found invalid or unenforceable; or

•

we may not develop additional proprietary technologies that are patentable or that afford meaningful trade secret protection.

Patent terms may be inadequate to protect our competitive position on our product candidates for an adequate amount of time.

Patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, if all maintenance fees are timely paid, the natural expiration of a patent is generally 20 years from its earliest U.S. non-provisional filing date. Various extensions may be available, but the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Even if patents covering our product candidates are obtained, once the patent life has expired, we may be open to competition from competitive products, including biosimilars. Given the amount of time required for the development, testing and regulatory review of new product candidates, patents protecting such candidates might expire before or shortly after such candidates are commercialized. As a result, our owned and licensed patent portfolio may not provide us with sufficient rights to exclude others from commercializing products similar or identical to ours.

If we do not obtain protection under the Hatch-Waxman amendments and similar foreign legislation for extending the term of patents covering each of our product candidates, our business may be materially harmed.

Depending upon the timing, duration and conditions of FDA marketing approval of our product candidates, one or more of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent term extension of up to five years for a patent covering an approved product as compensation for effective patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process. However, we may not receive an extension if we fail to apply within applicable deadlines, fail to apply prior to expiration of relevant patents or otherwise fail to satisfy applicable requirements. Moreover, the length of the extension could be less than we request. If we are unable to obtain patent term extension or the term of any such extension is less than we request, the period during which we can enforce our patent rights for that product will be shortened and our competitors may obtain approval to market competing products sooner. As a result, our revenue from applicable products could be reduced, possibly materially. Further, if this occurs, our competitors may take advantage of our investment in development and trials by referencing our clinical and preclinical data and launch their product earlier than might otherwise be the case.

If we are unable to protect the confidentiality of our proprietary information, the value of our technology and products could be adversely affected.

In addition to patent protection, we also rely on other proprietary rights, including protection of trade secrets, and other proprietary information. For example, we treat our proprietary computational technologies, including unpatented know-how and other proprietary information, as trade secrets. To maintain the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information, we enter into confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, strategic partners and others upon the commencement of their relationships with us. These agreements require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. Our agreements with employees and our personnel policies also provide that any inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. However, we may not obtain these agreements in all circumstances, and individuals with whom we have these agreements may not comply with their terms. Thus, despite such agreement, such inventions may become assigned to third parties. In the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our trade secrets or proprietary information, these agreements, even if obtained, may not provide meaningful protection, particularly for our trade secrets or other confidential information. To the extent that our employees, consultants or contractors use technology or know-how owned by third parties in their work for us, disputes may arise between us and those third parties as to the rights in related inventions. To the extent that an individual who is not obligated to assign rights in intellectual property to us is rightfully an inventor of intellectual property, we may need to obtain an assignment or a license to that intellectual property from that individual, or a third party or from that individual’s assignee. Such assignment or license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret is difficult, expensive and time-consuming and the outcome is unpredictable. The disclosure of our trade secrets would impair our competitive position and may materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. In addition, if any of our trade secrets were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor, we would have no right to prevent such third party, or those to whom they communicate such technology or information, from using that technology or information to compete with us. If any of our trade secrets were to be disclosed to or independently developed by a competitor, or if we otherwise lose protection for our trade secrets or proprietary know-how, the value of this information may be greatly reduced and our business and competitive position could be harmed. Adequate remedies may not exist in the event of unauthorized use or disclosure of our proprietary information.

As is common in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, we employ individuals who were previously or concurrently employed at research institutions and/or other biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies, including our competitors or potential competitors. We may be subject to claims that these employees, or we, have inadvertently or otherwise used or disclosed trade secrets or other proprietary information of their former employers, or that patents and applications we have filed to protect inventions of these employees, even those related to one or more of our product candidates, are rightfully owned by their former or concurrent employer. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these claims. Such trade secrets or other proprietary information could be awarded to a third party, and we could be required to obtain a license from such third party to commercialize our technology or products. Such license may not be available on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Even if we are successful in defending against these claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management.

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

Periodic maintenance fees, renewal fees, annuity fees and various other governmental fees on patents or applications will be due to the USPTO and various foreign patent offices at various points over the lifetime of our patents or applications. We have systems in place to remind us to pay these fees, and we rely on our outside patent annuity service to pay these fees when due. Additionally, the USPTO and various foreign patent offices require compliance with a number of procedural, documentary, fee payment and other similar provisions during the patent application process. We employ reputable law firms and other professionals to help us comply, and in many cases an inadvertent lapse can be cured by payment of a late fee or by other means in accordance with rules applicable to the particular jurisdiction. However, there are situations in which noncompliance can result in abandonment or lapse of the patent or patent application, resulting in partial or complete loss of patent rights in the relevant jurisdiction. If such an event were to occur, it could have a material adverse effect on our business.

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

Although we are not currently experiencing any claims challenging the inventorship or ownership of our patents, we may in the future be subject to claims that former employees, strategic partners or other third parties have an interest in our patents or other intellectual property as an inventor or co-inventor. While it is our policy to require our employees and contractors who may be involved in the conception or development of intellectual property to execute agreements assigning such intellectual property to us, we may be unsuccessful in executing such an agreement with each party who, in fact, conceives or develops intellectual property that we regard as our own. For example, the assignment of intellectual property rights may not be self-executing or the assignment agreements may be breached, or we may have inventorship disputes arise from conflicting obligations of consultants or others who are involved in developing our product candidates. Litigation may be necessary to defend against these and other claims challenging inventorship. If we fail in defending any such claims, in addition to paying monetary damages, we may lose valuable intellectual property rights, such as exclusive ownership of, or right to use, valuable intellectual property. Even if we are successful in defending against such claims, litigation could result in substantial costs and be a distraction to management and other employees.

Patent protection and patent prosecution for some of our product candidates may be dependent on, and the ability to assert patents and defend them against claims of invalidity may be maintained by, third parties.

There may be times in the future when certain patents that relate to our product candidates or any approved products are controlled by our licensees or licensors. Although we may, under such arrangements, have rights to consult with our strategic partners on actions taken as well as back-up rights of prosecution and enforcement, we have in the past and may in the future relinquish rights to prosecute and maintain patents and patent applications within our portfolio as well as the ability to assert such patents against infringers.

If any current or future licensee or licensor with rights to prosecute, assert or defend patents related to our product candidates fails to appropriately prosecute and maintain patent protection for patents covering any of our product candidates, or if patents covering any of our product candidates are asserted against infringers or defended against claims of invalidity or unenforceability in a manner which adversely affects such coverage, our ability to develop and commercialize any such product candidate may be adversely affected and we may not be able to prevent competitors from making, using and selling competing products.

Changes in patent laws or patent jurisprudence could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

The patent positions of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. Changes in either the patent laws or in the interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or found to be enforceable in our patents, in our strategic partners’ patents or in third-party patents. The United States has enacted and is currently implementing wide-ranging patent reform legislation. Further, recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings have either narrowed the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weakened the rights of patent owners in certain situations. In addition to increasing uncertainty with regard to our ability to obtain patents in the future, this combination of events has created uncertainty with respect to the validity, scope and value of patents, once obtained.

For our U.S. patent applications containing a priority claim after March 16, 2013, there is a greater level of uncertainty in the patent law. In September 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, also known as the America Invents Act, or AIA, was signed into law. The AIA includes a number of significant changes to U.S. patent law, including provisions that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and may also affect patent litigation.

The AIA and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding the prosecution of our patent applications and the enforcement or defense of our issued patents, all of which could have an adverse effect on our business. An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties disclosing or claiming the same invention. A third party that has filed, or does file a patent application in the USPTO after March 16, 2013 but before us, could be awarded a patent covering a given invention, even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This requires us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal court necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.

Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may weaken our and our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents we and our licensors or partners may obtain in the future.

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

Filing, prosecuting and defending patents on product candidates in all countries throughout the world would be prohibitively expensive, and our intellectual property rights in some countries outside the United States can be less extensive than those in the United States. In addition, the laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the United States. Consequently, we may not be able to prevent third parties from practicing our inventions in all countries outside the United States, or from selling or importing products made using our inventions in and into the United States or other jurisdictions. Competitors may use our technologies in jurisdictions where we have not obtained patent protection to develop their own products and further, may export otherwise infringing products to territories where we have patent protection, but enforcement is not as strong as that in the United States. These products may compete with our current or future products, if any, and our patents or other intellectual property rights may not be effective or sufficient to prevent them from competing. Recent United States Supreme Court cases have narrowed the scope of what is considered patentable subject matter, for example, in the areas of software and diagnostic methods involving the association between treatment outcome and biomarkers. This could impact our ability to patent certain aspects of our technology in the United States.

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

Additionally, the requirements for patentability may differ in certain countries, particularly developing countries. For example, unlike other countries, China has a heightened requirement for patentability, and specifically requires a detailed description of medical uses of a claimed drug. In India, unlike the United States, there is no link between regulatory approval of a drug and its patent status. In addition to India, certain countries in Europe and developing countries, including China, have compulsory licensing laws under which a patent owner may be compelled to grant licenses to third parties. In those countries, we and our licensors may have limited remedies if patents are infringed or if we or our licensors are compelled to grant a license to a third party, which could materially diminish the value of those patents. This could limit our potential revenue opportunities. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we own or license.

We will need to obtain FDA approval for any proposed product candidate names, and any failure or delay associated with such approval may adversely affect our business.

Any proprietary name or trademark we intend to use for our product candidates will require approval from the FDA regardless of whether we have secured a formal trademark registration from the USPTO. The FDA typically conducts a review of proposed product candidate names, including an evaluation of the potential for confusion with other product names. The FDA may also object to a product name if it believes the name inappropriately implies certain medical claims or contributes to an overstatement of efficacy. If the FDA objects to any product candidate names we propose, we may be required to adopt an alternative name for our product candidates. If we adopt an alternative name, we would lose the benefit of any existing trademark applications for such product candidate and may be required to expend significant additional resources in an effort to identify a suitable product name that would qualify under applicable trademark laws, not infringe the existing rights of third parties and be acceptable to the FDA. We may be unable to build a successful brand identity for a new trademark in a timely manner or at all, which would limit our ability to commercialize our product candidates.

Risks Related to Additional Legal and Compliance Matters

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, including noncompliance with regulatory standards and requirements and insider trading.

We are exposed to the risk of employee fraud or other misconduct. Misconduct by employees could include intentional failures to comply with FDA regulations, to provide accurate information to the FDA, to comply with federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws and regulations, to report financial information or data accurately or to disclose unauthorized activities to us. In particular, sales, marketing and business arrangements in the health care industry are subject to extensive laws and regulations intended to prevent fraud, misconduct, kickbacks, self-dealing and other abusive practices. These laws and regulations may restrict or prohibit a wide range of pricing, discounting, marketing and promotion, sales commission, customer incentive programs and other business arrangements. Employee misconduct could also involve the improper use of information obtained in the course of clinical trials, which could result in regulatory sanctions and serious harm to our reputation. We have adopted a Code of Conduct and Business Ethics, or Code of Conduct, but it is not always possible to identify and deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses or in protecting us from governmental investigations or other actions or lawsuits stemming from a failure to comply with these laws or regulations. If any such actions are instituted against us, and we are not successful in defending ourselves or asserting our rights, those actions could have a significant impact on our business, including the imposition of significant fines or other sanctions.

If we market products in a manner that violates healthcare fraud and abuse laws, or if we violate government price reporting laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

In addition to FDA restrictions on the marketing of pharmaceutical products, federal and state healthcare laws restrict certain business practices in the biopharmaceutical industry. Although we currently do not have any products on the market, we may be subject, and once our product candidates are approved and we begin commercialization will be subject, to additional healthcare laws and regulations enforced by the federal government and by authorities in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. These state and federal healthcare laws, commonly referred to as “fraud and abuse” laws, have been applied in recent years to restrict certain marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry, and include, but are not limited to, anti-kickback, false claims, data privacy and security and transparency statutes and regulations.

Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid. The federal healthcare program anti-kickback statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. 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. Although there are several statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions 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 exemption or safe harbor. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and federal false claims laws, which may apply to items such as pharmaceutical products and services reimbursed by private insurers. Administrative, civil and criminal sanctions may be imposed under these federal and state laws.

Over the past few years, a number of pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of promotional and marketing activities, such as:

•

providing free trips, free goods, sham consulting fees and grants and other monetary benefits to prescribers;

•

reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates;

•

engaging in off-label promotion; and

•

submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate Program to reduce liability for Medicaid rebates.

The civil monetary penalties statute imposes penalties against any person or entity who, among other things, is determined to have presented or caused to be presented a claim to a federal health program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent.

HIPAA created new federal criminal statutes that prohibit knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud or obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payors, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of, or payment for, healthcare benefits, items or services.

In addition, we may be subject to data privacy and security regulation by both the federal government and the states in which we conduct our business. HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, and its implementing regulations, imposes certain requirements relating to the privacy, security and transmission of individually identifiable health information. Among other things, HITECH makes HIPAA’s security standards directly applicable to business associates—independent contractors or agents of covered entities that receive or obtain protected health information in connection with providing a service on behalf of a covered entity. HITECH also created four new tiers of civil monetary penalties, and newly empowered state attorneys general with the authority to enforce HIPAA. In January 2013, the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued the Final Omnibus Rule under HIPAA pursuant to HITECH that makes significant changes to the privacy, security and breach notification requirements and penalties. The Final Omnibus Rule generally took effect in September 2013 and enhances certain privacy and security protections, and strengthens the government’s ability to enforce HIPAA. The Final Omnibus Rule also enhanced requirements for both covered entities and business associates regarding notification of breaches of unsecured protected health information. In addition, state laws govern the privacy and security of health information in certain circumstances, many of which differ from each other in significant ways. These state laws may not have the same effect and often are not pre-empted by HIPAA, thus complicating compliance efforts.

Additionally, the PPACA also included the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, devices, biologicals and medical supplies for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (with certain exceptions) to report annually information related to certain payments or other transfers of value made or distributed to physicians and teaching hospitals, or to entities or individuals at the request of, or designated on behalf of, the physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually certain ownership and investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to comply with required reporting requirements could subject applicable manufacturers and others to substantial civil money penalties.

Also, many states have similar healthcare statutes or regulations that apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Certain states require pharmaceutical companies to implement a comprehensive compliance program that includes a limit or outright ban on expenditures for, or payments to, individual medical or health professionals and/or require pharmaceutical companies to track and report gifts and other payments made to physicians and other healthcare providers.

If our operations are found to be in violation of any of the healthcare laws or regulations described above or any other laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including potentially significant criminal, civil or administrative penalties, damages, fines, disgorgement, individual imprisonment, exclusion of products from reimbursement under government programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, administrative burdens, diminished profits and future earnings or the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. To the extent that any of our products will be sold in a foreign country, we may be subject to similar foreign laws and regulations, which may include, for instance, applicable post-marketing requirements, including safety surveillance, fraud and abuse laws, and implementation of corporate compliance programs and reporting of payments or transfers of value to healthcare professionals.

If we do not comply with laws regulating the protection of the environment and health and human safety, our business could be adversely affected.

Our research and development involves, and may in the future involve, the use of potentially hazardous materials and chemicals. Our operations may produce hazardous waste products. Although we believe that our safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials comply with the standards mandated by local, state and federal laws and regulations, the risk of accidental contamination or injury from these materials cannot be eliminated. If an accident occurs, we could be held liable for resulting damages, which could be substantial. We are also subject to numerous environmental, health and workplace safety laws and regulations and fire and building codes, including those governing laboratory procedures, exposure to blood-borne pathogens, use and storage of flammable agents and the handling of biohazardous materials. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance as prescribed by the Washington State and the Province of British Columbia to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of these materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us. Additional federal, state and local laws and regulations affecting our operations may be adopted in the future. We may incur substantial costs to comply with, and substantial fines or penalties if we violate, any of these laws or regulations.

We expect to change from foreign private issuer to U.S. domestic issuer status in the future, which may result in additional costs and expenses to us.

We are currently a “foreign private issuer,” as such term is defined in Rule 405 under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and are not subject to the same requirements that are imposed upon U.S. domestic issuers by the SEC. While we have voluntarily chosen to file periodic reports on U.S. domestic issuer forms, such as this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we will maintain our status as a foreign private issuer and are not subject to certain other requirements imposed on U.S. domestic issuers. However, we will no longer be a foreign private issuer if a majority of our common shares are held in the United States and (i) a majority of our directors or executive officers are U.S. citizens or residents; (ii) a majority of our assets are located in the United States; or (iii) our business is administered principally in the United States. As of December 31, 2017, the majority of our common shares are held in the United States. Moreover, the majority of our directors are U.S. citizens. Accordingly, with the expectation that we may no longer be considered a foreign private issuer as of the next determination date, we have voluntarily chosen to file periodic reports on U.S. domestic issuer forms, beginning with this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The next determination date with respect to our foreign private issuer status is June 30, 2018. If, as we expect, we no longer qualify as a foreign private issuer on that determination date, as of January 1, 2019 we will no longer be eligible to use the rules and forms designated for foreign private issuers and we will be considered a U.S. domestic issuer. The regulatory and compliance costs to us under U.S. securities laws as a U.S. domestic issuer may be significantly more than the costs incurred as a foreign private issuer. If we are not a foreign private issuer, we will be required to file periodic and current reports and registration statements on U.S. domestic issuer forms with the SEC, which are generally more detailed and extensive than the forms available to a foreign private issuer. In addition, we will no longer be eligible to rely upon exemptions from corporate governance requirements that are available to foreign private issuers or to benefit from other accomodations for foreign private issuers under the rules of the SEC or NYSE.

Risks Related to Employee Matters and Managing Growth

Our future success depends on our ability to retain key executives and to attract, retain and motivate qualified personnel.

We are highly dependent on the research and development, clinical and business expertise of Dr. Ali Tehrani, Ph.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Neil Klompas, our Chief Financial Officer, and other members of our senior management, scientific and clinical team. Although we have entered into employment agreements with our executive officers, each of them may terminate their employment with us at any time. We currently maintain “key person” insurance coverage for Dr. Tehrani (C$5.0 million) and Mr. Neil Klompas (C$2.0 million). The loss of the services of our executive officers or other key employees could impede the achievement of our research, development and commercialization objectives and seriously harm our ability to successfully implement our business strategy.

Recruiting and retaining qualified scientific, clinical, manufacturing and sales and marketing personnel will also be critical to our success. In addition, we will need to expand and effectively manage our managerial, operational, financial, development and other resources in order to successfully pursue our research, development and commercialization efforts for our existing and future product candidates. Furthermore, replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited talent pool in our industry due to the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully develop, gain regulatory approval of and commercialize products. Intense competition for attracting key skill-sets may limit our ability to retain and motivate these key personnel on acceptable terms. We also experience competition for the hiring of scientific and clinical personnel from universities and research institutions. In addition, we rely on consultants and advisors, including scientific and clinical advisors, to assist us in formulating our research and development and commercialization strategy. Our consultants and advisors may be employed by employers other than us and may have commitments under consulting or advisory contracts with other entities that may limit their availability. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high quality personnel, our ability to pursue our growth strategy will be limited.

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

As of December 31, 2017, we had 145 full-time employees. As our development and commercialization plans and strategies develop, we expect to expand our employee base for managerial, operational, financial and other resources. Additionally, as our product candidates enter and advance through preclinical studies and any clinical trials, we will need to expand our development, manufacturing, regulatory sales and marketing capabilities or contract with other organizations to provide these capabilities for us. Future growth would impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain, motivate and integrate additional employees. Also, our management may need to divert a disproportionate amount of their attention away from our day-to-day activities and devote a substantial amount of time to managing these growth activities. We may not be able to effectively manage the expansion of our operations, which may result in weaknesses in our infrastructure, give rise to operational errors, loss of business opportunities, loss of employees and reduced productivity amongst remaining employees. Our expected growth could require significant capital expenditures and may divert financial resources from other projects, such as the development of existing and additional product candidates. If our management is unable to effectively manage our expected growth, our expenses may increase more than expected, our ability to generate or grow revenue could be reduced and we may not be able to implement our business strategy. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our product candidates and compete effectively with others in our industry will depend on our ability to effectively manage any future growth.

Risks Related to Our Common Shares

Our share price is likely to be volatile and the market price of our common shares may drop below the price paid by shareholders.

Investors should consider an investment in our common shares as risky and invest only if they can withstand a significant loss and wide fluctuations in the market value of their investment. In addition, the stock market has recently experienced significant volatility, particularly with respect to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks. The volatility of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other life sciences company stocks often does not relate to the operating performance of the companies represented by the stock. Some of the factors that may cause the market price of our common shares to fluctuate or decrease include:

•

results and timing of our clinical trials and clinical trials of our competitors’ products;

•

failure or discontinuation of any of our development programs;

•

issues in manufacturing our product candidates or future approved products;

•

regulatory developments or enforcement in the United States and foreign countries with respect to our product candidates or our competitors’ products;

•

competition from existing products or new products that may emerge;

•

developments or disputes concerning patents or other proprietary rights;

•

introduction of technological innovations or new commercial products by us or our competitors;

•

announcements by us, our strategic partners or our competitors of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships, joint ventures, or capital commitments;

•

changes in estimates or recommendations by securities analysts that cover our common shares;

•

fluctuations in the valuation of companies perceived by investors to be comparable to us;

•

public concern over our product candidates or any future approved products;

•

litigation;

•

future sales of our common shares;

•

share price and volume fluctuations attributable to inconsistent trading volume levels of our shares;

•

additions or departures of key personnel;

•

changes in the structure of health care payment systems in the United States or overseas;

•

failure of any of our product candidates, if approved, to achieve commercial success;

•

economic and other external factors or other disasters or crises;

•

period-to-period fluctuations in our financial condition and results of operations, including the timing of receipt of any milestone or other payments under commercialization or licensing agreements;

•

general market conditions and market conditions for biopharmaceutical stocks;

•

overall fluctuations in U.S. equity markets; and

•

other factors that may be unanticipated or out of our control.

In addition, in the past, when the market price of a stock has been volatile, holders of that stock have instituted securities class action litigation against the company that issued the stock. If any of our shareholders brought a lawsuit against us, we could incur substantial costs defending the lawsuit and divert the time and attention of our management, which could seriously harm our business.

An active trading market for our common shares may not be sustained.

An active trading market for our shares may not be sustained. If an active market for our common shares does not continue, it may be difficult for our shareholders to sell their shares without depressing the market price for the shares or sell their shares at or above the prices at which they acquired their shares or sell their shares at the time they would like to sell. Any inactive trading market for our common shares may also impair our ability to raise capital to continue to fund our operations by selling shares and may impair our ability to acquire other companies or technologies by using our shares as consideration.

Substantial future sales of our common shares, or the perception that these sales could occur, may cause the price of our common shares to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.

A large volume of sales of our common shares could decrease the prevailing market price of our common shares and could impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities in the future. Even if a substantial number of sales of our common shares does not occur, the mere perception of the possibility of these sales could depress the market price of our common shares and have a negative effect on our ability to raise capital in the future.

We incur significant costs as a result of operating as a public company, and our management is required to devote substantial time to corporate governance standards.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. In addition, our administrative staff are required to perform additional tasks not required for a private company. For example, as a public company, we have adopted additional internal controls and disclosure controls and procedures, retained a transfer agent and adopted an insider trading policy. As a public company, we bear all of the internal and external costs of preparing and distributing periodic public reports in compliance with our obligations under the securities laws. We expect these costs to increase in 2018 as we transition from filing periodic and current reports and registration statements, as applicable, with the SEC on forms available to foreign private issuers to those required to be filed by domestic issuers and to otherwise prepare for the anticipated change from a foreign private issuer to a U.S. domestic issuer.

In addition, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the related rules and regulations implemented by the SEC, the applicable Canadian securities regulators, the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, and the Toronto Stock Exchange, or TSX, have legal and financial compliance costs and make some compliance activities time consuming. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and such investment will result in increased general and administrative expenses and may divert management’s time and attention from our other business activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed. Additionally, as a public company, we maintain our directors’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage, which results in higher insurance costs. In the future, it may be more expensive or more difficult for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee and compensation committee, and qualified executive officers.

Under the corporate governance standards of the NYSE, a majority of our board of directors and each member of our audit committee must be an independent director no later than the first anniversary of the completion of our initial public offering (IPO). The policies of the TSX require our board of directors to consist of at least two independent directors and Canadian securities laws require each member of the audit committee to be independent within the meaning of Canadian securities laws. As of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we meet these requirements but we may in the future encounter difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified persons to serve on our board of directors and the audit committee, and our board of directors and management may be required to divert significant time and attention and resources away from our business to identify qualified directors. If we fail to attract and retain the required number of independent directors, we may be subject to the delisting of our common shares from the NYSE and TSX.

As a foreign private issuer, we are subject to different U.S. securities laws and rules than a U.S. domestic issuer, in particular, certain disclosure requirements, which could limit the information publicly available to our shareholders.

As a foreign private issuer, we are currently not required to comply with all of the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that apply to U.S. domestic issuers and, as such, there may be less publicly available information about us than if we were a U.S. domestic issuer. Furthermore, our officers, directors and principal shareholders are currently exempt from the insider reporting and short-swing profit recovery requirements in Section 16 of the Exchange Act. Accordingly, our shareholders may not know on as timely a basis when our officers, directors and principal shareholders purchase or sell their common shares, as the reporting deadlines under the corresponding Canadian insider reporting requirements are longer. As a foreign private issuer, we are also exempt from the requirements of Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) which, generally, are meant to ensure that select groups of investors are not privy to specific information about an issuer before other investors. As a result of such varied reporting obligations, shareholders should not expect to receive the same information at the same time as information provided by U.S. domestic issuers.

In addition, as a foreign private issuer, we have the option to follow certain Canadian corporate governance practices rather than those of the United States, except to the extent that such laws would be contrary to U.S. securities laws, provided that we disclose the requirements we are not following and describe the Canadian practices we follow instead. As a result, our shareholders may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all domestic U.S. corporate governance requirements. As described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, we expect to no longer qualify as a foreign private issuer as of our next determination date of June 30, 2018, such that as of January 1, 2019, we will be considered a U.S. domestic issuer.

We are an emerging growth company, and any decision on our part to comply only with certain reduced reporting and disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies could make our common shares less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may choose to take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including, but not limited to, not being required to have our independent registered public accounting firm audit our internal control over financial reporting under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years following the completion of our IPO on May 3, 2017, although, if we have more than $1.07 billion in annual revenue, if the market value of our common shares held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of June 30 of any year, or we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt over a three-year period before the end of that five-year period, we would cease to be an emerging growth company as of the following December 31. Investors could find our common shares less attractive if we choose to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and our share price may be more volatile.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, shareholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and the trading price of our common shares.

Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, are designed to prevent fraud. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations.

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or Section 404, and related rules adopted by the SEC and the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, and National Instrument 52-109 – Certification of Disclosure in Issuers’ Annual and Interim Filings, or NI 52-109, our management is required to disclose changes made in our internal control over financial reporting on a quarterly basis and assess the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures annually. We have elected to take advantage of certain exceptions from reporting requirements that are available to emerging growth companies under the JOBS Act and therefore we are not required to deliver an auditor’s attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 until after the date we are no longer an emerging growth company. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years from our IPO, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier, including if the market value of our shares held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of any June 30 before that time, in which case we would no longer be an emerging growth company as of the following December 31. An independent assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control could detect problems that our management’s assessment might not. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our common shares.

Our management and independent registered public accounting firm did not perform an evaluation of the design and operating effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with the provisions of Section 404 and NI 52-109 as of December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016. Had we and our independent registered public accounting firm performed such an evaluation, control deficiencies may have been identified by management or our independent registered public accounting firm, and those control deficiencies could have also represented one or more material weaknesses. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

As of December 31, 2017, our management did perform an evaluation of the design and operating effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, or 2013 COSO Framework, in accordance with the provisions of NI 52-109. However, no independent assessment of the design and operating effectiveness of our internal controls was performed by our independent registered public accounting firm as of December 31, 2017 pursuant to certain exceptions under the JOBS Act, as described above. Had our independent registered public accounting firm performed such an evaluation, control deficiencies may have been identified by our independent registered public accounting firm and those control deficiencies could have also represented one or more material weaknesses. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal controls could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation.

We are at risk of securities class action litigation.

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been brought against a company following a decline in the market price of its securities. This risk is especially relevant for us because biotechnology companies have experienced significant stock price volatility in recent years and our stock price declined following our IPO. If we face such litigation, it could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could materially harm our business.

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends, and accordingly, shareholders must rely on share appreciation for any return on their investment.

We have never paid any dividends on our common shares. We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, to fund the development and growth of our business and do not anticipate that we will declare or pay any cash dividends on our common shares in the foreseeable future. As a result, capital appreciation, if any, of our common shares will be the sole source of gain on investment in our common shares for the foreseeable future. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our common shares.

The NYSE or TSX may delist our securities from its exchange, which could limit investors’ ability to make transactions in our securities and subject us to additional trading restrictions.

Our securities may fail to meet the continued listing requirements to be listed on the NYSE or TSX. If the NYSE or TSX delists our common shares from trading on its exchange, we could face significant material adverse consequences, including:

•

a limited availability of market quotations for our securities;

•

a determination that our common shares is a “penny stock” which will require brokers trading in our common shares to adhere to more stringent rules and possibly result in a reduced level of trading activity in the secondary trading market for our common shares;

•

a limited amount of news and analyst coverage for our company; and

•

a decreased ability to issue additional securities or obtain additional financing in the future.

We are governed by the corporate laws of Canada which in some cases have a different effect on shareholders than the corporate laws of the United States.

We are governed by the BCBCA and other relevant laws, which may affect the rights of shareholders differently than those of a company governed by the laws of a U.S. jurisdiction, and may, together with our charter documents, have the effect of delaying, deferring or discouraging another party from acquiring control of our company by means of a tender offer, a proxy contest or otherwise, or may affect the price an acquiring party would be willing to offer in such an instance. The material differences between the BCBCA and Delaware General Corporation Law, or DGCL, that may have the greatest such effect include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) for certain corporate transactions (such as mergers and amalgamations or amendments to our articles) the BCBCA generally requires the voting threshold to be a special resolution approved by 66 ²/₃% of shareholders, or as set out in the articles, as applicable, whereas DGCL generally only requires a majority vote; and (ii) under the BCBCA a holder of 5% or more of our common shares can requisition a special meeting of shareholders, whereas such right does not exist under the DGCL. We cannot predict whether investors will find our company and our common shares less attractive because we are governed by foreign laws.

U.S. civil liabilities may not be enforceable against us, our directors, our officers or certain experts named in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We are governed by the BCBCA and our principal place of business is in Canada. Many of our directors and officers, as well as certain experts named herein, reside outside of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of their assets as well as all or a substantial portion of our assets are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process within the United States upon us and such directors, officers and experts or to enforce judgments obtained against us or such persons, in U.S. courts, in any action, including actions predicated upon the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws or any other laws of the United States. Additionally, rights predicated solely upon civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws or any other laws of the United States may not be enforceable in original actions, or actions to enforce judgments obtained in U.S. courts, brought in Canadian courts, including courts in the Province of British Columbia. Furthermore, provisions in our articles provide that, unless we consent in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the appellate courts therefrom, to the fullest extent permitted by law, will be the sole and exclusive forum for certain actions or proceedings brought against us, our directors and/or our officers. These provisions may limit our shareholders’ ability to bring a claim against us in a judicial forum that our shareholders consider favorable or convenient for such disputes and may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our share price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common shares will depend on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. We do not have any control over these analysts. We cannot assure that analysts will cover us or provide accurate or favorable coverage. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or change their opinion of our common shares negatively, our share price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our share price or trading volume to decline. Moreover, the research and reports that analysts publish may suggest a price for our common shares that does not fully or accurately reflect the true value of our company. Furthermore, even if such analyst publications are favorable, these reports could have negative consequences for us.

U.S. holders of the company’s shares may suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company.

We believe that we were not classified as a passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, for the taxable year ending December 31, 2017. However, the determination as to whether we are a PFIC for any taxable year is based on the application of complex U.S. federal income tax rules that are subject to differing interpretations. If we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which a U.S. Holder (as defined under Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities – Certain United States Income Tax Considerations For United States Holders”) holds the common shares, it would likely result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences for such U.S. Holder. U.S. Holders should carefully read Item 5, “Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities – Certain United States Income Tax Considerations For United States Holders” for more information and consult their own tax advisors regarding the likelihood and consequences if we are treated as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes, including the advisability of making a “qualified electing fund” election (including a protective election), which may mitigate certain possible adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences but may result in an inclusion in gross income without receipt of such income.

Insiders have substantial control over us which could delay or prevent a change in corporate control or result in the entrenchment of management or the board of directors.

Our directors, named executive officers and principal shareholders, together with their affiliates and related persons, beneficially own, in the aggregate, approximately 51.3% of our outstanding common shares as of February 28, 2018. See Item 12, “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Shareholder Matters.” As a result, these shareholders, if acting together, may have the ability to determine the outcome of matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, including the election and removal of directors and any merger, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, these persons, acting together, may have the ability to control the management and affairs of our company. Accordingly, this concentration of ownership may harm the market price of our common shares by:

•

delaying, deferring, or preventing a change in control;

•

entrenching our management or the board of directors;

•

impeding a merger, takeover, or other business combination involving us; or

•

discouraging a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us.

Provisions in our corporate charter documents and Canadian law could make an acquisition of us, which may be beneficial to our shareholders, more difficult and may prevent attempts by our shareholders to replace or remove our current management and/or limit the market price of our common shares.

Provisions in our notice of articles and articles, as well as certain provisions under the BCBCA, and applicable Canadian securities laws, may discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of us that shareholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which they might otherwise receive a premium for their common shares. These provisions include the establishment of a staggered board of directors, which divides the board into three groups, with directors in each group serving a three-year term. The existence of a staggered board can make it more difficult for shareholders to replace or remove incumbent members of our board of directors. As such, these provisions could also limit the price that investors might be willing to pay in the future for our common shares, thereby depressing the market price of our common shares. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our shareholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for shareholders to replace members of our board of directors. Among other things, these provisions include the following:

•

shareholders cannot amend our articles unless such amendment is approved by shareholders holding at least a majority of the shares entitled to vote on such approval;

•

our board of directors may, without shareholder approval, issue preferred shares having any terms, conditions, rights, preferences and privileges as the board of directors may determine; and

•

shareholders must give advance notice to nominate directors or to submit proposals for consideration at shareholders’ meetings.

Item 1B.

Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

Item 2.

Properties

Our headquarters are located in Vancouver, British Columbia, where we occupy 27,068 square feet of office and 11,254 square feet of laboratory space. We lease both our office and laboratory space and the term of each lease expires in August 2021.

Our U.S. office is located in Seattle, Washington, where we occupy approximately 10,922 square feet. We lease this office space and the term of the lease expires in February 2022.

We believe that our existing facilities are adequate to meet our business requirements for the near-term and that additional space will be available on commercially reasonable terms, if required.

Item 3.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, we may become involved in legal proceedings or be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. As of December 31, 2017, we are not a party to any legal proceedings that, in the opinion of our management, would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows if determined adversely to us. Regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources and other factors.

Item 4.

Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5.

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Shareholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Our common shares have been traded on the NYSE and TSX since April 28, 2017 under the symbol “ZYME.” Prior to such time, there was no public market for our common shares. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices per common share as reported on the NYSE and TSX for the periods indicated.


	NYSE				TSX
	High		Low		High		Low
Quarter Ended	US$				C$
31-Dec-17		9.19		6.87		11.50		9.00
30-Sep-17		8.73		6.48		11.05		8.75
30-Jun-17		13.28		8.30		18.60		10.50
April 28, 2017 to December 31, 2017		13.28		6.48		18.60		8.75

On March 1, 2018, the last reported sale price of our common shares on the NYSE was $10.42 per share, and on the TSX was C$13.54 per share.

Holders

As at February 28, 2018, we had 68 shareholders of record holding our common shares of which 10 were U.S. shareholders. A substantially greater number of holders of Zymeworks’ common stock are “street name” or beneficial holders whose shares of record are held by banks, brokers, and other financial institutions.

Dividends

We have never paid any dividends on our common shares or any of our other securities. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance the growth and development of our business, and we do not anticipate that we will declare or pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any future determination to pay cash dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will be dependent upon our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, restrictions under any future indebtedness and other factors the board of directors deems relevant.

Certain Canadian Income Tax Considerations

Dividends

Residents of Canada

Unless stated otherwise, dividends paid by the Company to Canadian residents are “eligible dividends” as defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada).

Non-residents of Canada

Dividends paid or credited to non-residents of Canada are subject to a 25% withholding tax unless reduced by an applicable tax treaty. Under the Canada-United States Tax Convention (1980), or the Convention, U.S. residents who are entitled to all of the benefits of the Convention are generally subject to a 15% withholding tax.

The Canada Revenue Agency allows residents of any country with which Canada has a tax treaty to certify that they reside in that country so they are eligible to have Canadian non-resident tax withheld on the payment of dividends at the reduced tax treaty rate. Registered shareholders should complete the Declaration of Eligibility for Benefits (Reduced Tax) under a Tax Treaty for a Non-Resident Person and return it to our transfer agent, ComputerShare Investor Services Inc.

Certain United States Income Tax Considerations For United States Holders

The following discussion summarizes the anticipated material U.S. federal income tax consequences of the ownership and disposition of our common shares. It applies only to U.S. Holders (as defined below) that acquire and hold our common shares as capital assets (generally, property held for investment purposes) and is of a general nature. This summary should not be construed to constitute legal or tax advice to any particular U.S. Holder.

This section does not apply to U.S. Holders subject to special rules, including, without limitation, brokers, dealers in securities or currencies, traders in securities that elect to use a mark-to-market method of accounting for securities holdings, tax-exempt organizations, insurance companies, banks, thrifts and other financial institutions, persons liable for alternative minimum tax, persons that hold an interest in an entity that holds the common shares, persons that will own, or will have owned, directly, indirectly or constructively 10% or more (by vote or value) of the Company’s equity, persons that hold the common shares as part of a hedging, integration, conversion or constructive sale transaction or a straddle, or persons whose functional currency is not the U.S. dollar.

This discussion does not purport to be a complete analysis of all of the potential U.S. federal income tax considerations that may be relevant to U.S. Holders in light of their particular circumstances. Further, it does not address any aspect of foreign, state, local or estate or gift taxation or the 3.8% surtax imposed on certain net investment income. Each prospective investor in our common shares should consult its own tax advisor as to the U.S. federal, state, local, foreign and any other tax consequences of the ownership and disposition of the common shares.

This discussion is based on the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), its legislative history, U.S. Treasury Regulations, IRS rulings, published court decisions, and the Canada-United States Tax Convention, or the Convention, all as in effect as of the date hereof, and any of which may be repealed, revoked or modified (possibly with retroactive effect) so as to result in U.S. federal income tax consequences different from those discussed below. This summary is applicable to U.S. Holders who are residents of the United States for purposes of the Convention and who qualify for the full benefits of the Convention.

A “U.S. Holder” is a beneficial owner of the common shares who, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is a citizen or individual resident of the United States, a corporation (or other entity that is classified as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes) that is created or organized in or under the laws of the United States or any State thereof or the District of Columbia, an estate whose income is subject to U.S. federal income tax regardless of its source, or a trust (i) if a U.S. court can exercise primary supervision over the trust’s administration and one or more U.S. persons are authorized to control all substantial decisions of the trust, or (ii) that validly elects to be treated as a U.S. person for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

If a partnership or other pass-through entity holds the common shares of the Company, the U.S. federal income tax treatment of a partner, beneficiary, or other stakeholder will generally depend on the status of that person and the tax treatment of the pass-through entity. A partner, beneficiary, or other stakeholder in a pass-through entity holding the common shares should consult its own tax advisor with regard to the U.S. federal income tax treatment of its investment in the common shares.

Distributions on the Common Shares

Subject to the passive foreign investment company, or PFIC, rules discussed below, the gross amount of any distribution received by a U.S. Holder with respect to the common shares (including any amounts withheld to pay Canadian withholding taxes) will be included in the gross income of the U.S. Holder as a dividend to the extent attributable to the Company’s current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles. The Company does not intend to calculate its earnings and profits under U.S. federal income tax rules. Accordingly, U.S. Holders should expect that a distribution generally will be treated as a dividend for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Unless the Company is treated as a PFIC for the taxable year in which it pays a distribution or in the prior taxable year (see “Passive Foreign Investment Company Rules” below), the Company believes that it may qualify as a “qualified foreign corporation,” in which case distributions treated as dividends and received by non-corporate U.S. Holders may be eligible for a preferential tax rate. Distributions on the common shares generally will not be eligible for the dividends received deduction available to U.S. Holders that are corporations.

The amount of any dividend paid in Canadian dollars (including any amounts withheld to pay Canadian withholding taxes) will equal the U.S. dollar value of the Canadian dollars calculated by reference to the exchange rate in effect on the date the dividend is received by the U.S. Holder, regardless of whether the Canadian dollars are converted into U.S. dollars. A U.S. Holder will have a tax basis in the Canadian dollars equal to their U.S. dollar value on the date of receipt. If the Canadian dollars received are converted into U.S. dollars on the date of receipt, the U.S. Holder should generally not be required to recognize foreign currency gain or loss in respect of the distribution. If the Canadian dollars received are not converted into U.S. dollars on the date of receipt, a U.S. Holder may recognize foreign currency gain or loss on a subsequent conversion or other disposition of the Canadian dollars. Such gain or loss will be treated as U.S. source ordinary income or loss.

A U.S. Holder may be entitled to deduct or credit Canadian withholding tax imposed on dividends paid to a U.S. Holder, subject to applicable limitations in the Code. For purposes of calculating a U.S. Holder’s foreign tax credit, dividends received by such U.S. Holder with respect to the common shares of a foreign corporation generally constitute foreign source income. However, and subject to certain exceptions, a portion of the dividends paid by a foreign corporation will be treated as U.S. source income for U.S. foreign tax credit purposes, in proportion to its U.S. source earnings and profits, if U.S. persons own, directly or indirectly, 50% or more of the voting power or value of the foreign corporation’s common shares. If a portion of any dividends paid with respect to the common shares are treated as U.S. source income under these rules, it may limit the ability of a U.S. Holder to claim a foreign tax credit for any Canadian withholding taxes imposed in respect of such dividend. Dividends distributed by the Company will generally constitute “passive category” income for U.S. foreign tax credit purposes. The rules governing the foreign tax credit are complex. U.S. Holders are urged to consult their own tax advisors regarding the availability of the foreign tax credit under their particular circumstances, including the impact of, and any exception available to, the special income sourcing rule described in this paragraph.

Sale, Exchange or Other Taxable Disposition of the Common Shares

Subject to the PFIC rules discussed below, a U.S. Holder will recognize a capital gain or loss on the sale, exchange or other taxable disposition of our common shares in an amount equal to the difference between the amount realized for the common shares and the U.S. Holder’s adjusted tax basis in the common shares. Capital gains of non-corporate U.S. Holders derived with respect to capital assets held for more than one year are eligible for reduced rates of taxation. The deductibility of capital losses is subject to limitations. Any capital gain or loss recognized by a U.S. Holder generally will be treated as U.S. source gain or loss for U.S. foreign tax credit purposes.

Passive Foreign Investment Company Rules

A foreign corporation will be considered a PFIC for any taxable year in which (1) 75% or more of its gross income is “passive income” under the PFIC rules or (2) 50% or more of the average quarterly value of its assets produce (or are held for the production of) “passive income.” For this purpose, “passive income” generally includes interest, dividends, certain rents and royalties, and certain gains. Royalties derived in the active conduct of a trade or business by a corporation in the licensing of property developed or created through its own officers or staff of employees is generally excluded from passive income, and interest, dividends, rents and royalties received from a related person (within the meaning of the PFIC rules) are excluded from passive income to the extent such payments are properly allocable to the active income of such related person. Moreover, for purposes of determining if the foreign corporation is a PFIC, if the foreign corporation owns, directly or indirectly, at least 25%, by value, of the shares of another corporation, it will be treated as if it holds directly its proportionate share of the assets and receives directly its proportionate share of the income of such other corporation. If a corporation is treated as a PFIC with respect to a U.S. Holder for any taxable year, the corporation will continue to be treated as a PFIC with respect to that U.S. Holder in all succeeding taxable years, regardless of whether the corporation continues to meet the PFIC requirements in such years, unless certain elections are made.

The determination as to whether a foreign corporation is a PFIC is based on the application of complex U.S. federal income tax rules, which are subject to differing interpretations, and the determination will depend on the composition of the income, expenses and assets of the foreign corporation from time to time and the nature of the activities performed by its officers and employees. The Company believes that it was not classified as a PFIC for the taxable year ending December 31, 2017. However, the Company cannot provide any assurance regarding its PFIC status for the future taxable years given that the determination of PFIC status is fact-intensive and made on an annual basis. Neither the Company’s U.S. counsel nor U.S. tax advisor expresses any opinion with respect to the Company’s PFIC status or with respect to the Company’s expectations regarding its PFIC status.

If the Company is classified as a PFIC, a U.S. Holder that does not make any of the elections described below would be required to report any gain on the disposition of our common shares as ordinary income, rather than as capital gain, and to compute the tax liability on the gain and any “Excess Distribution” (as defined below) received in respect of common shares as if such items had been earned ratably over each day in the U.S. Holder’s holding period (or a portion thereof) for the common shares. The amounts allocated to the taxable year during which the gain is realized or distribution is made, and to any taxable years in such U.S. Holder’s holding period that are before the first taxable year in which the Company is treated as a PFIC with respect to the U.S. Holder, would be included in the U.S. Holder’s gross income as ordinary income for the taxable year of the gain or distribution. The amount allocated to each other taxable year would be taxed as ordinary income in the taxable year during which the gain is realized or distribution is made at the highest tax rate in effect for the U.S. Holder in that other taxable year and would be subject to an interest charge as if the income tax liabilities had been due with respect to each such prior year. For purposes of these rules, gifts, exchanges pursuant to corporate reorganizations and use of common shares as security for a loan may be treated as a taxable disposition of the common shares. An “Excess Distribution” is the amount by which distributions during a taxable year in respect of a common share exceed 125% of the average amount of distributions in respect thereof during the three preceding taxable years (or, if shorter, the U.S. Holder’s holding period for the common shares).

Certain additional adverse tax rules will apply to a U.S. Holder for any taxable year in which the Company is treated as a PFIC with respect to such U.S. Holder and any of the Company’s subsidiaries is also treated as a PFIC (a “Subsidiary PFIC”). In such a case, the U.S. Holder will generally be deemed to own its proportionate interest (by value) in any Subsidiary PFIC and be subject to the PFIC rules described above with respect to the Subsidiary PFIC regardless of such U.S. Holder’s percentage ownership in the Company.

The adverse tax consequences described above may be mitigated if a U.S. Holder makes a timely “qualified electing fund” election (a “QEF election”) with respect to its interest in the PFIC. Consequently, if the Company is classified as a PFIC, it would likely be advantageous for a U.S. Holder to elect to treat the Company as a “qualified electing fund” (a “QEF”) with respect to such U.S. Holder in the first year in which it holds our common shares. If a U.S. Holder makes a timely QEF election with respect to the Company, the electing U.S. Holder would be required in each taxable year that the Company is considered a PFIC to include in gross income (i) as ordinary income, the U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of the ordinary earnings of the Company and (ii) as capital gain, the U.S. Holder’s pro rata share of the net capital gain (if any) of the Company, whether or not the ordinary earnings or net capital gain are distributed. An electing U.S. Holder’s basis in common shares will be increased to reflect the amount of any taxed but undistributed income. Distributions of income that had previously been taxed will result in a corresponding reduction of basis in the common shares and will not be taxed again as distributions to the U.S. Holder.

A QEF election made with respect to the Company will not apply to any Subsidiary PFIC; a QEF election must be made separately for each Subsidiary PFIC (in which case the treatment described above would apply to such Subsidiary PFIC). If a U.S. Holder makes a timely QEF election with respect to a Subsidiary PFIC, it would be required in each taxable year to include in gross income its pro rata share of the ordinary earnings and net capital gain of such Subsidiary PFIC, but may not receive a distribution of such income. Such a U.S. Holder may, subject to certain limitations, elect to defer payment of current U.S. federal income tax on such amounts, subject to an interest charge (which would not be deductible for U.S. federal income tax purposes if the U.S. Holder were an individual).

If the Company determines that it, and any subsidiary in which the Company owns, directly or indirectly, more than 50% of such subsidiary’s total aggregate voting power, is likely a PFIC in any taxable year, the Company intends to make available to U.S. Holders, upon request and in accordance with applicable procedures, a “PFIC Annual Information Statement” with respect to the Company and any such subsidiary for such taxable year. The “PFIC Annual Information Statement” may be used by U.S. Holders for purposes of complying with the reporting requirements applicable to a QEF election with respect to the Company and any Subsidiary PFIC. The U.S. federal income tax on any gain from the disposition of common shares or from the receipt of Excess Distributions may be greater than the tax if a timely QEF election is made.

Alternatively, if the Company were to be classified as a PFIC, a U.S. Holder could also avoid certain of the rules described above by making a mark-to-market election (instead of a QEF election), provided the common shares are treated as regularly traded on a qualified exchange or other market within the meaning of the applicable U.S. Treasury Regulations. However, a U.S. Holder will not be permitted to make a mark-to-market election with respect to a Subsidiary PFIC. U.S. Holders should consult their own tax advisers regarding the potential availability and consequences of a mark-to-market election, as well as the advisability of making a protective QEF election in case the Company is classified as a PFIC in any taxable year.

During any taxable year in which the Company or any Subsidiary PFIC is treated as a PFIC with respect to a U.S. Holder, that U.S. Holder must file IRS Form 8621. U.S. Holders should consult their own tax advisors concerning annual filing requirements.

Required Disclosure with Respect to Foreign Financial Assets

Certain U.S. Holders are required to report information relating to an interest in our common shares, subject to certain exceptions (including an exception for common shares held in accounts maintained by certain financial institutions), by attaching a completed IRS Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, with their tax return for each year in which they hold an interest in the common shares. U.S. Holders are urged to consult their own tax advisors regarding information reporting requirements relating to their ownership of the common shares.

Performance Graph

This performance graph shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.

The following stock performance graph illustrates a comparison of the total cumulative shareholder return on our common shares from April 28, 2017, which is the date our common shares commenced trading on the NYSE, through December 31, 2017, to two indices: the NYSE Composite Index and the NYSE Arca Biotechnology Index. The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 on April 28, 2017, and, where applicable, includes the reinvestment of dividends.

LOGO

The comparisons in the graph above are required by the SEC and are not intended to forecast or

be indicative of possible future performance of our common shares.

Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

On May 3, 2017, we consummated our initial public offering and sold 4,500,000 shares of common stock at an initial offering price of $13.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of $58.5 million before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses paid by us. On May 31, 2017 we completed the sale of an additional 394,467 shares of common stock at an initial offering price of $13.00 per share pursuant to the partial exercise by the underwriters of their over-allotment option, for additional gross proceeds of $5.1 million before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses paid by us. The offer and sale of all of the shares in our initial public offering, including shares sold pursuant to the over-allotment option, were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a registration statement on Form F-1 (File No. 333-217100), which was declared effective by the SEC on April 27, 2017. No additional shares were registered. The joint book-running managers for our initial public offering were Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., and Wells Fargo Securities LLC. Canaccord Genuity Corp. served as lead manager, and Cormack Securities Inc. served as co-manager for our initial public offering. Shares of our common stock began trading on the TSX and NYSE on April 28, 2017.

We received net proceeds from our initial public offering of approximately $54.2 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $4.5 million and offering expenses of approximately $4.9 million. None of the expenses associated with our initial public offering were paid to directors, officers, persons owning 10% or more of any class of equity securities, or to their associates, or to our affiliates. There has been no material change in the use of proceeds from our planned “Use of Proceeds” as described in the final prospectus dated as of April 27, 2017 and filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) under the Securities Act on April 28, 2017.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

From January 1, 2017 until April 28, 2017, we granted our employees, consultants and advisors options to purchase an aggregate of 450,057 common shares under our equity compensation plans at exercise prices ranging from C$22.60 to C$22.65 per share. The options were either issued in an offshore transaction pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act or pursuant to Rule 701 under the Securities Act as transactions pursuant to written compensatory plans or pursuant to a written contract relating to compensation.

Issuer Repurchases of Equity Securities

None.

Item 6.

Selected Financial Data

The following selected financial data is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” and Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected Consolidated Statement of Operations Data for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 and Consolidated Balance Sheet Data as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected Consolidated Statement of Operations Data for the year ended December 31, 2014 and Consolidated Balance Sheet Data as of December 31, 2015 have been derived from our audited financial statements that are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Our audited annual consolidated financial statements have been prepared in U.S. dollars and in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017			2016			2015			2014
	(dollars in thousands except share and per share amounts)
Consolidated Statement of Operations Data
Revenue	$	51,762		$	11,009		$	9,660		$	1,670
Operating Expenses:
Research and development		41,749			36,816			24,654			12,622
Government grants and credits		(1,075	)		(1,265	)		(251	)		(2,149	)

		40,674			35,551			24,403			10,473
General and administrative		18,550			12,554			5,217			3,945
Impairment on acquired IPR&D		1,536			768			-			-

Total operating expenses		60,760			48,873			29,620			14,418

Loss from Operations		(8,998	)		(37,864	)		(19,960	)		(12,748	)
Change in fair value of warrant liabilities		2,450			(808	)		-			-
Other income (expense)		(3,414	)		(212	)		824			(194	)

Loss before income taxes		(9,962	)		(38,884	)		(19,136	)		(12,942	)
Income tax expense		(429	)		(430	)		(34	)		-
Deferred income tax expense (recovery)		(15	)		5,505			-			-

Net loss	$	(10,406	)	$	(33,809	)	$	(19,170	)	$	(12,942	)

Net loss per common share (basic) ⁽¹⁾		(0.51	)		(2.65	)		(1.70	)		(1.77	)
Net loss per common share (diluted)⁽¹⁾		(0.64	)		(2.65	)		(1.70	)		(1.77	)
Weighted-average number of common shares (basic)⁽¹⁾		21,249,414			12,736,567			11,266,451			7,323,985
Weighted-average number of commons shares (diluted)⁽¹⁾		21,321,209			12,736,567			11,266,451			7,323,985

(1)

See “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies – Net Income (Loss) Per Share” for an explanation of the method used to calculate basic and diluted net income (loss) per common share and the weighted-average number of common shares used in computation of the per common share amounts.


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017		2016		2015
	(dollars in thousands)
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data
Cash and cash equivalents	$	35,946	$	16,437	$	11,519
Short term investments		51,851		23,824		3,641
Working capital		77,674		29,928		12,828
Long-term obligations		866		9,577		59
Total assets		131,955		93,995		23,149
Total liabilities		15,527		26,133		4,910
Redeemable convertible preferred shares		–		58,860		–
Total shareholders’ equity		116,428		9,002		18,239

Item 7.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the attached financial statements and notes thereto. This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the following sections, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. For a detailed discussion of these risks and uncertainties, see Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We caution the reader not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect management’s analysis only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements which reflect events or circumstances occurring after the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Throughout this discussion, unless the context specifies or implies otherwise, the terms “Zymeworks,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Zymeworks Inc. and its subsidiary.

Overview

Initial Public Offering

On May 3, 2017, we successfully closed our initial public offering (the “IPO”) pursuant to which the we sold 4,894,467 common shares (including the sale of 394,467 common shares to the underwriters upon their partial exercise of their over-allotment option to purchase additional common shares on May 31, 2017). The public offering price of the common shares sold in the IPO was $13.00 per share. We received net proceeds of approximately $54.2 million, after underwriting discounts, commissions and estimated offering expenses. The common shares are listed for trading on the New York Stock Exchange and the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol “ZYME”.

Description of Business and Products

Our lead product candidate, ZW25, is a novel bispecific (dual-targeting) antibody which targets two distinct domains of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, or HER2. In our adaptive Phase 1 clinical trial, ZW25 has been well tolerated with promising single agent anti-tumor activity in patients with heavily pretreated HER2-expressing cancers that have progressed after standard of care, including multiple HER2-targeted regimens. Its unique design may enable ZW25 to address patient populations with all levels of HER2 expression, including those with low to intermediate HER2-expressing tumors, who are otherwise limited to chemotherapy or hormone therapy. Approximately 81% of patients with HER2-expressing breast cancer and 57% of patients with HER2-expressing gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer have tumors that express low to intermediate levels of HER2, making them ineligible for treatment with currently approved HER2-targeted therapies, such as Herceptin and Perjeta, which generated combined sales of $9.5 billion in 2017. Our second product candidate, ZW49, capitalizes on the unique design of ZW25 and is a bispecific antibody-drug conjugate, or ADC, based on the same antibody framework as ZW25 but armed with our proprietary ZymeLink-cytotoxic (potent cancer cell-killing) payload. ZW49 is being advanced in lieu of our prior product candidate, ZW33, based on ZW49’s superior therapeutic window (range of doses that are both efficacious and tolerable) and proprietary linker and cytotoxic payload. We designed ZW49 to be a best-in-class HER2-targeting ADC for several indications characterized by HER2 expression, for which we expect to file an Investigational New Drug, or IND, application in 2018. We are also advancing a deep pipeline of preclinical product candidates and discovery-stage programs in immuno-oncology and other therapeutic areas. In addition to our wholly owned pipeline, two of our therapeutic platforms have been further leveraged through multiple revenue-generating strategic partnerships with the following global pharmaceutical companies: Merck Sharp & Dohme Research Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Celgene Corporation and Celgene Alpine Investment Co. LLC, GlaxoSmithKline Intellectual Property Development Limited, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., and Janssen Biotech, Inc. or “Merck”, “Lilly”, “Celgene”, “GSK”, “Daiichi Sankyo” and “Janssen”, respectively.

Our proprietary capabilities and technologies include four modular, complementary therapeutic platforms that can be easily used in combination with each other and with existing approaches. This ability to layer technologies without compromising manufacturability enables us to engineer next-generation biotherapeutics with synergistic activity, which we believe will result in superior patient outcomes. Our core platforms include Azymetric, ZymeLink, EFECT and AlbuCORE. Our protein engineering expertise and proprietary structure-guided molecular modeling capabilities enable these therapeutic platforms. Together with our internal antibody discovery and generation technologies, we have established a fully-integrated drug development engine and toolkit that is capable of rapidly delivering a steady pipeline of next-generation product candidates in oncology and other therapeutic areas.

We commenced active operations in 2003 and have since devoted substantially all of our resources to research and development activities including developing our therapeutic platforms, identifying and developing potential product candidates and undertaking preclinical studies and clinical trials. Additionally, we have supported our research and development activities with general and administrative support, as well as by raising capital, conducting business planning and protecting our intellectual property. We have not generated any revenue from product sales to date and do not expect to do so until such time as we obtain regulatory approval and commercialize one or more of our product candidates. We cannot be certain of the timing or success of approval of our product candidates. We have financed our operations primarily through private equity placements, an issuance of convertible debentures, payments received under license and collaboration agreements, government grants and Scientific Research and Experimental Development, or SR&ED, tax credits as well as our IPO in 2017. From inception through December 31, 2017, we received approximately $200.0 million, net of share issue costs, from private equity placements, the issuance of convertible debt, which subsequently converted into equity securities, and our IPO. Payments received from our license and collaboration agreements include upfront fees and milestone payments as well as research support and reimbursement payments through our strategic partnerships and government grants. Although it is difficult to predict our funding requirements, based upon our current operating plan, we anticipate that our existing cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments as of December 31, 2017, combined with the collaboration payments we anticipate receiving, will enable us to fund the clinical and preclinical development of our lead product candidates for at least the next twelve months.

Through December 31, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $108.7 million. We reported a net loss of $10.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017. We expect that over the next several years we will increase our research and development expenditures in connection with the ongoing development of our product candidates and other clinical, preclinical and regulatory activities.

Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations

•

Research and License Agreement with Merck

•

Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with Lilly

In December 2013, we entered into a licensing and collaboration agreement with Lilly to research, develop and commercialize one bispecific antibody, with an option for a second antibody, generated through the use of the Azymetric platform. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Lilly a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody target pair-specific exclusive license to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products. We are eligible to receive up to $103.0 million, including an upfront payment ($1.0 million received in 2013) and per product potential milestone payments, comprised of research milestone payments totaling $1.0 million ($1.0 million received in 2015), IND submission milestone payments of $2.0 million, development milestone payments of $8.0 million and commercial milestone payments of $40 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low to mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks platform patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years, beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage on products, royalty rates may be potentially reduced. In 2017, Lilly nominated a bispecific candidate from this agreement for preclinical development.

•

Second Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with Lilly

In October 2014, we entered into a second licensing and collaboration agreement with Lilly to research, develop and commercialize three bispecific antibodies generated through the use of the Azymetric platform. This agreement did not alter or amend the initial agreement entered in 2013. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted Lilly a worldwide, royalty-bearing antibody target-pair exclusive (for two bispecific antibodies) and an antibody sequence pair-specific (for one bispecific antibody) license to research, develop and commercialize certain licensed products. In 2017, Lilly nominated a bispecific candidate from this agreement for preclinical development and discontinued the development of two other bispecific antibodies due to strategic portfolio realignment in those particular disease areas. We have updated our projections and are currently eligible to receive up to $125.0 million, comprised of research milestone payments of up to $2.0 million ($2.0 million earned in 2016), IND submission milestone payments of up to $8.0 million, development milestone payments of up to $20.0 million and commercial milestone payments of up to $95.0 million. In addition, we are eligible to receive tiered royalties in the low to mid-single digits on product sales, with the royalty term being, on a product-by-product and country-by-country basis, either (i) for as long as there is Zymeworks platform patent coverage on products, or (ii) for 10 years, beginning from the first commercial sale, whichever period is longer. If there is no Zymeworks patent coverage on products, royalty rates may be potentially reduced. In conjunction with this collaboration agreement, Lilly purchased approximately $24.0 million of our common shares.

100

•

Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with Celgene

•

Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with GSK

101

•

Second Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with GSK

Under the agreement, GSK will bear all responsibility and all costs associated with research, development and commercialization of products generated using the Azymetric platform.

•

Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with Daiichi Sankyo

102

•

Licensing and Collaboration Agreement with Janssen

Under the agreement, Janssen will be solely responsible for the research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of the products.

For additional information on our strategic partnerships, see Item 1, “Business—Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Financial Operations Overview

Revenue

Our revenue consists of collaboration revenue, including amounts recognized relating to upfront non-refundable payments for licenses or options to obtain future licenses, research and development funding and milestone payments earned under collaboration and license agreements with strategic partners. We expect these and other strategic partnerships to be our primary source of revenue for the foreseeable future.

Research and Development Expense

Research and development expenses consist of expenses incurred in performing research and development activities. These expenses include conducting research experiments, preclinical studies, and other indirect expenses in support of advancing our product candidates and therapeutic platforms. The following items are included in research and development expenses:

•

employee-related expenses such as salaries and benefits;

•

employee-related overhead expenses such as facilities and other allocated items;

•

share-based compensation expense related to employees and consultants engaged in research and development activities;

•

depreciation of laboratory equipment, computers and leasehold improvements;

103

•

fees paid to consultants, subcontractors, CROs, and other third-party vendors for work performed under our clinical trials and preclinical studies, including but not limited to laboratory work and analysis, database management, statistical analysis, and other items; and

•

amounts paid to vendors and suppliers for laboratory supplies.

The following table shows a summary of our research and development expenses for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015.


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017		2016		2015
	(dollars in millions)
Research and development expense
ZW25	$	15.0	$	6.1	$	5.2
ZW49		3.4		—		—
Therapeutic platforms		6.8		7.6		5.9
Other research activities		16.5		23.1		13.6

Total research and development expense	$	41.7	$	36.8	$	24.7
Less: Government credits		1.1		1.3		0.3

	$	40.6	$	35.5	$	24.4

It is difficult to determine with certainty the duration and completion costs of our current or future clinical trials and preclinical programs of our product candidates, or if, when or to what extent we will generate revenue from the commercialization and sale of any of our product candidates that obtain regulatory approval. We may never succeed in achieving regulatory approval for any of our product candidates. The duration, costs and timing of clinical trials and development of our product candidates will depend on a variety of factors, including the uncertainties of clinical trials and preclinical studies, uncertainties in clinical trial enrollment rates and significant and changing government regulation. In addition, the probability of success for each product candidate will depend on numerous factors, including competition, manufacturing capability and commercial viability. We will determine which programs to pursue and how much to fund each program in response to the scientific and clinical success of each product candidate, as well as an assessment of each product candidate’s commercial potential.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, our research and development expenditures increased by $4.9 million, compared to the prior year. This was primarily due to an increase in clinical costs for ZW25 and development costs for ZW49, which was partially offset by a decrease in other ADC development and antibody discovery activities compared to the same period in 2016.

General and Administrative Expense

General and administrative expenses consist of salaries and related benefit costs for employees in our executive, finance, intellectual property, business development, human resources and other support functions, legal and professional fees, and travel and general office expenses. We expect to incur additional expenses related to supporting our ongoing research and development activities, operating as a public company and other administrative expenses.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income (expense) primarily consists of interest and accretion expenses, interest income, change in fair value of warrant liabilities, foreign exchange gain (loss) and loss on debt extinguishment.

104

Critical Accounting Policies and Significant Judgments and Estimates

Our management’s discussion and analysis of financial conditions and results of operations is based on our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of these consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the balance sheets and the reported amount of the revenue and expenses recorded during the reporting period. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable. We review and evaluate these estimates on an ongoing basis. These assumptions and estimates form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities and amounts that have been recorded as revenue and expenses. Actual results and experiences may differ from these estimates. The results of any material revisions would be reflected in the consolidated financial statements prospectively from the date of the change in estimate.

While a summary of significant accounting policies has been included in note 2 of our consolidated financial statements, we believe that the following accounting policies are the most critical to assist you in fully understanding and evaluating our financial results and any effect of the estimates and judgments we used in preparing our consolidated financial statements. There have been no material changes to our critical accounting policies during the year ended December 31, 2017.

Functional Currency

Prior to January 1, 2016, our functional currency was the Canadian dollar. We reassessed our functional currency and determined that, as at January 1, 2016, our functional currency changed from the Canadian dollar to the U.S. dollar based on management’s analysis of the changes in the primary economic environment in which we operate. The change in functional currency is accounted for prospectively from January 1, 2016 and prior year financial statements have not been restated for the change in functional currency.

For periods prior to January 1, 2016, the effects of exchange rate fluctuations on translating foreign currency monetary assets and liabilities into Canadian dollars were included in the statement of operations and comprehensive loss as foreign exchange gain/loss. Revenue and expense transactions were translated into the U.S. dollar reporting currency at the balance sheet date at average exchange rates during the period, and assets and liabilities were translated at end of period exchange rates, except for equity transactions, which were translated at historical exchange rates. Translation gains and losses from the application of the U.S. dollar as the reporting currency while the Canadian dollar was the functional currency are included as part of the cumulative foreign currency translation adjustment, which is reported as a component of shareholders’ equity under accumulated other comprehensive loss.

For periods commencing January 1, 2016, monetary assets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are translated into U.S. dollars using exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet date. Opening balances related to non-monetary assets and liabilities are based on prior period translated amounts, and non-monetary assets and non-monetary liabilities incurred after January 1, 2016 are translated at the approximate exchange rate prevailing at the date of the transaction. Revenue and expense transactions are translated at the approximate exchange rate in effect at the time of the transaction. Foreign exchange gains and losses are included in the statement of operations and comprehensive loss as foreign exchange gain (loss).

The functional currency of Zymeworks Biopharmaceuticals Inc. is also the U.S. dollar.

Business Combination and Goodwill

Acquisitions of businesses are accounted for using the acquisition method. The consideration for a business combination is measured, at the date of the exchange, as the aggregate of the fair value of assets given, liabilities incurred or assumed and equity instruments issued by us to the former owners of the acquiree in exchange for control of the acquiree. Acquisition related costs incurred for the business combination are expensed. The acquiree’s identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities are recognized at their fair value at the acquisition date.

105

Goodwill arising on acquisition is recognized as an asset and initially measured at cost, being the excess of the consideration issued for the acquisition over our interest in the fair value of the net identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities acquired. If our interest in the fair value of the acquiree’s net identifiable assets, liabilities and contingent liabilities exceeds the cost of the acquisition, the excess is recognized in earnings or loss immediately. Goodwill is evaluated for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently if an indicator of impairment is present. Goodwill is subject to a two-step impairment test. The first step compares the fair value of the reporting unit to its carrying amount, which includes the goodwill. When the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is considered not to be impaired, and the second step of the impairment test is unnecessary. If the carrying amount exceeds the implied fair value of the reporting unit, the second step measures the amount of the impairment loss. If the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized equal to that excess.

Acquired In-Process Research and Development

The in-process research and development intangible asset, or IPR&D, is classified as indefinite-lived and is not amortized. IPR&D becomes definite-lived upon the completion or abandonment of the associated research and development efforts. Intangible assets with finite useful lives are amortized on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, which are the respective patent terms. Amortization begins when intangible assets with finite lives are put into use. Indefinite-lived intangible assets will be evaluated for impairment on an annual basis or more frequently if an indicator of impairment is present. For definite-lived intangibles, if there is a major event indicating that the carrying value of intangible assets may be impaired, then management will perform an impairment test. When an impairment test is performed, if the carrying value exceeds the recoverable value, based on discounted future cash flows, then such assets are written down to their fair values. All research and development costs incurred subsequent to the acquisition are immediately expensed as incurred.

Revenue Recognition

We recognize revenue when all of the following criteria are met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, the fee is fixed or determinable, delivery or performance has been substantially completed and collectability is reasonably assured.

Our revenues are primarily derived from research and development agreements with strategic partners for the research and development of therapeutics products. The terms of the agreements may include non-refundable signing and licensing fees, research funding, milestone payments and royalties on any product sales derived from strategic arrangements.

We analyze agreements with more than one element, or deliverable, based on the guidance in Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, 605-25, Revenue Recognition—Multiple Element Arrangements (“ASC 605-25”). Each required deliverable is evaluated to determine whether it qualifies as a separate unit of accounting. A delivered item or items are considered separate units of accounting if they have value to the collaborator or licensee on a stand-alone basis and, if the agreement includes a general right of return, the delivery or performance of undelivered items is considered probable and within our control.

In assessing whether an item or items have stand-alone value, we consider if the deliverable or deliverables have been sold separately on a stand-alone basis. Additional factors considered include research capabilities of the strategic partner or licensee, the availability of the associated expertise in the general marketplace, whether the delivered item or items can be used for their intended purpose without receipt of the remaining item(s), whether the value of the delivered item(s) is dependent on the undelivered item(s) and whether there are other vendors that can provide the undelivered item(s).

Arrangement consideration that is fixed or determinable is allocated at the inception of the agreement to all identified units of accounting based on the relative estimated selling prices in accordance with the selling price hierarchy. The selling price of each deliverable is determined using vendor-specific objective evidence of selling prices, if it exists; otherwise, third-party evidence of selling prices. If neither vendor-specific objective evidence nor third-party evidence exists, we use our best estimate of the selling price for each deliverable. We may be required to exercise considerable judgment in estimating the selling prices of identified units of accounting under our agreements. The arrangement consideration otherwise allocable to delivered units is limited to the amount that is not contingent on the delivery of additional items or fulfillment of other performance conditions.

106

When we determine that the license and the related therapeutic platform have stand-alone value to the licensee, these items are considered a unit of accounting and arrangement consideration allocated to this unit of accounting is recognized upon delivery of the therapeutic platform. When research services related to the transfer of the technical information are required, then the license, the applicable research services, and therapeutic platform are considered a unit of accounting and we must determine the period over which the performance obligations will be performed, which generally relates to the period the research services will be performed, and over which revenue is recognized. If we cannot reasonably estimate the timing and the level of effort to complete our performance obligations under the arrangement, then revenue under the arrangement is recognized on a straight-line basis over the period we expect to complete our performance obligations.

We recognize other research support payments as revenue upon the performance of activities, which are eligible for research support payments from our strategic partners, in accordance with the respective licensing and collaboration agreements.

We analyze milestones based on the guidance in ASC 605-28, Revenue Recognition—Milestone Method, or ASC 605-28. We evaluate milestone payments on an individual basis and recognize revenue from non-refundable milestone payments when the earnings process is complete and the payment is reasonably assured. Non-refundable milestone payments related to arrangements under which we have continuing performance obligations are recognized as revenue upon achievement of the associated milestone, provided that the milestone event is substantive and its achievability was not reasonably assured at the inception of the agreement.

A milestone event is considered substantive if (i) the milestone is commensurate with either (a) our performance to achieve the milestone or (b) the enhancement of the value of the delivered item(s) as a result of a specific outcome resulting from our performance to achieve the milestone; (ii) it relates solely to past performance; and (iii) it is reasonable relative to all of the deliverables and payment terms (including other potential milestone consideration) within the arrangement. If any portion of the milestone payment does not relate to performance, does not relate solely to past performance or is refundable or adjustable based on future performance, the milestone is not considered to be substantive.

Certain milestones in the agreements do not meet the ASC 605-28 definition of a milestone because achievement of the milestone solely depends on the performance of the licensee. Any revenue from these contingent payments is subject to an allocation of arrangement consideration and is recognized over the remaining period of performance obligations, if any, relating to the arrangement. If there are no remaining performance obligations under the arrangement at the time the contingent payment is triggered, the contingent payment is recognized as revenue in full upon the triggering event occurring.

Options for future deliverables are considered substantive if, at the inception of the arrangement, we are at risk as to whether the licensee will choose to exercise the option. Factors that we consider in evaluating whether an option is substantive include the overall objective of the arrangement, the benefit the licensee might obtain from the arrangement without exercising the option, the cost to exercise the option and the likelihood that the option will be exercised. For arrangements under which an option is considered substantive, we do not consider the item underlying the option to be a deliverable at the inception of the arrangement and the associated option fees are not included in the initial consideration, assuming the option is not priced at a significant and incremental discount. Conversely, for arrangements under which an option is not considered substantive or if an option is priced at a significant and incremental discount, we would consider the item underlying the option to be a deliverable at the inception of the arrangement and a corresponding amount would be included in the initial consideration.

Royalty revenue will be recognized upon the sale of the related products provided we have no remaining performance obligations under the arrangement.

We periodically enter into contract amendments and subsequent contracts with the same entity. Contracts that amend the terms of existing agreements are treated in substance as one arrangement. Subsequent contracts that contain unrelated deliverables are accounted for as separate arrangements. The factors we consider when determining if a deliverable in one agreement is unrelated to a deliverable in another agreement include assessing if the different deliverables in each agreement are closely interrelated or interdependent in terms of design, technology and function, if the fee in one agreement is impacted by the performance in another agreement, and if a deliverable in one agreement is essential to the functionality of a deliverable in another agreement.

107

Research and Development Expense and Related Accrued Expenses

Research and development expenses include costs that we incur for our own and for our strategic partners’ research and development activities. Research and development expenditures are expensed as incurred. These costs primarily consist of employee-related expenses, including salaries and benefits, expenses incurred under agreements with contract research organizations on our behalf, costs associated with investigative sites and consultants that conduct our clinical trials, the cost of acquiring and manufacturing clinical trial materials and other allocated expenses, share-based compensation expense, and costs associated with nonclinical activities and regulatory approvals.

Liability Classified Awards

Awards accounted for under ASC 718 “Compensation—Stock Options”, or ASC 718, with an exercise price which is not denominated in: (a) the currency of a market in which a substantial portion of our equity securities trades, (b) the currency in which the individual’s pay is denominated, or (c) our functional currency, are required to be classified as liabilities. For awards accounted for under ASC 815 “Derivatives and Hedging”, or ASC 815, any warrant or option that provides for an exercise price which is not denominated in our functional currency is required to be classified as a liability.

Liability classified awards are subsequently measured at fair value at each balance sheet date until exercised or cancelled, with changes in fair value recognized as compensation cost or additional paid-in capital (ASC 718 awards) or other income and expenses (ASC 815 awards) for the period. Under ASC 718, when an award is reclassified from equity to liability, if at the reclassification date the original vesting conditions are expected to be satisfied, then the minimum amount of compensation cost to be recognized is based on the grant date fair value of the original award. Fair value changes below this minimum amount are recorded in additional paid-in capital. Fair value is calculated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The Black-Scholes option pricing model uses various inputs to measure fair value, including estimated fair value of our underlying common shares at the grant date, expected term, estimated volatility, risk-free interest rate and expected dividend yields of our common shares.

Share-Based Compensation

We recognize share-based compensation expense on share awards granted to employees and members of the board of directors based on their estimated grant date fair value using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. This Black-Scholes option pricing model uses various inputs to measure fair value, including estimated fair value of our underlying common shares at the grant date, expected term, estimated volatility, risk-free interest rate and expected dividend yields of our common shares. We recognize share-based compensation expense, net of estimated forfeitures, in the consolidated statements of loss and comprehensive loss on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period. We apply an estimated forfeiture rate derived from historical employee termination behavior. If the actual number of forfeitures differs from those estimated by management, adjustments to compensation expense may be required in future periods.

Share-based compensation expense related to stock options granted to individual service providers who are not employees is measured on the date of performance using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and the awards are periodically remeasured as the underlying options vest. The fair value of the share-based awards is amortized over the vesting period.

We have an employee stock purchase plan which is considered compensatory. Accordingly, an expense is recognized for the difference between the fair market value and the discounted price.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

A summary of recent accounting pronouncements is presented in Note 3 of our Annual Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2017 within this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

108

Results of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016

Research and Development Revenue

The following represents a comparison of our research and development revenue for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017		2016		Increase/(Decrease)
	(dollars in millions)
Revenue from research and developmental collaborations	$	51.8	$	11.0	$	40.8	371	%

The increase in collaboration revenue of $40.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to 2016 is primarily due to the recognition of a $50.0 million upfront fee received from Janssen and a $1.0 million milestone payment from Daiichi Sankyo in 2017. This increase was partially offset by $6.0 million and $2.0 million in upfront technology access fees received from Daiichi Sankyo and GSK, respectively, and a $2.0 million milestone payment from Lilly in 2016.

Research and Development Expense

The following represents a comparison of our research and development expense for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017		2016		Increase/(Decrease)
	(dollars in millions)
Research and development expense
ZW25	$	15.0	$	6.1	$	8.9	146%
ZW49		3.4		—		3.4	100%
Therapeutic platforms		6.8		7.6		(0.8)	(11)%
Other research activities		16.5		23.1		(6.6)	(29)%

Total research and development expense	$	41.7	$	36.8	$	4.9	13%

During the year ended December 31, 2017, our research and development expenditures increased by $4.9 million compared to 2016. This was primarily due to an increase in clinical costs for ZW25 and development costs for ZW49 in 2017, which was partially offset by a decrease in other ADC development and antibody discovery activities compared to the same period in 2016. Research and development expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017 included $4.3 million related to activities conducted in Quebec, Canada.

109

General and Administrative Expense

The following represents a comparison of our general and administrative expense for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017		2016		Increase/(Decrease)
	(dollars in millions)
General and administrative expense	$	18.6	$	12.6	$	6.0	48	%

General and administrative expense increased for the year ended December 31, 2017 by $6.0 million compared to 2016, primarily due to an increase in compensation costs, professional fees, recruitment costs and depreciation expenses as well as new and expanded software subscription expenses. The compensation cost increase was the result of new hires and higher share-based compensation expenses due to the non-cash impact of the accounting treatment that requires the reclassification of certain awards from equity to liability for accounting purposes under U.S. GAAP. The increase in professional fees over the same period in 2016 was primarily associated with IPO-related expenses as well as services with respect to intellectual property.

Other Income (Expense)

Net other expense for the year ended December 31, 2017 decreased by approximately $0.1 million compared to 2016, primarily due to a $3.3 million increase in gain from valuation of warrant liabilities, a $0.9 million decrease in interest and accretion expenses and a $0.4 million increase in interest income. These were partially offset by a $3.1 million loss on debt extinguishment, a $0.8 million decrease in foreign exchange gain, a $0.5 million increase in fair value of contingent consideration and a decrease of $0.1 million in gain from the previously held equity investment in Kairos Therapeutics Inc. (“Kairos”) in 2017.

Results of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2016 and 2015

Research and Development Revenue

The following represents a comparison of our research and development revenue for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2016		2015		Increase/(Decrease)
	(dollars in millions)
Revenue from research and developmental collaborations	$	11.0	$	9.7	$	1.3	13	%

The increase in collaboration revenue of $1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to 2015 is primarily due to $2.0 million and $6.0 million of upfront technology access fees received from Daiichi Sankyo and GSK, respectively, in 2016 compared to the $7.5 million upfront payment from Celgene, which was recognized as revenue in 2015. Additionally, in 2016, we recorded milestone revenue of $2.0 million from Lilly compared to $1.0 million in 2015.

110

Research and Development Expense

The following represents a comparison of our research and development expense for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2016		2015		Increase/(Decrease)
	(dollars in millions)
Research and development expense
ZW25	$	6.1	$	5.2	$	0.9	17	%
ZW49		—		—		—	—	%
Therapeutic platforms		7.6		5.9		1.7	29	%
Other research activities		23.1		13.6		9.5	70	%

Total research and development expense	$	36.8	$	24.7	$	12.1	49	%

During the year ended December 31, 2016, our research and development expenditures increased by $12.1 million compared to 2015. This was primarily due to the start of clinical activities related to ZW25, increased clinical manufacturing activities and IND-enabling studies associated with ZW25, as well as increased activities associated with our therapeutic platforms and early-stage research and discovery programs recorded in other research activities.

General and Administrative Expense

The following represents a comparison of our general and administrative expense for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2016		2015		Increase/(Decrease)
	(dollars in millions)
General and administrative expense	$	12.6	$	5.2	$	7.4	142	%

General and administrative expense increased for the year ended December 31, 2016 by $7.4 million compared to 2015, primarily due to an increase in compensation costs and professional fees. The compensation cost increase was the result of new hires and higher share-based compensation expense due to reclassification of certain awards from equity to liability. The increase in professional fees over the same period in 2015 was associated with consulting services and lab and office expansions as well as legal and human resources advisory services.

Other Income (Expenses)

Other income for the year ended December 31, 2016 decreased by approximately $1.8 million compared to 2015, primarily due to a $1.5 million increase in interest and accretion expenses and $0.8 million of losses due to change in fair value of warrant liabilities, which were partially offset by a $0.4 million increase in foreign exchange gain and a net gain of $0.2 million from the previously held equity investment in Kairos.

111

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Sources of Liquidity

Until the completion of our IPO in Q2 2017, we had financed our operations primarily through private equity placements of our common shares, a private placement of preferred shares and a credit facility. On June 2, 2016, we entered into a credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with Perceptive Credit Opportunities Fund L.P. and PCOF Phoenix II Fund L.P. (collectively, “Perceptive”). Pursuant to the Credit Agreement, we were able to borrow up to an aggregate of $15.0 million, consisting of Tranche A and Tranche B term loans for $7.5 million each, with the Tranche A term amount of $7.5 million being made available to us immediately upon the close of the transaction. Following the completion of our IPO, we exercised our option of repayment under the terms of the Credit Agreement and paid $7.8 million, which consisted of the outstanding Tranche A principal balance ($7.5 million) and an early repayment premium ($0.3 million), as well as legal fees ($0.01 million).

We closed our IPO on May 3, 2017, pursuant to which we sold 4,894,467 common shares (including the sale of 394,467 common shares to the underwriters upon their partial exercise of their over-allotment option to purchase additional shares on May 31, 2017). We received net proceeds of approximately $54.2 million, after underwriting discounts, commissions and offering expenses.

In addition, our operations have been funded through upfront fees, milestone payments, research support payments from our strategic partners, government grants and SR&ED credits. As of December 31, 2017, we had $87.8 million in cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments.

In addition to our existing cash and cash equivalents, we expect to continue to receive additional reimbursements from our existing and future research collaborations for research and development services rendered and additional milestone payments. However, our ability to receive future milestone payments is dependent upon the ability of Zymeworks and its collaborators to successfully complete specified research and development activities and therefore is uncertain at this time.

Cash Flows

The following table represents a summary of our cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015:


	Year Ended December 31,
	2017			2016			2015
	(dollars in millions)
Net cash provided by (used in):
Operating activities	$	0.2		$	(35.2	)	$	(22.2	)
Investing activities		(30.9	)		(25.5	)		(9.2	)
Financing activities		50.0			64.8			1.5